![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Pewsitter has moral cowards (with a clarification)
Last week I posted a comment to Pewsitter pointing out the logical problems with the stance taken by a poster there, and the person he was praising.
No surprise, (since it did, functionally, call him, and her; and a lot of people who agreed with them, hypocrites), it wasn't published.
So, why have comments? I didn't use foul language. I didn't say they were hypocrites; just pointed out that the moral certainty they were espousing had been lacking when it was a Republican, and his lackeys, who were getting honorary degrees from Catholic universities.
If asking a question isn't allowed, what is? Are the comments only to be echo-chamber praises of the "brave" people who get to pontificate without public disagreement?
Then again, that's pretty much par for the course for reactionary religious types. They pick and choose what they want to follow, and then pretend all the rest isn't there.
It seems to me it ought to be harder for Catholics; we have a doctrine, and dogma, and the Pope, etc. to tell us what are, and aren't things which we need to pay particular attention to (and the last two popes have spoken out against the War in Iraq, Torture, mistreatment of the poor, etc.; which Pewsitter doesn't seem to oppose. Looking at their splash page, well the only way to know it's not a bunch of narrow minded Protestant bigots is the repeated mention of being Catholic).
But, people being people, these folks are quite capable of holding mutually conflicting beliefs, and condemning others; even when those
others don't.
[addendum]
It has been suggested I am judging their sincerity: I am. The fellow who wrote the original post said this:
Additionally, the declination of this award by Ambassador Glendon should send a message to all members of the Catholic educational establishment, namely: Catholics are no longer going to tolerate secular interpretations of our most sacred Catholic principles. Either you are Catholic in your beliefs, or you are not. There can be no middle ground...
Notre Dame…return to the fold. Rescind the offer of an honorary degree to the President and respect Catholic teachings and principles. The bestowal on an honorary degree on any individual that so blatantly disregards our respect for human life through his political, personal and government policies has no right to any honorific degree from Notre Dame or any other Catholic educational facility.
If the speaker believes there can be no middle ground, and Papal Dicta are inviolable, not merely when speaking ex cathedra (which applies, because the issue of abortion has not been addressed ex cathedra), then the plaudits given to Condoleeza Rice by Boston College, and to Micael Mukasey by Notre Dame, should have been every bit as anathema as the award being given to Obama.
When someone makes a binary statement like this one (which is broader than, "Abortion is so wrong it needs to be opposed with every fiber of our being."). there is every right to hold the speaker's position up to scrutiny. To see if they really believe it, or if it's a convenient piece of rhetorical posturing, meant to fool the unwary into thinking there is more to it than a personal interest.
So yes, I am judging their sincerity, and finding it lacking. They do not mean what they say; no matter how much they seem to be saying what they mean.
No surprise, (since it did, functionally, call him, and her; and a lot of people who agreed with them, hypocrites), it wasn't published.
So, why have comments? I didn't use foul language. I didn't say they were hypocrites; just pointed out that the moral certainty they were espousing had been lacking when it was a Republican, and his lackeys, who were getting honorary degrees from Catholic universities.
If asking a question isn't allowed, what is? Are the comments only to be echo-chamber praises of the "brave" people who get to pontificate without public disagreement?
Then again, that's pretty much par for the course for reactionary religious types. They pick and choose what they want to follow, and then pretend all the rest isn't there.
It seems to me it ought to be harder for Catholics; we have a doctrine, and dogma, and the Pope, etc. to tell us what are, and aren't things which we need to pay particular attention to (and the last two popes have spoken out against the War in Iraq, Torture, mistreatment of the poor, etc.; which Pewsitter doesn't seem to oppose. Looking at their splash page, well the only way to know it's not a bunch of narrow minded Protestant bigots is the repeated mention of being Catholic).
But, people being people, these folks are quite capable of holding mutually conflicting beliefs, and condemning others; even when those
others don't.
[addendum]
It has been suggested I am judging their sincerity: I am. The fellow who wrote the original post said this:
Additionally, the declination of this award by Ambassador Glendon should send a message to all members of the Catholic educational establishment, namely: Catholics are no longer going to tolerate secular interpretations of our most sacred Catholic principles. Either you are Catholic in your beliefs, or you are not. There can be no middle ground...
Notre Dame…return to the fold. Rescind the offer of an honorary degree to the President and respect Catholic teachings and principles. The bestowal on an honorary degree on any individual that so blatantly disregards our respect for human life through his political, personal and government policies has no right to any honorific degree from Notre Dame or any other Catholic educational facility.
If the speaker believes there can be no middle ground, and Papal Dicta are inviolable, not merely when speaking ex cathedra (which applies, because the issue of abortion has not been addressed ex cathedra), then the plaudits given to Condoleeza Rice by Boston College, and to Micael Mukasey by Notre Dame, should have been every bit as anathema as the award being given to Obama.
When someone makes a binary statement like this one (which is broader than, "Abortion is so wrong it needs to be opposed with every fiber of our being."). there is every right to hold the speaker's position up to scrutiny. To see if they really believe it, or if it's a convenient piece of rhetorical posturing, meant to fool the unwary into thinking there is more to it than a personal interest.
So yes, I am judging their sincerity, and finding it lacking. They do not mean what they say; no matter how much they seem to be saying what they mean.
no subject
How high do condoms really rank?
no subject
Recall Kerry. The Pope said his stance on abortion was his stance; the church was not going to deny him communion. He had to look in his heart and make up his mind. His bishop (in Boston) said it was only Kerry who could make the call. If he presented himself at the rail, the Bishop would give him communion.
Condoms... pretty low. Oddly they are a big deal in Africa, but again, the really big deal on BC is in the states.