The media destroyed a crime scene. I wonder if they planted evidence too? We all know the media lies on behalf of one political party. What/who is to stop them from planting something? Nothing. Nobody. It really is pathetic.
What part of the Constitution gives government the power to give tours of someone's private homes? If the government secures a search warrant, and seizes my papers or computer files, does the government then have the right to publish all that for all to see?
What part of the Constitution gives government the power to give tours of someone's private homes?
Probably the same part of the Constitution that gives the AG reason to believe she prosecute people for "violent talk". When the Constitution becomes a living document, then it is easy to kill it.
The apartment is owned by the landlord. The FBI processed the scene and released the property back to the landlord. The landlord allowed the press into the property. The press are feral animals. Raccoon's would have been more orderly.
ndspinelli: A couple of things. I cannot imagine the FBI searching and releasing that apartment with shredded paper under the shredder, for example (can you)? There were things left behind that in any other major crime would have been bagged and taken into evidence. I know the spokesperson said it was cleared, but something stinks in all of this. And even if this was fully cleared by the FBI, the Landlord cannot go in without a court order (I know they were terrorists but that does not give the landlord carte blanche even if the rent is behind). A Landlord needs that (they also have an obligation to get the belongings to where they belong and not let third parties paw through them).
Evi, I was surprised. But, I saw the Agent in Charge say he released the property back to the owner to do w/ as he saw fit, as you apparently saw as well. I do not know the duty of the landlord, but I certainly would not have let the press into a rental property I owned.
Oh geez. Did the nerdy celibate actually not realize that the landlord is the owner of the property? This is what happens when goofy, spiritually technocratic ascetics unaccountable to anyone but their superiors (including even, to a mate) are made into a generations-long model of moral leadership.
That being said, it is a bit sad that the FBI et al couldn't have found a way to have declared a crime scene and made the place off-limits pending the conclusion of all first-hand investigations.
Do you know how much good other, non-Muslim religious leaders would do if they simply formed a splinter group of Islam dedicated to vanquishing and abrogating the theological doctrines of jihad, dhimmitude, dar al Harb, and fitna? That would do a hell of a lot more good than twaddling around with their own silly daily and other vocational priorities.
Yes, I'm thinking of certain people who have even posted on this very thread.
Do you know what's sad? That you have this lingering, persistent grudge against (a) the Catholic Church, (b) religion in general, and/or (c) me. Everyone who reads these pages knows you have a grudge against me because I wouldn't talk to you, and you think I was rude. Maybe you are right, I don't think so, but maybe, who knows, but ... all this time, and you are STILL pissed off about it? That is sad.
I don't know anything about your personal life, or your religion, but if I did, I'd be embarrassed -- I'd be ashamed, any decent person would be -- to score rhetorical points about your religion or your personal life. But you never hesitate to attack me because I am a Catholic, because I am celibate. You think you are scoring some points, but all you are doing is disgracing yourself.
You are an intelligent person, and I think you are a basically decent person. This is beneath you.
What I have a grudge against is people who use their power to shame and shun in a way that is not amenable to reason.
We can continue trying this as a personal discussion and I can, in a political if not the deepest way, reciprocate all my own niceness and expectation of better standards from you, as well. And that's fine as you seem to be gracious. honest and complementary here in a way that contrasts with the previous pleas for silencing that I had suspected (rightly or wrongly) of being contemptuous. Or at least, of being less spiritually inclined than I'd have hoped from a religious leader.
But that being said, I would be bearing false witness if I were to make myself forever shut up about practices and doctrines in any religion that I thought were damaging. We now live at a time when it is painfully clear that specific doctrines in Islam have become incredibly destructive and even catastrophically deadly, way beyond just problematic. So I don't understand why other religious institutions - especially longstanding ones that are not perfectly recognizable today in the forms that they existed a thousand years ago - have to be protected from criticism.
Criticism is not the same thing as attack. At least, it's not necessarily the same thing as attack. Context is important and people are sometimes even reluctant to hear criticism from the best intentioned (and correct) of friends. That being said, I realize we don't even have a relationship on that level, despite what I perceive to be your desire for more neighborly statements on my part.
But that still doesn't mean that my complaint would come from a place of emptiness, meanness or other personal shortcomings. I'm open to the possibility that they might, but that is because is because I value humility for its own sake, and not for how others might benefit from using it (intentionally or not) against me or against what I feel I have good reason to see as being important to me.
In any event, I am sure that there are many respectable and even godly things about you as a person. But insofar as any of us attempts to interact in the public square, the integrity we might feel from how our own paths have been informed will always be challenged by the things that others are blessed to be more perceptive about. That's just part of the unequal differences that God has created among us all - hopefully to learn from rather than to feel threatened by.
I hope that clarifies that I am merely channeling a respect for what I see as honesty, rather than petty spite. I realize that I can get rhetorically excessive, and apologize if I sincerely hurt your feelings - but merely wish to preserve as much honesty as I can if I am to modify my approach in such a way as to make you more comfortable with how I've spouted out in the past and might, as an imperfect person, continue to do in the future.
I'm not sure what the most appropriate closing is to this admittedly unordinary comment of mine, so I'll just say what a Catholic acquaintance told me recently - Pax vobiscum, and a pleasant evening to you, Sir.
Well, i am appreciative of what is good and gracious in your remarks -- and perhaps you think your remarks were entirely gracious, in which case I give you credit for good intentions. And yet, I cannot leave it there.
First of all, you didn't "hurt my feelings." (Although I include that concern among the good in your remarks.) To be perfectly frank, since you have heaped almost unending contempt on me for so long, I really cannot infer what you might actually suppose about me. So I will simply inform you that I am not a delicate flower. I didn't seek to avoid talking with you because I was "hurt," but because I had no interest.
Second, if you are accusing me using my "power to shame and shun," then I reject the charge as more rhetorical excess on your part. First, what "power" do you attribute to me? I have no special power in this forum. This is not my blog, I post here infrequently, and the hosts/contributors here do not agree with me on a variety of issues, and are not hesitant to say so.
I suspect you will claim my "power" lies in my identifying myself online ne as a priest. If so, all I can say is that if you walked in my shoes, you might see it otherwise. Identifying myself as a priest draws respect, but it also draws ridicule, and the soft bigotry of condescension. (References to my being a celibate, for example, have that quality. I don't know anyone else's sexual history or marital status, nor do I want to, particularly, and in any case, it's irrelevant nearly all the time to whatever point someone offers. I am not embarrassed to be celibate, I am, so to speak, "proud" of it, insofar as it is a commitment I made, and which I have, with Gods help, but your reference wasn't meant as a compliment, so under those circumstances, that was a cheap shot.) Further, identifying myself as a priest online tends to tie one hand behind my back; at any given moment, I'm vulnerable to the rejoinder, oh, a priest shouldn't say that. Even if the rejoinder is utterly irrelevant, it's a pain. But I realize it's a self-inflicted handicap, because I made the choice to identify myself online as a priest. I am simply pointing out how this choice involves less "power" than you might think.
Perhaps you wonder why I should even do so. Well, there are a couple of reasons, having nothing to do with "power." First and foremost, I have my own blog, which is about me, and therefore, about me as a priest. therefore, on blogger, my public identity goes with me to other blogger sites, like Althouse, where I once commented,and here. I know there are ways to have a different identity, but why? It would be confusing -- to have one identity on one blog, and another elsewhere. I see no benefit in that.
I won't go any further along that line, since I'm responding to an inferred objection, but I will observe this. If anyone is engaged in shaming and silencing, you are. When you appear and heap mounds of invective on me, mostly if not wholly irrelevant to whatever point I'm making, what is that but shaming and silencing? If you think my preferring not to talk to you the equivalent, I simply point out the world of difference between choosing not to engage (I.e., me with you), and choosing to engage with massive rhetorical ordnance (I.e., you to me). And I stand by my position that choosing not to engage is an entirely reasonable response to behavior one judges unreasonable. Is that even a controversial point? Or are you somehow obliged to respond too there's, or others to you? I doubt you believe that.
(Sorry for two long comments, but I'm trying to unravel a misunderstanding while avoiding new ones, and that can get wordy.)
Now, it seems to me that because I indentify publicly as a Catholic priest, that makes it fair game for you to launch into polemics against the Church, or organized religion generally, whenever I make a comment. I don't know if you really believe that, but that seems to explain your conduct. And all I can say is, that is bizarre.
