Sunday, November 3, 2013

Real website coming soon.

Just putting that out there. Something about the past few weeks has flipped a switch in me mentally, and I'd like to provide another online site that deals with reason, theism, arguments and everything generally related to my philosophical and social interests. Maybe even a book or two.

So hey, stay tuned. Posting this so it will serve as a reminder to me to get this done.

60 comments:

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Well, well! Heh. Sounds great, man.

BenYachov said...

Well I see the Chick Comics Fan club is pleased.

But even non-Catholics, bad Catholics and pseudo-Catholics can be Classic Theists.

Crude said...

Chick Comics Fan Club? Come on, Ben.

BenYachov said...

Crude,

Chick Comics & those of their ilk like to take take quotes from various Catholics and or Catholic Theology sources out of context..

Read into them their own meaning contrary to the meaning they naturally have & set them against seemingly contrary Bible quotes.

What is the difference between doing that with Catholic doctrine in general or doing that to Pope Francis specifically?

None as far as I am concerned.

That is how I see it.

BenYachov said...

BTW you just have to tell me straight up you don't want a fight here & I'll honor it.

Crude said...

Ben,

I appreciate that, but it's actually not my concern. I think your comment misses the mark.

I do disagree with Codg about a fair amount of things he's written about Pope Francis. But so what? He's a Catholic who grappling with some of what the Pope said, the reactions to it, etc.

Fighting isn't the problem.

BenYachov said...

My analysis is he is not merely grappling he is smearing.

There is a moral difference.

BTW I am still waiting for him to either disavow his claim Pope Francis taught error on conscience or tell me why my rebuttal is wrong.

But he is too busy manufacturing new attacks to be bothered to justify any of them.

I find that morally offensive. I expect it from the like of Paps but a supposed Catholic should know better.

Crude said...

I don't find what he's doing to be smearing. I sink, at worst, he is loading up a lot of his blog posts with very many Internet memes and that tends to come across as flippant and mocking. Otherwise, I think he is expressing concerns that he has and is making various analyses. I disagree with a good share of those analyses, but I don't think any intentional smearing is going on.

Paps is a completely different phenomenon.

BenYachov said...

We are not going to agree. But I believe reason is on my side here.

You are free to think differently & that goes without saying.

Crude said...

Not a problem.

You two may fight here, though I'd say try to keep it on topic, not just out of left field barbs.

BenYachov said...

I'm still wait for Chick comics boy to answer his reckless charge that Pope Frances taught error in regards to Conscience.

The one I destroyed that he still ignores so he pull a Papalinton & jsut flings more monkey poop hoping nobody will notice.

I don't read his blog because he banned me(thought I can get an idea reading the blurbs on the blog role here).

I guess shining a bright light on his monkey poop factory was too much for him.

Anyway I don't read his blog because as a rule I ignore blogs that ban me.

I've haven't read Stephen Law's for years except on time when I noticed him complaining about me months after I left.

So anytime Codgigator (aka Chick Comics with Rosary beads) wants to man up and answer me he knows where to find me.

OTOH if he just wants to pull a Paps & pretend he didn't screw up royally with his attack on Francis regarding conscience and keep flinging monkey Poop at our spiritual Father. Well it's called mortal sin.........

Crude said...

Great. I don't agree with your criticisms of Codg, but they're yours to make. The only relevant rule here is that you don't get into off-topic discussions.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Crude:

Are you looking to do something like Brandon Vogt's outreach to atheists (viz. "another online site")? Or may I ask what clever angle you've struck upon? I know writing and responding to many topics takes a lot of time, so no pressure pr rush, I'm just excited to see what you're bringing together.

Crude said...

Codg,

If Vogt is who I think he is, I find his approach to be highly flawed. I think I was critical of it at the time - he was expressly running around looking for 'dialog' with the New Atheists in particular, which I think was doomed from the get-go. It's like looking for dialogue specifically with irrational people. I mean, I wish him well, but I think this tendency for Christians to try and be buddy-buddy with people who see them as little more than virus-infected people to be cured or purged is just sad.

I have a particular message I want to focus on, one that may well involve me having to convince theists as well as atheists and irreligious. I'll need time, but I should be buying the site name today.

By the way: what specific Vatican II documents do you want me to comment on?

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Yeah, I had in mind your post about Vogt, but I couldn't recall how far your disagreement ran.

