Kevin Davis says

Well, Colbert was entertaining as always. But, Rev. Balmer’s statements against “defining negatively” is obviously not a fair criticism, nor very insightful, of Rome’s position on ordination and homosexuality, both of which have been presented — agree or disagree — within a positive comprehension of gender and bodies, sacrifice and love.

Alternatively, Rowan Williams etc. is not merely offering a “positive” and “inclusive” ethic; he/they are likewise situating these issues of ordination and homosexuality within a, e.g, “graced body” comprehension of the human person over-against R.C. natural law. Rev. Balmer manages to dumb-down and obscure both sides of the debate with cliche slogans. Of course, it was just a new bit on a comedy show.

October 28, 2009, 9:10 pm
myles says

I’m really getting tired of Balmer.

October 29, 2009, 7:09 am
myles says

watching this again just makes me more angry. i mean, sure, this is the Colbert show, but Balmer’s sheite is just slogany, trite, and bland, old-school liberalism. Hope you enjoy selling your books, Balmer.

October 29, 2009, 7:17 am
John R says

Fr. Balmer does a very good job of smashing narrow anti-Christian stereotypes. Unfortunately, I’m not sure he said anything that could challenge the audience; it wasn’t clear in what tangible way Christianity is different from bourgeois agnosticism/deism.

October 29, 2009, 7:29 am
Halden says

Yeah, I agree he didn’t really say anything helpful. Colbert was awesome though. “Why don’t you just join the Catholic church? Where there are no gay priests.”

October 29, 2009, 8:37 am
Chris Donato says

Crickets after he said “infallible.” The literacy rate in America is astounds me. Colbert covered this wonderfully.

But of course this isn’t about gays and women—inclusivism; it’s about visible unity and the lack thereof in ‘christendom’, not least in the face of an increasingly ‘post-Christian’ West.

October 29, 2009, 11:07 am