Near me is a community of German Baptists; they are similar to Amish in many ways. As such, they dress distinctively, wear beards, and drive horse-drawn buggies. I often see them around, and sometimes stand near them in a store, and sometimes buy produce from them.
Is it your position that their choice to dress as they do represents permission for others to offer uninvited, otherwise irrelevant commentary and criticisms and insults about their faith and way of life? I must tell you, almost no one -- anywhere--agrees with you.
I must say, my suspicion is that you simply don't like the Catholic Faith, and for whatever reason, you don't hold back from opportunities to bash it. You are obviously free to do it; its up to the blog hosts to regulate that, not me. But please don't be surprised if I, and others, don't care for it. And again, lots of reasonable people would agree, that's an entirely reasonable rationale for someone simply not wanting to talk to you.
Finally, maybe you just don't like me. That's fine. That's life. But, again, there are very civilized ways to handle that. I am in favor of them.
I don't dislike you - at least not entirely. Instead, I feel obliged to respect you on account of your personal, spiritual and social commitments, as I know that they require much sacrifice. But at the same time I don't want to feel more self-censored than usual on account of that. So your public identity is indeed the double-edged sword that you indeed seem to recognize it as.
As far as criticism or ridicule goes, I agree with you that these things can go too far. But at the same time what worries me more is when respect for authority goes too far. Whether you agree or not (and I'm telling you that this is my truth) your position, like so many other positions in society, is one of great authority, which is a form of power. I understand that certain sacrifices (chastity, poverty, piety, or perhaps even just good old fashioned Christian humility) might be intended to offset that power, but it is still there - historically, socially and culturally - if not legally. And that is important because as Acton said, power corrupts. I am just someone who has always been suspicious of authority. I cannot understand how someone can learn the thousand-plus year history and current position of the spiritual authority for more than a billion people and deny that.
So perhaps I misinterpreted your plea to be "protected" from reading things I wrote. Of course, everyone has the right to read or ignore what they want, or interact with or not with whomever they want. So it was natural that I misunderstood this request as some sort of special pleading. The internet is generally like that, and doesn't generally offer electronic veils or curtains. The doors are there to open or not open and the images and graffiti inside to be read or not read at the reader's discretion.
And as far as Anabaptists go, of course one is free to poke fun! Thank goodness for that! America's First Amendment allows us to poke fun at anything we like! It is up to us as a society to decide what does or does not go "too far"; there is no central authority to determine how civilized we are being within the bounds of the law.
Here is a video of Weird Al Yankovic's "Amish Paradise," which I hear is actually still a big hit in nearby Lancaster county, where we have large Mennonite and Amish communities, as well. It has 33 million views and 148k likes to 3k dislikes. Does it go too far? Well, I think Coolio might think so - but that is because he was the artist who wrote the original, very lyrically and thematically different, song that Yankovic parodied. Oh, you mean does it go too far for the Amish? Well, seeing as how they're technically not allowed to view it, it's hard to say. Does it cause harm to them? I don't see how. You seem to think that harm for people's feelings is a line too far to cross, but I'll have to differ on that. I view that as a variable line, because otherwise we are forced to say that whatever people claim to be as their own feelings are always reasonable things that we must predictively pre-determine to know beforehand as to their legitimate boundaries - which is impossible. A society that never causes offense would be a tyranny of the uncreative and the emotionally weak. Also, can someone feel "emotionally hurt" and simply have been too haughty or arrogant to realize that their own feelings weren't really so much the issue any more, as opposed to a way of sacralizing something much more mundane and even pernicious? I think history shows that, if anything, selfish pride is a more often used to determine the "lines" created by someone's social emotions than anything related to their own personal integrity.
Furthermore, the Amish - so far as I know - generally keep out of others' business - even regarding political expression. Keeping one's own issues to oneself tends to engender a lot of respect. They are self-sufficient, and do not ask our government to promote a view of the human body - regardless of any certain person or leader's respectable self-sacrifice - to as evil and sinful - which I see as a largely damaging and harmful view. Their influence in this regard in my society is greatly limited, and for that I am grateful. If they want to believe that within their own, back-to-the-earth, self-sufficient communities - that is fine. But never do they tell the rest of society how they should govern their own personal, legal conduct.
Maybe that is another reason for why I am not presently having a conversation with one of them about how far too much offense goes when it comes to the power of a socially influential institution or its leaders vis a vis America's public life.
"As far as the Anabaptists go, of course one is free to poke fun!"
Indeed; but that entirely misses my point. My point was that very few people would argue that German Baptists, by their distance native behavior, invite insulting, abusive comments offered uninvited to them, to their face. I have stood behind such ladies at the store. Whatever I might think about their way of life (I respect it, as a matter of fact), and regardless of whether I would criticize or mock it elsewhere, I would not take their decision to dress as they do, in public, as my invitation to launch into a diatribe about the errors of Menno Simons with them, for the "benefit" of the others present. No, not even if they engaged me in conversation about some other topic. And, lest there be any lack of clarity, I am saying that is how you have chosen to approach my public persona as a Catholic priest.
As far as my "power," I only have power that people give me; even then, not so much. (I am not speaking of the supernatural power that operates through a priest's celebration of sacraments, because this is beyond the empirical realm. Or, are you conceding that transubstantiation is real?) The notion that priests have great power (of course we have some) over the flock is belied by certain, undeniable facts. Look up some time the percentage of Catholics who reliably attend Sunday Mass, and who adhere to all that the Church teaches. Whatever the numbers are, they attest to significant number of adherents who somehow manage to resist the octopus-tentacle grasp of Rome and its cassocked minions fanning out over the globe. No, I do not deny there is such a thing as power in spiritual leadership, but it doesn't apply here in this context. If you have any indictment to offer against me, regarding a misuse of my power, spell it out. I have a pastoral council, I have a finance council, and I have a fairly specific code of conduct governing such things. If you believe I've run afoul of any of this, lay out the particulars. But if you have none, then why keep bringing it up? If you think the tentacles of my power are creeping across this blog, then I must say, in all charity, you are imagining things.
I think that resolves much. I agree with you that pointing at or ridiculing an Anabaptist to their face or behind their back is unkind at the least, immature (depending on age) or cruel at the worst. We are in agreement.
And your second paragraph clarifies somewhat, as well. You are differentiating between the social power of an entire organization and your relative lack of power when compared to that as merely a single emissary of sorts. I get that.
However, at the same time, a single member of the Anabaptist community is not a religious leader, of any sort, of that community - let alone one voicing opinions on what the rest of society should do. Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that they favor a greatly "flattened" model of leadership of any sort. I do not know what an Anabaptist priest (or equivalent) would look like, and that seems to make sense of why each individual member of the community is expected to do so much when it comes to helping to "run the show" as a whole. Distinctions between members and leaders are diminished.
That being said, my concerns re: The Catholic Church remain its views on sex and sexuality, sinfulness, (when it comes to humanity - not merely for what it prescribes [to a respectable but misguided extent, IMO] among its leaders/priests), the lack of ability of laity (and perhaps of the priests themselves, I do not know) when it comes to challenging doctrine, central behavior or leadership, and a lack of historical appreciation for how the Church's powerful missteps in the past can be echoed when it comes to different pronouncements in the present day and age. If that doesn't sound as personal, you're right. These are mainly concerns regarding the politics of how an organization is arranged, and its actions and dictates decided and carried out.
So to whom would I be allowed to voice those concerns, if not to a voluntary leader (even at the level of the archdiocese or lower) of that organization? It's interesting as you seem to want things both ways. The remove of the pope and the way dogma is decided makes those things virtually impossible for either you or I (or any lay Catholic, for that matter) to address them directly in any way other than with reverence and piety (for a Catholic or priest) or uninvited respect (everyone else). But this is not the case with other religions. With them, people can point out inconsistencies of religious doctrine or organization (some of them quite troubling) without a response of contempt.
But the Catholic Church seems to want it both ways. It wants the power of an organization with a billion members (and its own state, even!) and the resonance of a long and even more powerful history, but without any way to respect the challenges to its practices or doctrines that any similarly powerful organization would doubtlessly invite, and be required, in some sense, to accept.