Oh, I was just replying to your comment that you had a lot of things you wanted to communicate with me, and that they all generally had to do with the Vatican II. I'm not sure what to make of Vatican II sometimes anymore. No particular documents, more just the context and impact and significance of it, I guess. A meta-post, as it were.

Crude said...

To be honest, I'm pretty reluctant to be very deeply critical of Vogt. I do not know the man. I do not know his motivations. And he has a lot of serious intellectual contenders signing on with him last I checked - I saw Feser on there, among others. Maybe they see something I don't?

But when I checked, I specifically saw that Vogt wanted dialog with 'New Atheists'. If he wanted dialog with 'atheists', okay. Irreligious? Sure. People critical of Christianity? Alright. But the New Atheists specifically? Red flags and warnings go up. Doubly so when it becomes 'Let me host a site, and I'm going to give New Atheists a voice on it too to show how fair I am!'

And you know, I suspected you were asking me something like that, but couldn't be sure. It took me a while to realize that when people talk about 'Vatican II', they often don't mean, you know... Vatican II, the documents that came out with it, etc. Instead it's more about... something real, but more nebulous. Like, 'The attitude of a particular group of people that saw in their interpretation of the spirit of Vatican II as...' Etc.

Which puts me in a bind. Because if you ask me 'Do you think the Catholic Church should update its outreach and approach to the modern world?', suddenly I'm getting a sentence that can mean many things. It can mean 'Do you think the Catholic Church should be using the internet, TV, movies, video games, blogs and more to communicate its teachings and message?' In which case, yes, God, a thousand times yes. But it can also mean 'Do you think the Catholic Church should ordain female priests, bless gay marriage, and...' Well, no, of course not, that's stupid. 'Should the church engage in dialog with non-believers?' Sure, okay, sounds fundamental really. 'Okay, but dialog means regarding their stances on abortion as legitimate and reasonable.' Well, no, not that.

That gets more difficult when you ask me, say... the impact of Vatican II, but removed from the documents - more the cultural force of it. Well, I can say there is no shortage of absolute goddamn idiots who crow "Vatican II! Vatican II!" whenever they demand that a lesbian transexual in a polygamous relationship be ordained as a priest. But is that Vatican II's doing? Or some manipulative idiots? Did Vatican II create the LCWR fiasco? Or were these people already in the church or primed to enter it with an eye on revolution, and they'd manipulate whatever they could to lend even the imitation of intellectual grounding to get their way?

Look at your recent post about gay marriage in Illinois. Did Pope Francis really enable that? Because as near as I can tell, there was a group of pro-gay-marriage legislators who were already committed to legalizing gay marriage, and one of them bullshitted about Pope Francis to justify his decision. Pelosi was bullshitting about Catholic teaching on (say) abortion when Benedict was in power - was Benedict at fault too?

BenYachov said...

>Look at your recent post about gay marriage in Illinois. Did Pope Francis really enable that?

But I'm sure the Codg man enables anti-Catholic fundamentalists to undermine people's faith and trust in the the Church. Not to mention green lighting the smear mongering of Gnu crowd.

Just saying...

BTW is the Codg man going to respond to his smears regarding Pope Francis' teaching on conscience or is he too much of a big girl?

I'd love to look at his juvenile reasoning behind faulting Pope Francis for gay marriage in Illinois but I have no guarantee he wouldn't just drop that topic and move on to the next smear of the Pope when he can't answer.

Again just saying....

BenYachov said...

In my experience with the John Paul II smear mongers back before the turn of the 20th century the complaint about Vatican II was that it used imprecise ambiguous and novel language & caused the theological confusion & liberalism in the wake of the council.

Of course I would always ask for examples from the text itself from the usual suspects and get imprecise, ambiguous and novel non-responses.

Tragically the more things change the more they stay the same.

You can't cite correlation as proof of causation.

It's a statistical fact more Rapes are reported to the police on day where large amount of ice cream are bought and consumed.

That is because more rapes are reported to the police on hot days when people are also likely to eat ice cream.

But only an idiot would claim Ice Cream causes rape because of the statistical correlation.

Francis telling us to be compassionate towards gays and not to excessively focus on homosexuality doesn't equal "support for gay marriage".

BenYachov said...

BTW as an after thought...

Liberal dissident so called Catholics who cited the "Spirit of Vatican II" to justify their heterodox nonsense that goes all the way back to the 60's like their Reactionary pseudo traditionalist counter part never cited the text of Vatican II either.

Birds of a Feather those who attack the Holy Church from both the far left and right.

