Pewsitter has moral cowards (with a clarification)

[pecunium]

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.

Comments

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I can't not respond.

This isn't a painful issue in the church. This is a small group; at odds with much of the rest of the Church, entire; and the vast majority of the American church.

This is not a private question. This is a public assertion, by a minority, that the Church needs to make a declaration of solidarity with them. It is a declaration of Anathema against Notre Dame. Not from the Episcopacy, not from the Vatican; but from a group of the Laity.

Which is at odds with Doctrine (though it's not completely out of keeping with practice). The Painful Issue is that abortion, and birth control/family planning is such a big deal in the American Catholic Church; when it is a secondary (or tertiary) issue in the Church as a whole; and in the emphasis from the Holy See.

The plain fact of the matter is these are reactionaries, who are engaging in minor revisionism/heresy. Push come to shove (and it will) these are the people who will become schismatics.

They need to be reminded of the beams in their own eyes; and that (I believe), not a desire to keep the arguments behind the doors of the church; out of the public eye, is why they refuse to publish comments in disagreement.

[dianyla.livejournal.com]

What I really wanna know is... Why is this LJ post tagged with "food porn"? I came clicking in looking for the food porn and I was disappointed to not find it! :P

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Sonovabitch.

It's a painful quirk of using the spellchecker, and preview functions.

When I move back to the active window, it often selects a tag (which mostly I forget to add), and I don't see it.

In compensation, I'll find some untagged food porn for you.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Here you go:

http://pecunium.livejournal.com/107294.html

http://pecunium.livejournal.com/109122.html

http://pecunium.livejournal.com/125226.html

[dianyla.livejournal.com]

Ah, that's better! Whew!

Thank you kindly for the immediate redress of this grievous oversight. ;)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

You're lucky I'm up at 0300.

That being the case, no problem. It was the least I could do.

It's amusing that the most common inserted tag is "food porn". It seems I have a pretty specific area of white space in the background window which I hit.

I need to start using the taskbar to make that move.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

So Rikki is nibbling on the snakes again?


:)

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Abortion isn't a great big deal to the Vatican? I'm obviously spending too much time in an American reality tunnel.

How high do condoms really rank?

[tlatoani.livejournal.com]

Actually... isn't the problem far broader than you've described?

As I recall, the Church has also spoken out -- in very strong terms -- against the death penalty. Were those statements weaker, or does the same problem apply where pro-death penalty politicians and justices have been honored by Catholic institutions?

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

As one who was raised and educated as a Catholic, left the Church in young adulthood, and has long considered myself a nontheist, it seems to me that the official Church is overall quite consistent on matters of respect for life. But many of the individuals in the Church, as well as many "pro-life" people of other beliefs? Not so much.

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

I've heard that the Vatican is gearing itself up for a sit-down with some of the American bishops over the "prolife = no abortion or birth control only, forget that other stuff like torture and poverty and wars, that's all for wimps" disjunction, which some of the bishops here are also apparently guilty of, as, the V sees it not only as inconsistent with doctrine, but also showing a tendency to "being political" which is displeasing. If true, this would be good. If not true, what a shame. Because this needs nipping--not in the bud; it's well past that, but weeding out for sure.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

The logical point you are making here about hypocrisy is one I find myself employing frequently. And one which its targets never grasp. Considering those "A is to B as C is to X" questions on childhood IQ tests (you know, "Glove is to hand as boot is to ___"), which I always found mind-bogglingly easy but which must have been considered difficult because there were so many of them, I wonder if many people simply lack a capacity for logical reasoning.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

As you say, this group seems to consist, as a Group, of outspoken Reactionaries who might be described as being True Believers.

Actually, they sound to me rather like Converts. (Back in HighSchool days, I was mightily impressed by an Anglican Priest (All Saints was a Very High Church parish back then, and impressive when I was /f/l/i/r/t/i/n/g/ /w/i/t/h/ investigating the concept of Religion) who had some rather sharp things to say about the fevor, literalness, & extemeism of many converts vs. the more laid-back approach of most of those who'd been born into The Church.)

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

The Dialogues of Plato would seem to supoprt this. I'm just sayin', is all.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It matters, but it's not the "single greatest crisis facing the church". The level of concern in the encyclicals doesn't seem to place it as highly as war and poverty. The states are pretty much the only place it has the attention it gets (maybe Ireland too).

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.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yes. But the laundry list...

I ranted about Scalia when the Kerry mess was going on, because Scalia is worse than Kerry. Kerry said we had two issues (the old Caeser/God problem), and that the law of the land made abortion legal, and the same with access. The Constitution provided for it (rights to privacy).

Scalia, on the death penalty, could have made that argument. He hasn't. He as personally said the death penalty is a good thing, which puts him in a worse position than Kerry's, and far worse than Obama's (because Obama isn't Catholic).

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me that your reasoning is pretty much correct.

"Zero-tolerance" thinking never did appeal to me because of its tendency to throw out a lot of babies with a very little bathwater.

I know of very, very few people who have achieved perfect integrity, and I don't count myself among them. Which is not to say that I condone hypocrisy, but I try to be understanding of others, even when they don't extend the same generosity.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I know I haven't. There are a couple of area which matter enough to me that I've (I think) managed to be pretty damned consistent.

I don't even object to them picking and choosing (per se, I happen to think the things they don't care about are pretty damned important; but that difference of opinion isn't the thing which got my dander up).

What I object to is them making this declaration that all Catholics have to obey all teachings. It's not just that they want to obtrude the Church into civil matters; and then not actually obeying all those teachings. Sins, and stones, beams and motes.

As I get older I find this sort of thing upsets me more than it used to. I worry that I will become a nasty old crank, but I also don't want these cranks taking over my church; even if my church and I don't see eye to eye on everything.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

IME, if you brace them about this FTF where they can't chuck your comment into the Black Hole, the response is always some variation on the theme of "But that's DIFFERENT"! It's not incapacity, it's the determined embracing of a double standard.

[(Anonymous)]

Nothing wrong with being a nasty old crank, so long as you're a crank about holding on to Jesus' teachings.

If you're a crank because, "In my day, this would never have happened," -- well, not so much since people have been hypocrites since at least as long ago as Jesus criticized his contemporaries.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I am more worried about losing my tolerance of things I disagree with, like the people I'm talking about here.

Of losing my charity, and capacity to see the reasons behind the choices I see as benighted.

I worry about being a "Damned Kids! Get OFFA MY LAWN!" sort of person.