So I would advise you not to over-personalize challenges to you when you voice agreement with the powerful organization of which you are a voluntary member. All you are hearing is the frustration of being told that a powerful organization must be respected by all, and to a greater degree than any similarly powerful organization would command, without any challenge whatsoever.
Again, doctrines matter and the politics of those deciding doctrines matter. Am I really to assume that you have no personal feelings on the Muslim doctrine of jihad? What if, Heaven forbid, members of your own church were gunned down in a senseless terror attack as occurs regularly, and had just occurred in Paris, or San Bernardino? Would you really say that imams giving guidance on those behaviors should not be challenged in any way - no matter how politely? Or that their doctrines should never be questioned?
If so, then I'm not surprised that Islam and Christendom have split the majority of the world into completely irreconcilable and violently opposed spheres.
Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.
By the way, when I say "politics" I am not addressing political opinions ("right-left-liberal-conservative" whatever). I am talking about politics in the generic sense and the academic sense of how organizations are structured and their decisions carried out. Thank you for the interesting discussion.
So to whom would I be allowed to voice those concerns, if not to a voluntary leader (even at the level of the archdiocese or lower) of that organization?
Write a letter; set up a picket. Create a blog. Join a group dedicated to whatever cause interests you. There are an abundance of ways to "voice" your concerns.
But my showing up in a thread here is not an invitation for you to make me your punching bag, nor to make the topic of the thread whatever complaint against the Catholic Church you might have.
I don't know why this has to be explained. If I say something about what the Catholic Church teaches, of course you're welcome to rebut or disagree or whatever. But many times, as in this very thread! I offer a comment completely unrelated to Catholic teaching, and you choose to hijack the thread to make it about my faith, and me. That's the problem. (E.g., I didn't have a problem with you noting my error about who actually invited in the reporters. That was germane. The rest of your comment about me was not.)
You and I know both know that any such picketing will do no good. Again, this is about having things both ways.
But you raised Anabaptists as a straw man. And that straw man is very different from criticizing Catholic clergy in a very important way:
Anabaptists are not telling the American people or their government to endorse their view that our use of modern technology is WRONG! VERY big difference between their abstention from such politicking and you telling us that gay married couples, as sanctioned by our FREEST of governments and at the highest court in the land, are WRONG!
You had better believe that my view toward confronting an Anabaptist in the manner you mentioned would change 180 degrees if that were the case. If people who had no understanding of electronics went around petitioning me or my representative government to ban them, then I would have a big problem with that, and I would ridicule them about it whenever I felt it warranted.
Likewise, while I have no problem with someone who personally decides to remain celibate, if they pretend that they have the understanding to lecture others represented by my government on issues of sexuality, intimacy and matrimony - ESPECIALLY WHILE WAGING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF MY OTHER FELLOW CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT! - then they are WRONG.
While you may personally see nothing unseemly about celibates lecturing their own parishioners on sexuality, intimacy and matrimony (even though it is, and extremely damaging as any cursory and obvious look at the sex abuse scandals show), once you've deigned to wage a political war on my fellow citizens with a complete lack of deep firsthand, personal experience with those matters - let alone the soul-shattering struggles they've endured to grapple with them, then I feel obliged to tell you not only why you are wrong, but why you are sanctimoniously wrong.
Disgracefully wrong, even.
No man who's never walked a mile in another person's shoes has any right to judge him on behalf of the common, personal rights that others would attempt to deny him.
These are fundamentals in the way that functional societies work. As much as you hate America and its society, most of us know this much. And we and our democratic and judicial process and way of life will endure long after your organization has figured out how to cope with the way its decided (with your very active help) to marginalize itself in the face of this very singular chapter in our venerable and very noble history of progress and the advancement of human rights.
Thank you for your attempt at understanding this, Citizen Fox. I appreciate the lack of pretension or contempt with which you will (if you choose to) respond.
If you truly are a good and decent man, then you will understand the difference between ridiculing someone on behalf of their own personal choices and ridiculing them on behalf of sanctimonious attempts to force them onto others. And I truly hope, for your sake and the sake of at least a few others, that you truly are that good and that decent a man.
Alas, we were having such a reasonable conversation, until that last blast.
Anabaptists are not telling the American people or their government to endorse their view that our use of modern technology is WRONG! VERY big difference between their abstention from such politicking and you telling us that gay married couples, as sanctioned by our FREEST of governments and at the highest court in the land, are WRONG!
I don't agree with your apparent belief that anyone who seeks to influence public policy from their own beliefs loses the right to be treated -- by you -- with courtesy.
Likewise, while I have no problem with someone who personally decides to remain celibate, if they pretend that they have the understanding to lecture others represented by my government on issues of sexuality, intimacy and matrimony - ESPECIALLY WHILE WAGING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF MY OTHER FELLOW CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT! - then they are WRONG.
While you may personally see nothing unseemly about celibates lecturing their own parishioners on sexuality, intimacy and matrimony (even though it is, and extremely damaging as any cursory and obvious look at the sex abuse scandals show), once you've deigned to wage a political war on my fellow citizens with a complete lack of deep firsthand, personal experience with those matters - let alone the soul-shattering struggles they've endured to grapple with them, then I feel obliged to tell you not only why you are wrong, but why you are sanctimoniously wrong.
Disgracefully wrong, even.
This statement is so full of error, it's hard to know where to start.
Let's start this way:
- You apparently hold to the view that only people who have had a personal experience with X can be tolerated to advocate public policy regarding X. Ergo, only those who have engineering experience can be tolerated to express support for public policy involving engineering. And so forth with sexual matters (which you feel so strongly about, you switched over to ALL CAPS). This is simply fallacious.
- I needn't mention, but I will, the factual assumptions you make. Why do you assume, for example, that someone who is celibate hasn't, in fact, "walked a mile" in the shoes of people who are married, gay, sexually active, etc.? A priest ordained the same day as I was, now deceased, was married, and widowed, and had two children. Presumably those children were originated in the usual fashion. Yet, when he entered the seminary, he was celibate.
Do you really suppose candidates for orders never have any "history," as the term goes? Why do you suppose this?
But, in any case, it remains a fallacious argument. It is not reasonable to say that experiential knowledge ("walk a mile") is the only valid knowledge; nor that no other knowledge is valid absent experience. Orville and Wilbur Wright lacked experience in flying, when they invented flying machines. Moreover, it's even more unreasonable for you to assert the privilege of determining, for others, what sorts of knowledge or experience "qualifies" people to participate in a discussion, or in influencing public policy. This next sentence is very important, please attend: no one has given you the authority or privilege of deciding this.
So, to be very concrete: when you come to this blog, it is not you who gets to decide whether other people are qualified (morally or experientally or otherwise) to participate in the discussion. You don't get to shout me down (or anyone else), because you don't think we have a "right" to participate. Wherever my right to participate comes from, it doesn't come from you; and yours, doesn't come from me. To state the obvious: in the case of this blog, it comes from those who "own" it. If they tell me to shut up, or go away, I will do so.
I'm not sure if there is much more to say. It seems a statement of the obvious, but for the sake of clarity: you are entitled to think whatever you like about me, about my Church, and about whatever policy proposals I and/or my Church advances. I consider it fair game for you to argue or disagree or criticize those proposals, or anything else, provided it's germane. If you want to say you think priestly celibacy is a bad idea, fine -- although I reiterate I think it was not germane to this thread.
But it sure looks like your position is this: because you object to me/my Church advocating public policy you don't agree with, you consider that justifies you making any encounter with me, regardless of topic, a legitimate opportunity to rail against me and/or my Church because of the policy proposals you don't like.
If that's true, then we have irreconcilable notions of what's courteous behavior. And in that case, I suggest we return to a no-talk-to-each-other policy. I think we will both have less heartburn. And, after all, when you go after me, that clogs up the thread. When I respond, it clogs it more. Such a no-talk policy will benefit everyone else.
I don't agree with your apparent belief that anyone who seeks to influence public policy from their own beliefs loses the right to be treated -- by you -- with courtesy.
That's not what I said.
What I said is that they lose the right for me to assume that there's nothing about their views that should be safe from criticism or even ridicule. And when people want to restrict my rights or the rights of others, you'd better believe that I don't think that entitles them to any courtesy whatsoever.