Crude said...

But I'm sure the Codg man enables anti-Catholic fundamentalists to undermine people's faith and trust in the the Church. Not to mention green lighting the smear mongering of Gnu crowd.

Really, Ben - I don't think what Codg or I say are of much rhetorical use to the Cult of Gnu right now. And frankly, I think the absolute last thing the Gnus want to say is 'Hey look, the Pope approves of gay marriage and..!' Etc. That, oddly enough, runs exactly contrary to the message they want to promote. 'The Pope who loves the gays!' is poison to them.

BTW is the Codg man going to respond to his smears regarding Pope Francis' teaching on conscience or is he too much of a big girl?

Ben, I have disagreed with Codg directly on the issue of Pope Francis' teachings on conscience. But no, I don't think he's engaging in smears. Smears are intentional things.

I think this is precisely the situation where calm, reasoned discussion is exactly what's needed, not hysteria. What, precisely, do you want out of Codg here? A complete cessation of criticizing the Pope, or pointing out problems in what the Pope has said? Do you think he makes no valid criticisms at all? Even I think the Pope's communication could have been better - though that's not saying much.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Oh, I agree that they schmarriage was entrenched before the interviews, I just find it disheartening to see the Holy Father's well meaning but, well, just call them "off the cuff" being so easily injected into matters like this. I'm dreading the day I see a Pope Francis Who Am I To Judge? T-shirt. If Pelosi had cited Benedict as the liberal barnacles are doing, I think the cases would be more parallel. It's just seems pretty evident to me that whatever "new approach" the Church has been taking since Vatican II has not been fruitful, and that this current Peronist papacy is just greasing the tracks of the crazy train, especially as that train pretty clearly seems to be in the hands of liberal guerillas.

BenYachov said...

>But no, I don't think he's engaging in smears. Smears are intentional things.

Then why doesn't he answer me then? Why after I rebutted his horseshit on the Pope did he post a laundry list of attacks on his holiness?

I get that from the anti-Catholics I have argued with. I show them Isa 22 alongside Matt 16:18 make an argument for the papacy they response by ignoring me & giving a laundry list of Bible verses that supposidly contradict Church teaching.

He is no different. So he is a smear mongerer.

>I think this is precisely the situation where calm, reasoned discussion is exactly what's needed, not hysteria.

Tell that to Codg all his attacks on the Pope are hysteria based. Not reason based. Malcohm the Cynic makes rational criticism of the Pope.
Codg gives me monkey poop.

>What, precisely, do you want out of Codg here? A complete cessation of criticizing the Pope, or pointing out problems in what the Pope has said?

I want him to be fair to the Pope & respectful & doubt himself.

Instead I get a triumphalist jerkoff who labels all who take offense at his monkey poop and unfair analysis as belonging to a Papal personality cult.

>Do you think he makes no valid criticisms at all? Even I think the Pope's communication could have been better - though that's not saying much.

Bullshit! I said JP2 wasn't a very good administrator as Pope. I criticised him. Malcohm the Cynic made some valid Criticism over at his blog. I agreed with him.

But Malcohm has also noted I am treating the Codg no differently then the way he treats the Pope.

That will continue till he mans up & stops with the unfair attacks.

BenYachov said...

>Really, Ben - I don't think what Codg or I say are of much rhetorical use to the Cult of Gnu right now.

Dude have I accused you of anything?

No I haven't. My fight is with Codg not you bro.

BenYachov said...

>Even I think the Pope's communication could have been better.

So do I but even if we are super clear that is no guarantee the media who pushes the meme "war on women" to justify forcing Catholics to violate their religion is going to give the Pope a fair shake or keep those supposed faithful "catholics" in the "Francis Bad! You Papal Personality Cult!" camp from moving the goal posts.

Plus no Pope has ever been so clear otherwise they would need successors to clarify what they teach.

Heck my citation from the 1910 Catholic Encylopedia on Idolarty could with ease be misused by a Universalist heretic.

Crude said...

Ben,

Then why doesn't he answer me then? Why after I rebutted his horseshit on the Pope did he post a laundry list of attacks on his holiness?

What attacks? Name them, please. I'd like to see what you're seeing.

Dude have I accused you of anything?

It's not a question of accusation, but of scope. Like it or not, Codg and I are the most minor of minor individuals online. I don't think the Cult profits much from our gaffes, whatever they are. Nor yours, really.

Crude said...

Codg,

Oh, I agree that they schmarriage was entrenched before the interviews, I just find it disheartening to see the Holy Father's well meaning but, well, just call them "off the cuff" being so easily injected into matters like this.

See, this always returns to the thing that drives me crazy: it's not that the Pope has said anything wrong, or even that he said anything that he knew, intended, and hoped would be taken in the negative context it is. It's that the Pope said something and, whether or not he intended or wanted it, some jackass went out there and misrepresented him. But the Pope should have KNOWN that would happen, so why didn't he choose words more carefully? Bad Pope. Etc.

The problem is, it's difficult to assign blame here. A lot of people seem to think the answer is, basically, 'Only talk about homosexuality in a clearly condemning context.' Guess what? The same SoLibs who love to quote the Pope and misrepresent him absolutely *ADORE* that strategy. It makes it even easier to represent anyone critical of same-sex sexual behavior as 'Thinking all gays are going to hell for matters totally outside of their control!' A move, by the way, which has been ridiculously successful in a short period of time. So that move is suicidal too.

I think it is very common among SoCons to regard 'being cast as a mean, angry, hateful person' as some kind of good thing, because at least a mean, angry, hateful person can't really be accused of being liberals or endorsing liberalism. They don't seem to understand that the Westboro Baptist Church was made into the media's emblem for 'opposition to same-sex marriage, etc' for a reason.

BenYachov said...

>Oh, I agree that they schmarriage was entrenched before the interviews, I just find it disheartening to see the Holy Father's well meaning but, well, just call them "off the cuff" being so easily injected into matters like this.

This reminds a debate Scott Hahn participated in one of the anti-Catholic fundies got up and complained about Pope John Paul II visiting a gay Catholic Church in San Francisco as some type of sign he approved of homosexuality.

This guy is no doubt Codg's spiritual cousin.

Wait is what I just said unfair?

Yes it was but no different then Codg.

Crude said...

Ben,

Like I said - I want to see these attacks and smears you're talking about Codg making. Please present them. I will go over them with you. We'll see if you can at least convince me if Codg went over the line.

BenYachov said...

>What attacks? Name them, please. I'd like to see what you're seeing.

That whole blog of his is one giant steaming pile of snarky monkey poop aimed at the Pope!!!!

Seriously that is like asking me where are the attacks on religion in the GOD DELUSION!

It's exploded since I was given the boot.

BenYachov said...

>Like I said - I want to see these attacks and smears you're talking about Codg making. Please present them. I will go over them with you. We'll see if you can at least convince me if Codg went over the line.

"As Illinois House approves gay marriage, speaker cites Pope Francis"

Blaming Pope Francis for this is not going over the line?

Crude I am STILL waiting for Chick Comics boy to man up and answer me on conscience!

I am not going to wade threw the sewer that is his Blog.

Crude said...

Ben,

Than that should make it incredibly easy to name one. Pick your top three. Let's see these smears.

I would like to be on the same exact page as you when I evaluate this.

BenYachov said...

>November 7, 2013 at 3:11 PM

AMEN!!!!!!!

Crude said...

Ben,

Blaming Pope Francis for this is not going over the line?

That example seems problematic. I don't see Codg blaming the Pope. He's reporting that some idiot politician invoked the Pope to justify his decision. That did happen.

Now, did Codg go ahead and say 'This is the Pope's fault!'? You yourself gave an example of Popes' actions being taken out of context as endorsing this or that.

BenYachov said...

>Than that should make it incredibly easy to name one. Pick your top three. Let's see these smears.

I just did but this thing doesn't post in real time. I cited him hanging the legalization of gay marriage on the Pope.

I am still waiting for an answer on conscience.

Or go look up the Pope Francis drinking game. That went up right after I pointed out Cofg blunder on Pope Francis and Conscience?

He then promised I could post because he has nothing to hide then revoked it for my foul language but later uses the word "bullshit" on his own blog.

Go figure.


BenYachov said...

>That example seems problematic.

It's disrepectful & detraction & clearly posted to attack the Pope.


>Now, did Codg go ahead and say 'This is the Pope's fault!'? You yourself gave an example of Popes' actions being taken out of context as enorsing this or that.

Well Richard Dawkins never explicitly said Catholic Children should be take from their parent either.

But I think we all know what he means by "Teaching Catholicism is worst than sex abuse".

Crude said...

Ben,

It's disrepectful & detraction & clearly posted to attack the Pope.