As with your erroneous presumption about Anabaptists and the Weird Al video, you'll find that you're also very wrong on this one. Go and poll the American public and see what they think about your proposal to protect the "feelings" of people who agitate for the government to take their rights away.
- You apparently hold to the view that only people who have had a personal experience with X can be tolerated to advocate public policy regarding X.
I apparently hold no such view. I apparently hold the view that not having personal experience with X while receiving copious amounts of public discourse on the tremendous burdens imposed by X entitles those people to more respectful treatment and more thoughtful consideration of their burdens and how they may be practically and charitably resolved than you have given them.
- I needn't mention, but I will, the factual assumptions you make. Why do you assume, for example, that someone who is celibate hasn't, in fact, "walked a mile" in the shoes of people who are married, gay, sexually active, etc.?
I don't assume that. I actually assume that the many gays (and pedophiles) in the priesthood directly results from their being told that their sexuality (as well as most sexually normal behavior) was sinful. Losing that distinction gave them a way of displacing their self-hatred with a hatred for sexuality in general.
It is not reasonable to say that experiential knowledge ("walk a mile") is the only valid knowledge; nor that no other knowledge is valid absent experience.
True, but you are stretching it.
Orville and Wilbur Wright lacked experience in flying, when they invented flying machines.
When you invent a machine that makes people confuse sexually normal behavior with self-hatred then let me know. I am sure the market for that will skyrocket and all its investors will become billionaires. (Sarcastic humor ;-))
Moreover, it's even more unreasonable for you to assert the privilege of determining, for others, what sorts of knowledge or experience "qualifies" people to participate in a discussion, or in influencing public policy. This next sentence is very important, please attend: no one has given you the authority or privilege of deciding this.
There you go with that shame game and playing God with me. It won't work on me and it won't work on the American public. The public feels very privileged to decide if people are hypocritically and condescendingly inflating their credentials for influencing if not just informing public discourse.
So, to be very concrete: when you come to this blog, it is not you who gets to decide whether other people are qualified (morally or experientally or otherwise) to participate in the discussion.
I never said whether they are qualified to "participate in the discussion." I said it's clear whether they are "qualified" to pretend that they know all the answers. Because on this issue, you clearly seem to think you know all the answers. Do you deny that you present yourself as being authoritative enough to know all the answers on this matter?
You don't get to shout me down (or anyone else), because you don't think we have a "right" to participate.
Lol. No one's "shouting you down". You really do make me laugh. What is happening is that you are exposing yourself to ridicule by sanctimoniously acting in the way that the emperor with no clothes did.
Wherever my right to participate comes from, it doesn't come from you; and yours, doesn't come from me.
Oh, for crying out loud! You DO have that right. Look at that! I defended a right of yours while you're chastising me! Imagine that. A fellow citizen coming to the defense of your rights, while you scold him like a schoolmarm, and all about a conversation in which you defend your right to ask for the deprivation of others' rights! Isn't it hilariously ironic!
But that's the strength of liberty. Liberty, it's a wonderful thing. And BTW, liberty is all the Anabaptists wanted when Roman Catholics and other Protestants were viciously persecuting them, even going so far as to drown them for their allegedly sinful "second" baptism practice. Not freedom from ridicule, but liberty. And now, you profess to actually admiring them. Oh, how things change!
But criticizing you or what you say is in no way the same thing as telling you that you have no right to say it. Again, Liberty 101. Maybe being less enamored of ideologically autocratic institutions would endear you to that freedom. Free speech is a two-way street. You can say ridiculous things, even blindly approach them from an obviously stilted perspective, and I can criticize it or ridicule it. It's ok as we don't need a big brother to authorize these things. Or anyone holier than a big brother.
To state the obvious: in the case of this blog, it comes from those who "own" it. If they tell me to shut up, or go away, I will do so.
I love you, Father Fox. But this Mel Gibson victimology stuff is so goofy that I would say it is - if I can borrow a phrase - "beneath you". No on is asking you to go away. Even I am not asking you to go away.
If you want to say you think priestly celibacy is a bad idea, fine -- although I reiterate I think it was not germane to this thread.
Maybe it was not entirely germane to thread. Fair point. But I do think it encourages a naive and sanctimonious mindset - and one less likely to learn the things that would have avoided confusing basic issues of property rights. The rewards of leadership - even if justified through self-denial (whether it comes easily or not) come at the expense of neglecting an understanding of how the broader world works. Again, power corrupts. Isolation (in any form) has its drawbacks.
But it sure looks like your position is this: because you object to me/my Church advocating public policy you don't agree with, you consider that justifies you making any encounter with me, regardless of topic, a legitimate opportunity to rail against me and/or my Church because of the policy proposals you don't like.
But it wasn't just your church that did this. It was your own personal (and strong IIRC) agreement with it.
If that's true, then we have irreconcilable notions of what's courteous behavior.
That would be unfortunate, but I hope it's not entirely true. I think you do want to learn about a good number of the quirks and conundrums of the world in which we live - both secular and Christological, and we both like to get our points across and influence debate.
Further, I think we both have blind spots as to when we overstep certain bounds and inadvertently hurt others. And yet, I think each of us would feel compelled to regret it and/or apologize if we knew that's what we were doing.
So I actually don't think we're so unalike in certain respects. (But I'm happy to let you think so if it makes you less dyspeptic ;-))
And in that case, I suggest we return to a no-talk-to-each-other policy. I think we will both have less heartburn. And, after all, when you go after me, that clogs up the thread. When I respond, it clogs it more. Such a no-talk policy will benefit everyone else.
Again, I can understand your holding this view - but let's not presume to speak for others. You're free to propose it and I'm free to agree or disagree - in which case of the latter you could go on ignoring me.
But I would like to believe that there is much to be learned from dialogue, and when you ventured out into this one I was able to see more of the godlier and ethically idealistic ways that you possess. But if you think it's better to depart from the dialectical path, and leave the thread to the horizons of the ethernet, then I will wish you love, and peace, and success in your ministry, and just accept that this specific issue was too divisive for us to overcome.
But remember the example of history - and the Anabaptists. One day they were being persecuted - a few hundred years later, admired. I (perhaps naively) believe we owe it to history to see that perspective in our own democratic tribulations. You (perhaps naively) may believe that we don't.
I think we're done. I really have nothing to add. I think you misunderstand me -- or, better to say, I have not made myself sufficiently clear. I have little hope that plowing forward is going to make much difference. I think we have, at present, irreconcilable notions of what is civil interaction, and I don't want heartburn, nor do I want to give it to you. So I intend not to reply on your comments.
I think you misunderstand me -- or, better to say, I have not made myself sufficiently clear.
There is actually a more interesting possibility. Did you consider the possibility that you may have been... wrong? That seems to be the part that's missing here. Of course, since you've conveniently exited at a point when you had a chance to clarify such ethical questions to someone you called "basically decent", no one will know. But it seems that you feel that you are above being corrected on anything related to how people relate to one another. Is it really "irreconcilable differences"? Or is it about you needing to feel that you are inevitably right? And if the latter, how would that be a good example to set for the cause of "civilized behavior"?
I daresay there are worse problems in the world than heartburn. I also daresay that neighbors who merely give each other heartburn are still experiencing a more civilized state of affairs than were the people who tortured and massacred Anabaptists a mere few hundred years ago.
I hope you're feeling safe from the threat of excess stomach acid. And what a shame it would be if your conscience was ever as troubled as your stomach lining.
Fr Martin Fox said... "What part of the Constitution gives government the power to give tours of someone's private homes? If the government secures a search warrant, and seizes my papers or computer files, does the government then have the right to publish all that for all to see?"
45 comments:
The police should have showed up and shot all of them. WTF?
MSNBC is a disgrace. NBC is a disgrace. The hack press is a disgrace. The pro-Hillary press is a disgrace and an embarrassment.
The media destroyed a crime scene. I wonder if they planted evidence too? We all know the media lies on behalf of one political party. What/who is to stop them from planting something? Nothing. Nobody. It really is pathetic.
MSNBC reminds me of looters who just gained entry into a Walmart.
Breaking news on MSNBC: Suspected shooters were not Islamic terrorists at all. New evidence suggests it was a right wing militia.
What part of the Constitution gives government the power to give tours of someone's private homes? If the government secures a search warrant, and seizes my papers or computer files, does the government then have the right to publish all that for all to see?
What part of the Constitution gives government the power to give tours of someone's private homes?
Probably the same part of the Constitution that gives the AG reason to believe she prosecute people for "violent talk". When the Constitution becomes a living document, then it is easy to kill it.
In fairness to the government... I believe it was the landlord who invited the press in.
But all in all. I believe there was something unseemly about it, and registered my opinion soon after watching it.
Local FOX affiliates are just as bad as MSNBC
The apartment is owned by the landlord. The FBI processed the scene and released the property back to the landlord. The landlord allowed the press into the property. The press are feral animals. Raccoon's would have been more orderly.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PomekV8jl54
We need censorship, err, "moderation" here.
ndspinelli: A couple of things. I cannot imagine the FBI searching and releasing that apartment with shredded paper under the shredder, for example (can you)? There were things left behind that in any other major crime would have been bagged and taken into evidence. I know the spokesperson said it was cleared, but something stinks in all of this. And even if this was fully cleared by the FBI, the Landlord cannot go in without a court order (I know they were terrorists but that does not give the landlord carte blanche even if the rent is behind). A Landlord needs that (they also have an obligation to get the belongings to where they belong and not let third parties paw through them).
Evi, I was surprised. But, I saw the Agent in Charge say he released the property back to the owner to do w/ as he saw fit, as you apparently saw as well. I do not know the duty of the landlord, but I certainly would not have let the press into a rental property I owned.
The people whose documents were shown have a nice settlement coming.
Oh geez. Did the nerdy celibate actually not realize that the landlord is the owner of the property? This is what happens when goofy, spiritually technocratic ascetics unaccountable to anyone but their superiors (including even, to a mate) are made into a generations-long model of moral leadership.
That being said, it is a bit sad that the FBI et al couldn't have found a way to have declared a crime scene and made the place off-limits pending the conclusion of all first-hand investigations.
And even if this was fully cleared by the FBI, the Landlord cannot go in without a court order..
I realize there are certain restrictions but I assume they don't apply if it's a known and well-publicized fact that your tenants are dead.
I can't imagine a landlord letting those dogs in unless he was properly (or improperly) reimbursed.
Do you know how much good other, non-Muslim religious leaders would do if they simply formed a splinter group of Islam dedicated to vanquishing and abrogating the theological doctrines of jihad, dhimmitude, dar al Harb, and fitna? That would do a hell of a lot more good than twaddling around with their own silly daily and other vocational priorities.
Yes, I'm thinking of certain people who have even posted on this very thread.
Ritmo --
Do you know what's sad? That you have this lingering, persistent grudge against (a) the Catholic Church, (b) religion in general, and/or (c) me. Everyone who reads these pages knows you have a grudge against me because I wouldn't talk to you, and you think I was rude. Maybe you are right, I don't think so, but maybe, who knows, but ... all this time, and you are STILL pissed off about it? That is sad.
I don't know anything about your personal life, or your religion, but if I did, I'd be embarrassed -- I'd be ashamed, any decent person would be -- to score rhetorical points about your religion or your personal life. But you never hesitate to attack me because I am a Catholic, because I am celibate. You think you are scoring some points, but all you are doing is disgracing yourself.
You are an intelligent person, and I think you are a basically decent person. This is beneath you.
What I have a grudge against is people who use their power to shame and shun in a way that is not amenable to reason.
We can continue trying this as a personal discussion and I can, in a political if not the deepest way, reciprocate all my own niceness and expectation of better standards from you, as well. And that's fine as you seem to be gracious. honest and complementary here in a way that contrasts with the previous pleas for silencing that I had suspected (rightly or wrongly) of being contemptuous. Or at least, of being less spiritually inclined than I'd have hoped from a religious leader.
But that being said, I would be bearing false witness if I were to make myself forever shut up about practices and doctrines in any religion that I thought were damaging. We now live at a time when it is painfully clear that specific doctrines in Islam have become incredibly destructive and even catastrophically deadly, way beyond just problematic. So I don't understand why other religious institutions - especially longstanding ones that are not perfectly recognizable today in the forms that they existed a thousand years ago - have to be protected from criticism.
Criticism is not the same thing as attack. At least, it's not necessarily the same thing as attack. Context is important and people are sometimes even reluctant to hear criticism from the best intentioned (and correct) of friends. That being said, I realize we don't even have a relationship on that level, despite what I perceive to be your desire for more neighborly statements on my part.
But that still doesn't mean that my complaint would come from a place of emptiness, meanness or other personal shortcomings. I'm open to the possibility that they might, but that is because is because I value humility for its own sake, and not for how others might benefit from using it (intentionally or not) against me or against what I feel I have good reason to see as being important to me.
In any event, I am sure that there are many respectable and even godly things about you as a person. But insofar as any of us attempts to interact in the public square, the integrity we might feel from how our own paths have been informed will always be challenged by the things that others are blessed to be more perceptive about. That's just part of the unequal differences that God has created among us all - hopefully to learn from rather than to feel threatened by.
I hope that clarifies that I am merely channeling a respect for what I see as honesty, rather than petty spite. I realize that I can get rhetorically excessive, and apologize if I sincerely hurt your feelings - but merely wish to preserve as much honesty as I can if I am to modify my approach in such a way as to make you more comfortable with how I've spouted out in the past and might, as an imperfect person, continue to do in the future.
I'm not sure what the most appropriate closing is to this admittedly unordinary comment of mine, so I'll just say what a Catholic acquaintance told me recently - Pax vobiscum, and a pleasant evening to you, Sir.
WRitmo:
Well, i am appreciative of what is good and gracious in your remarks -- and perhaps you think your remarks were entirely gracious, in which case I give you credit for good intentions. And yet, I cannot leave it there.
First of all, you didn't "hurt my feelings." (Although I include that concern among the good in your remarks.) To be perfectly frank, since you have heaped almost unending contempt on me for so long, I really cannot infer what you might actually suppose about me. So I will simply inform you that I am not a delicate flower. I didn't seek to avoid talking with you because I was "hurt," but because I had no interest.
Second, if you are accusing me using my "power to shame and shun," then I reject the charge as more rhetorical excess on your part. First, what "power" do you attribute to me? I have no special power in this forum. This is not my blog, I post here infrequently, and the hosts/contributors here do not agree with me on a variety of issues, and are not hesitant to say so.
I suspect you will claim my "power" lies in my identifying myself online ne as a priest. If so, all I can say is that if you walked in my shoes, you might see it otherwise. Identifying myself as a priest draws respect, but it also draws ridicule, and the soft bigotry of condescension. (References to my being a celibate, for example, have that quality. I don't know anyone else's sexual history or marital status, nor do I want to, particularly, and in any case, it's irrelevant nearly all the time to whatever point someone offers. I am not embarrassed to be celibate, I am, so to speak, "proud" of it, insofar as it is a commitment I made, and which I have, with Gods help, but your reference wasn't meant as a compliment, so under those circumstances, that was a cheap shot.) Further, identifying myself as a priest online tends to tie one hand behind my back; at any given moment, I'm vulnerable to the rejoinder, oh, a priest shouldn't say that. Even if the rejoinder is utterly irrelevant, it's a pain. But I realize it's a self-inflicted handicap, because I made the choice to identify myself online as a priest. I am simply pointing out how this choice involves less "power" than you might think.
Perhaps you wonder why I should even do so. Well, there are a couple of reasons, having nothing to do with "power." First and foremost, I have my own blog, which is about me, and therefore, about me as a priest. therefore, on blogger, my public identity goes with me to other blogger sites, like Althouse, where I once commented,and here. I know there are ways to have a different identity, but why? It would be confusing -- to have one identity on one blog, and another elsewhere. I see no benefit in that.
I won't go any further along that line, since I'm responding to an inferred objection, but I will observe this. If anyone is engaged in shaming and silencing, you are. When you appear and heap mounds of invective on me, mostly if not wholly irrelevant to whatever point I'm making, what is that but shaming and silencing? If you think my preferring not to talk to you the equivalent, I simply point out the world of difference between choosing not to engage (I.e., me with you), and choosing to engage with massive rhetorical ordnance (I.e., you to me). And I stand by my position that choosing not to engage is an entirely reasonable response to behavior one judges unreasonable. Is that even a controversial point? Or are you somehow obliged to respond too there's, or others to you? I doubt you believe that.
Ritmo:
(Sorry for two long comments, but I'm trying to unravel a misunderstanding while avoiding new ones, and that can get wordy.)
Now, it seems to me that because I indentify publicly as a Catholic priest, that makes it fair game for you to launch into polemics against the Church, or organized religion generally, whenever I make a comment. I don't know if you really believe that, but that seems to explain your conduct. And all I can say is, that is bizarre.
Near me is a community of German Baptists; they are similar to Amish in many ways. As such, they dress distinctively, wear beards, and drive horse-drawn buggies. I often see them around, and sometimes stand near them in a store, and sometimes buy produce from them.
Is it your position that their choice to dress as they do represents permission for others to offer uninvited, otherwise irrelevant commentary and criticisms and insults about their faith and way of life? I must tell you, almost no one -- anywhere--agrees with you.
I must say, my suspicion is that you simply don't like the Catholic Faith, and for whatever reason, you don't hold back from opportunities to bash it. You are obviously free to do it; its up to the blog hosts to regulate that, not me. But please don't be surprised if I, and others, don't care for it. And again, lots of reasonable people would agree, that's an entirely reasonable rationale for someone simply not wanting to talk to you.
Finally, maybe you just don't like me. That's fine. That's life. But, again, there are very civilized ways to handle that. I am in favor of them.
Uncivil maybe, but I don't see where Ritmo "bashed" the Catholic faith.
I don't dislike you - at least not entirely. Instead, I feel obliged to respect you on account of your personal, spiritual and social commitments, as I know that they require much sacrifice. But at the same time I don't want to feel more self-censored than usual on account of that. So your public identity is indeed the double-edged sword that you indeed seem to recognize it as.
As far as criticism or ridicule goes, I agree with you that these things can go too far. But at the same time what worries me more is when respect for authority goes too far. Whether you agree or not (and I'm telling you that this is my truth) your position, like so many other positions in society, is one of great authority, which is a form of power. I understand that certain sacrifices (chastity, poverty, piety, or perhaps even just good old fashioned Christian humility) might be intended to offset that power, but it is still there - historically, socially and culturally - if not legally. And that is important because as Acton said, power corrupts. I am just someone who has always been suspicious of authority. I cannot understand how someone can learn the thousand-plus year history and current position of the spiritual authority for more than a billion people and deny that.
So perhaps I misinterpreted your plea to be "protected" from reading things I wrote. Of course, everyone has the right to read or ignore what they want, or interact with or not with whomever they want. So it was natural that I misunderstood this request as some sort of special pleading. The internet is generally like that, and doesn't generally offer electronic veils or curtains. The doors are there to open or not open and the images and graffiti inside to be read or not read at the reader's discretion.
And as far as Anabaptists go, of course one is free to poke fun! Thank goodness for that! America's First Amendment allows us to poke fun at anything we like! It is up to us as a society to decide what does or does not go "too far"; there is no central authority to determine how civilized we are being within the bounds of the law.
Here is a video of Weird Al Yankovic's "Amish Paradise," which I hear is actually still a big hit in nearby Lancaster county, where we have large Mennonite and Amish communities, as well. It has 33 million views and 148k likes to 3k dislikes. Does it go too far? Well, I think Coolio might think so - but that is because he was the artist who wrote the original, very lyrically and thematically different, song that Yankovic parodied. Oh, you mean does it go too far for the Amish? Well, seeing as how they're technically not allowed to view it, it's hard to say. Does it cause harm to them? I don't see how. You seem to think that harm for people's feelings is a line too far to cross, but I'll have to differ on that. I view that as a variable line, because otherwise we are forced to say that whatever people claim to be as their own feelings are always reasonable things that we must predictively pre-determine to know beforehand as to their legitimate boundaries - which is impossible. A society that never causes offense would be a tyranny of the uncreative and the emotionally weak. Also, can someone feel "emotionally hurt" and simply have been too haughty or arrogant to realize that their own feelings weren't really so much the issue any more, as opposed to a way of sacralizing something much more mundane and even pernicious? I think history shows that, if anything, selfish pride is a more often used to determine the "lines" created by someone's social emotions than anything related to their own personal integrity.
Furthermore, the Amish - so far as I know - generally keep out of others' business - even regarding political expression. Keeping one's own issues to oneself tends to engender a lot of respect. They are self-sufficient, and do not ask our government to promote a view of the human body - regardless of any certain person or leader's respectable self-sacrifice - to as evil and sinful - which I see as a largely damaging and harmful view. Their influence in this regard in my society is greatly limited, and for that I am grateful. If they want to believe that within their own, back-to-the-earth, self-sufficient communities - that is fine. But never do they tell the rest of society how they should govern their own personal, legal conduct.
Maybe that is another reason for why I am not presently having a conversation with one of them about how far too much offense goes when it comes to the power of a socially influential institution or its leaders vis a vis America's public life.
"As far as the Anabaptists go, of course one is free to poke fun!"
Indeed; but that entirely misses my point. My point was that very few people would argue that German Baptists, by their distance native behavior, invite insulting, abusive comments offered uninvited to them, to their face. I have stood behind such ladies at the store. Whatever I might think about their way of life (I respect it, as a matter of fact), and regardless of whether I would criticize or mock it elsewhere, I would not take their decision to dress as they do, in public, as my invitation to launch into a diatribe about the errors of Menno Simons with them, for the "benefit" of the others present. No, not even if they engaged me in conversation about some other topic. And, lest there be any lack of clarity, I am saying that is how you have chosen to approach my public persona as a Catholic priest.
As far as my "power," I only have power that people give me; even then, not so much. (I am not speaking of the supernatural power that operates through a priest's celebration of sacraments, because this is beyond the empirical realm. Or, are you conceding that transubstantiation is real?) The notion that priests have great power (of course we have some) over the flock is belied by certain, undeniable facts. Look up some time the percentage of Catholics who reliably attend Sunday Mass, and who adhere to all that the Church teaches. Whatever the numbers are, they attest to significant number of adherents who somehow manage to resist the octopus-tentacle grasp of Rome and its cassocked minions fanning out over the globe. No, I do not deny there is such a thing as power in spiritual leadership, but it doesn't apply here in this context. If you have any indictment to offer against me, regarding a misuse of my power, spell it out. I have a pastoral council, I have a finance council, and I have a fairly specific code of conduct governing such things. If you believe I've run afoul of any of this, lay out the particulars. But if you have none, then why keep bringing it up? If you think the tentacles of my power are creeping across this blog, then I must say, in all charity, you are imagining things.
"Distance native" was supposed to be "distinctive." My power does not extend to the spell check on my iPad.
I think that resolves much. I agree with you that pointing at or ridiculing an Anabaptist to their face or behind their back is unkind at the least, immature (depending on age) or cruel at the worst. We are in agreement.
And your second paragraph clarifies somewhat, as well. You are differentiating between the social power of an entire organization and your relative lack of power when compared to that as merely a single emissary of sorts. I get that.
However, at the same time, a single member of the Anabaptist community is not a religious leader, of any sort, of that community - let alone one voicing opinions on what the rest of society should do. Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that they favor a greatly "flattened" model of leadership of any sort. I do not know what an Anabaptist priest (or equivalent) would look like, and that seems to make sense of why each individual member of the community is expected to do so much when it comes to helping to "run the show" as a whole. Distinctions between members and leaders are diminished.
That being said, my concerns re: The Catholic Church remain its views on sex and sexuality, sinfulness, (when it comes to humanity - not merely for what it prescribes [to a respectable but misguided extent, IMO] among its leaders/priests), the lack of ability of laity (and perhaps of the priests themselves, I do not know) when it comes to challenging doctrine, central behavior or leadership, and a lack of historical appreciation for how the Church's powerful missteps in the past can be echoed when it comes to different pronouncements in the present day and age. If that doesn't sound as personal, you're right. These are mainly concerns regarding the politics of how an organization is arranged, and its actions and dictates decided and carried out.
So to whom would I be allowed to voice those concerns, if not to a voluntary leader (even at the level of the archdiocese or lower) of that organization? It's interesting as you seem to want things both ways. The remove of the pope and the way dogma is decided makes those things virtually impossible for either you or I (or any lay Catholic, for that matter) to address them directly in any way other than with reverence and piety (for a Catholic or priest) or uninvited respect (everyone else). But this is not the case with other religions. With them, people can point out inconsistencies of religious doctrine or organization (some of them quite troubling) without a response of contempt.
But the Catholic Church seems to want it both ways. It wants the power of an organization with a billion members (and its own state, even!) and the resonance of a long and even more powerful history, but without any way to respect the challenges to its practices or doctrines that any similarly powerful organization would doubtlessly invite, and be required, in some sense, to accept.
So I would advise you not to over-personalize challenges to you when you voice agreement with the powerful organization of which you are a voluntary member. All you are hearing is the frustration of being told that a powerful organization must be respected by all, and to a greater degree than any similarly powerful organization would command, without any challenge whatsoever.
Again, doctrines matter and the politics of those deciding doctrines matter. Am I really to assume that you have no personal feelings on the Muslim doctrine of jihad? What if, Heaven forbid, members of your own church were gunned down in a senseless terror attack as occurs regularly, and had just occurred in Paris, or San Bernardino? Would you really say that imams giving guidance on those behaviors should not be challenged in any way - no matter how politely? Or that their doctrines should never be questioned?
If so, then I'm not surprised that Islam and Christendom have split the majority of the world into completely irreconcilable and violently opposed spheres.
Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.
By the way, when I say "politics" I am not addressing political opinions ("right-left-liberal-conservative" whatever). I am talking about politics in the generic sense and the academic sense of how organizations are structured and their decisions carried out. Thank you for the interesting discussion.
So to whom would I be allowed to voice those concerns, if not to a voluntary leader (even at the level of the archdiocese or lower) of that organization?
Write a letter; set up a picket. Create a blog. Join a group dedicated to whatever cause interests you. There are an abundance of ways to "voice" your concerns.
But my showing up in a thread here is not an invitation for you to make me your punching bag, nor to make the topic of the thread whatever complaint against the Catholic Church you might have.
I don't know why this has to be explained. If I say something about what the Catholic Church teaches, of course you're welcome to rebut or disagree or whatever. But many times, as in this very thread! I offer a comment completely unrelated to Catholic teaching, and you choose to hijack the thread to make it about my faith, and me. That's the problem. (E.g., I didn't have a problem with you noting my error about who actually invited in the reporters. That was germane. The rest of your comment about me was not.)
You and I know both know that any such picketing will do no good. Again, this is about having things both ways.
But you raised Anabaptists as a straw man. And that straw man is very different from criticizing Catholic clergy in a very important way:
Anabaptists are not telling the American people or their government to endorse their view that our use of modern technology is WRONG! VERY big difference between their abstention from such politicking and you telling us that gay married couples, as sanctioned by our FREEST of governments and at the highest court in the land, are WRONG!
You had better believe that my view toward confronting an Anabaptist in the manner you mentioned would change 180 degrees if that were the case. If people who had no understanding of electronics went around petitioning me or my representative government to ban them, then I would have a big problem with that, and I would ridicule them about it whenever I felt it warranted.
Likewise, while I have no problem with someone who personally decides to remain celibate, if they pretend that they have the understanding to lecture others represented by my government on issues of sexuality, intimacy and matrimony - ESPECIALLY WHILE WAGING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF MY OTHER FELLOW CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT! - then they are WRONG.
While you may personally see nothing unseemly about celibates lecturing their own parishioners on sexuality, intimacy and matrimony (even though it is, and extremely damaging as any cursory and obvious look at the sex abuse scandals show), once you've deigned to wage a political war on my fellow citizens with a complete lack of deep firsthand, personal experience with those matters - let alone the soul-shattering struggles they've endured to grapple with them, then I feel obliged to tell you not only why you are wrong, but why you are sanctimoniously wrong.
Disgracefully wrong, even.
No man who's never walked a mile in another person's shoes has any right to judge him on behalf of the common, personal rights that others would attempt to deny him.
These are fundamentals in the way that functional societies work. As much as you hate America and its society, most of us know this much. And we and our democratic and judicial process and way of life will endure long after your organization has figured out how to cope with the way its decided (with your very active help) to marginalize itself in the face of this very singular chapter in our venerable and very noble history of progress and the advancement of human rights.
Thank you for your attempt at understanding this, Citizen Fox. I appreciate the lack of pretension or contempt with which you will (if you choose to) respond.
If you truly are a good and decent man, then you will understand the difference between ridiculing someone on behalf of their own personal choices and ridiculing them on behalf of sanctimonious attempts to force them onto others. And I truly hope, for your sake and the sake of at least a few others, that you truly are that good and that decent a man.
But only your response will tell.
Alas, we were having such a reasonable conversation, until that last blast.
Anabaptists are not telling the American people or their government to endorse their view that our use of modern technology is WRONG! VERY big difference between their abstention from such politicking and you telling us that gay married couples, as sanctioned by our FREEST of governments and at the highest court in the land, are WRONG!
I don't agree with your apparent belief that anyone who seeks to influence public policy from their own beliefs loses the right to be treated -- by you -- with courtesy.
Likewise, while I have no problem with someone who personally decides to remain celibate, if they pretend that they have the understanding to lecture others represented by my government on issues of sexuality, intimacy and matrimony - ESPECIALLY WHILE WAGING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF MY OTHER FELLOW CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT! - then they are WRONG.
While you may personally see nothing unseemly about celibates lecturing their own parishioners on sexuality, intimacy and matrimony (even though it is, and extremely damaging as any cursory and obvious look at the sex abuse scandals show), once you've deigned to wage a political war on my fellow citizens with a complete lack of deep firsthand, personal experience with those matters - let alone the soul-shattering struggles they've endured to grapple with them, then I feel obliged to tell you not only why you are wrong, but why you are sanctimoniously wrong.
Disgracefully wrong, even.
This statement is so full of error, it's hard to know where to start.
Let's start this way:
- You apparently hold to the view that only people who have had a personal experience with X can be tolerated to advocate public policy regarding X. Ergo, only those who have engineering experience can be tolerated to express support for public policy involving engineering. And so forth with sexual matters (which you feel so strongly about, you switched over to ALL CAPS). This is simply fallacious.
- I needn't mention, but I will, the factual assumptions you make. Why do you assume, for example, that someone who is celibate hasn't, in fact, "walked a mile" in the shoes of people who are married, gay, sexually active, etc.? A priest ordained the same day as I was, now deceased, was married, and widowed, and had two children. Presumably those children were originated in the usual fashion. Yet, when he entered the seminary, he was celibate.
Do you really suppose candidates for orders never have any "history," as the term goes? Why do you suppose this?
But, in any case, it remains a fallacious argument. It is not reasonable to say that experiential knowledge ("walk a mile") is the only valid knowledge; nor that no other knowledge is valid absent experience. Orville and Wilbur Wright lacked experience in flying, when they invented flying machines. Moreover, it's even more unreasonable for you to assert the privilege of determining, for others, what sorts of knowledge or experience "qualifies" people to participate in a discussion, or in influencing public policy. This next sentence is very important, please attend: no one has given you the authority or privilege of deciding this.
So, to be very concrete: when you come to this blog, it is not you who gets to decide whether other people are qualified (morally or experientally or otherwise) to participate in the discussion. You don't get to shout me down (or anyone else), because you don't think we have a "right" to participate. Wherever my right to participate comes from, it doesn't come from you; and yours, doesn't come from me. To state the obvious: in the case of this blog, it comes from those who "own" it. If they tell me to shut up, or go away, I will do so.
I'm not sure if there is much more to say. It seems a statement of the obvious, but for the sake of clarity: you are entitled to think whatever you like about me, about my Church, and about whatever policy proposals I and/or my Church advances. I consider it fair game for you to argue or disagree or criticize those proposals, or anything else, provided it's germane. If you want to say you think priestly celibacy is a bad idea, fine -- although I reiterate I think it was not germane to this thread.
But it sure looks like your position is this: because you object to me/my Church advocating public policy you don't agree with, you consider that justifies you making any encounter with me, regardless of topic, a legitimate opportunity to rail against me and/or my Church because of the policy proposals you don't like.
If that's true, then we have irreconcilable notions of what's courteous behavior. And in that case, I suggest we return to a no-talk-to-each-other policy. I think we will both have less heartburn. And, after all, when you go after me, that clogs up the thread. When I respond, it clogs it more. Such a no-talk policy will benefit everyone else.
I don't agree with your apparent belief that anyone who seeks to influence public policy from their own beliefs loses the right to be treated -- by you -- with courtesy.
That's not what I said.
What I said is that they lose the right for me to assume that there's nothing about their views that should be safe from criticism or even ridicule. And when people want to restrict my rights or the rights of others, you'd better believe that I don't think that entitles them to any courtesy whatsoever.
As with your erroneous presumption about Anabaptists and the Weird Al video, you'll find that you're also very wrong on this one. Go and poll the American public and see what they think about your proposal to protect the "feelings" of people who agitate for the government to take their rights away.
- You apparently hold to the view that only people who have had a personal experience with X can be tolerated to advocate public policy regarding X.
I apparently hold no such view. I apparently hold the view that not having personal experience with X while receiving copious amounts of public discourse on the tremendous burdens imposed by X entitles those people to more respectful treatment and more thoughtful consideration of their burdens and how they may be practically and charitably resolved than you have given them.
- I needn't mention, but I will, the factual assumptions you make. Why do you assume, for example, that someone who is celibate hasn't, in fact, "walked a mile" in the shoes of people who are married, gay, sexually active, etc.?
I don't assume that. I actually assume that the many gays (and pedophiles) in the priesthood directly results from their being told that their sexuality (as well as most sexually normal behavior) was sinful. Losing that distinction gave them a way of displacing their self-hatred with a hatred for sexuality in general.
It is not reasonable to say that experiential knowledge ("walk a mile") is the only valid knowledge; nor that no other knowledge is valid absent experience.
True, but you are stretching it.
Orville and Wilbur Wright lacked experience in flying, when they invented flying machines.
When you invent a machine that makes people confuse sexually normal behavior with self-hatred then let me know. I am sure the market for that will skyrocket and all its investors will become billionaires. (Sarcastic humor ;-))
Moreover, it's even more unreasonable for you to assert the privilege of determining, for others, what sorts of knowledge or experience "qualifies" people to participate in a discussion, or in influencing public policy. This next sentence is very important, please attend: no one has given you the authority or privilege of deciding this.
There you go with that shame game and playing God with me. It won't work on me and it won't work on the American public. The public feels very privileged to decide if people are hypocritically and condescendingly inflating their credentials for influencing if not just informing public discourse.
So, to be very concrete: when you come to this blog, it is not you who gets to decide whether other people are qualified (morally or experientally or otherwise) to participate in the discussion.
I never said whether they are qualified to "participate in the discussion." I said it's clear whether they are "qualified" to pretend that they know all the answers. Because on this issue, you clearly seem to think you know all the answers. Do you deny that you present yourself as being authoritative enough to know all the answers on this matter?
You don't get to shout me down (or anyone else), because you don't think we have a "right" to participate.
Lol. No one's "shouting you down". You really do make me laugh. What is happening is that you are exposing yourself to ridicule by sanctimoniously acting in the way that the emperor with no clothes did.
Wherever my right to participate comes from, it doesn't come from you; and yours, doesn't come from me.
Oh, for crying out loud! You DO have that right. Look at that! I defended a right of yours while you're chastising me! Imagine that. A fellow citizen coming to the defense of your rights, while you scold him like a schoolmarm, and all about a conversation in which you defend your right to ask for the deprivation of others' rights! Isn't it hilariously ironic!
But that's the strength of liberty. Liberty, it's a wonderful thing. And BTW, liberty is all the Anabaptists wanted when Roman Catholics and other Protestants were viciously persecuting them, even going so far as to drown them for their allegedly sinful "second" baptism practice. Not freedom from ridicule, but liberty. And now, you profess to actually admiring them. Oh, how things change!
But criticizing you or what you say is in no way the same thing as telling you that you have no right to say it. Again, Liberty 101. Maybe being less enamored of ideologically autocratic institutions would endear you to that freedom. Free speech is a two-way street. You can say ridiculous things, even blindly approach them from an obviously stilted perspective, and I can criticize it or ridicule it. It's ok as we don't need a big brother to authorize these things. Or anyone holier than a big brother.
To state the obvious: in the case of this blog, it comes from those who "own" it. If they tell me to shut up, or go away, I will do so.
I love you, Father Fox. But this Mel Gibson victimology stuff is so goofy that I would say it is - if I can borrow a phrase - "beneath you". No on is asking you to go away. Even I am not asking you to go away.
I am just asking you to examine your blind spots.
If you want to say you think priestly celibacy is a bad idea, fine -- although I reiterate I think it was not germane to this thread.
Maybe it was not entirely germane to thread. Fair point. But I do think it encourages a naive and sanctimonious mindset - and one less likely to learn the things that would have avoided confusing basic issues of property rights. The rewards of leadership - even if justified through self-denial (whether it comes easily or not) come at the expense of neglecting an understanding of how the broader world works. Again, power corrupts. Isolation (in any form) has its drawbacks.
But it sure looks like your position is this: because you object to me/my Church advocating public policy you don't agree with, you consider that justifies you making any encounter with me, regardless of topic, a legitimate opportunity to rail against me and/or my Church because of the policy proposals you don't like.
But it wasn't just your church that did this. It was your own personal (and strong IIRC) agreement with it.
If that's true, then we have irreconcilable notions of what's courteous behavior.
That would be unfortunate, but I hope it's not entirely true. I think you do want to learn about a good number of the quirks and conundrums of the world in which we live - both secular and Christological, and we both like to get our points across and influence debate.
Further, I think we both have blind spots as to when we overstep certain bounds and inadvertently hurt others. And yet, I think each of us would feel compelled to regret it and/or apologize if we knew that's what we were doing.
So I actually don't think we're so unalike in certain respects. (But I'm happy to let you think so if it makes you less dyspeptic ;-))
And in that case, I suggest we return to a no-talk-to-each-other policy. I think we will both have less heartburn. And, after all, when you go after me, that clogs up the thread. When I respond, it clogs it more. Such a no-talk policy will benefit everyone else.
Again, I can understand your holding this view - but let's not presume to speak for others. You're free to propose it and I'm free to agree or disagree - in which case of the latter you could go on ignoring me.
But I would like to believe that there is much to be learned from dialogue, and when you ventured out into this one I was able to see more of the godlier and ethically idealistic ways that you possess. But if you think it's better to depart from the dialectical path, and leave the thread to the horizons of the ethernet, then I will wish you love, and peace, and success in your ministry, and just accept that this specific issue was too divisive for us to overcome.
But remember the example of history - and the Anabaptists. One day they were being persecuted - a few hundred years later, admired. I (perhaps naively) believe we owe it to history to see that perspective in our own democratic tribulations. You (perhaps naively) may believe that we don't.
PAX
I think we're done. I really have nothing to add. I think you misunderstand me -- or, better to say, I have not made myself sufficiently clear. I have little hope that plowing forward is going to make much difference. I think we have, at present, irreconcilable notions of what is civil interaction, and I don't want heartburn, nor do I want to give it to you. So I intend not to reply on your comments.
I don't think you actually read them.
I think you misunderstand me -- or, better to say, I have not made myself sufficiently clear.
There is actually a more interesting possibility. Did you consider the possibility that you may have been... wrong? That seems to be the part that's missing here. Of course, since you've conveniently exited at a point when you had a chance to clarify such ethical questions to someone you called "basically decent", no one will know. But it seems that you feel that you are above being corrected on anything related to how people relate to one another. Is it really "irreconcilable differences"? Or is it about you needing to feel that you are inevitably right? And if the latter, how would that be a good example to set for the cause of "civilized behavior"?
I daresay there are worse problems in the world than heartburn. I also daresay that neighbors who merely give each other heartburn are still experiencing a more civilized state of affairs than were the people who tortured and massacred Anabaptists a mere few hundred years ago.
I hope you're feeling safe from the threat of excess stomach acid. And what a shame it would be if your conscience was ever as troubled as your stomach lining.
Fr Martin Fox said...
"What part of the Constitution gives government the power to give tours of someone's private homes? If the government secures a search warrant, and seizes my papers or computer files, does the government then have the right to publish all that for all to see?"
1. No part.
2. No.
I thought I'd seen somewhere that the FBI had allowed the media in. I was mistaken.
Post a Comment