In that particular case, no. He is literally just reporting a fact. Your Scott Hahn quote can't reasonably be called an attack on PJPII, right? I mean as in you yourself attacking.

Well Richard Dawkins never explicitly said Catholic Children should be take from their parent either.

Dawkins explicitly said that raising a child Catholic is worse than 'mild' sex abuse. You don't really have to extrapolate anything to see Dawkins is out of his goddamn mind. The problem there isn't 'what's implied by what he said' but what he said itself. So I don't think the comparison works.

BenYachov said...

Crude I realize you see Codg as a friend & I would be the last person to try to turn someone against a friend. I myself tend to treat my friends with a level of heroic charity I don't often employ toward non friends I get that & the later is a failing on my part as well. I own that weakness.

But I simply don't agree with you about Codgitator.

>In that particular case, no. He is literally just reporting a fact. Your Scott Hahn quote can't reasonably be called an attack on PJPII, right? I mean as in you yourself attacking.

No by his own words IMHO Codg is implying the Pope by his own allegedly irresponsible "off the cuff" choice of words is somehow responsible for the liberal yahoo misusing him & equally implying that Benedict's words are so gosh darn clear all the time they could not be abused in that manner by the likes of someone like Pelosi without it being obvious.

My citation of Scott Hahn was to show Codj who snarks against Pope Francis & the anti-Catholic who attacked JP2 are driven by the same spirit and neither wants to be fair.

BTW when JP2 visited a Gay Catholic Church he urged them to repent and denounced hatred of them as people. He & Francis are cut from the same cloth.

>Dawkins explicitly said that raising a child Catholic is worse than 'mild' sex abuse. You don't really have to extrapolate anything to see Dawkins is out of his goddamn mind. The problem there isn't 'what's implied by what he said' but what he said itself. So I don't think the comparison works.

I respectfully don't agree. I think it is clear when Gnus attack the teaching of religion to children by their own parents that is code for "You shouldn't be allowed in law to teach religion too your children". Nobody who reads Codg blog can come away with anything but the impression he is out to get the man at all costs.

Anymore then anybody can read THE REMNANT & think they where positively predisposed toward JP2.

Yes I am comparing Codg to anti-Catholic fundies and reactionary pseudo Traditionalists. Only because he has gone out of his way to act toward the Pope like they do.

Doesn't he see that?

Crude said...

Ben,

But I simply don't agree with you about Codgitator.

That's fine. All I'm after here is an argument, and there, only if you want to put it up. I don't really defend people I'm friends with even if I disagree with them. if I did, I wouldn't be on Ilion's shitlist.

No by his own words IMHO Codg is implying the Pope by his own allegedly irresponsible "off the cuff" choice of words is somehow responsible for the liberal yahoo misusing him & equally implying that Benedict's words are so gosh darn clear all the time they could not be abused in that manner by the likes of someone like Pelosi without it being obvious.

See, this is where I disagree with you. 'Obvious' is subjective. There's a lot of goddamn morons out there.

Nor did I, in this case, see Codg laying the blame on the Pope. He was lamenting the situation, but not assigning blame.

I think it is clear when Gnus attack the teaching of religion to children by their own parents that is code for "You shouldn't be allowed in law to teach religion too your children".

Right, but notice that trying to attack them based on motivations is a pretty risky affair. They can just say 'Well, no, I don't believe that' (which Dawkins did). But what Dawkins DID say is plenty condemnable too.

I don't see that with Codg. I prefer to step lightly when it comes to motivation - a track record helps, but Codg's track record is pretty good.

I think Codg has been way too critical of the Pope in some posts. Absolutely. I'd even say I think he's been disrespectful. But I think your reaction goes too far too. Rather like how Mark Shea's reactions, calling papal critics 'bedwetters' across the board, is a bad move.

BenYachov said...

Well as you know when it comes to defending either Pope or the Faith I believe Mark Shea is usually on the side of the Angels. Outside that narrow scope he turns to shit especially in politics.

>See, this is where I disagree with you. 'Obvious' is subjective. There's a lot of goddamn morons out there.

Well it seems "obvious" to Codg that something is grievoulty wrong with the Pope's communication skills and it seems obvious if he condemns Proselytizing that must be he condemns Evangelizing. It is also obvious anybody who takes understandable offense at his over the top snarks must only be doing so motivated by a blind obedience to the Pope and not a simple obedience to mere justice.

>I prefer to step lightly when it comes to motivation - a track record helps, but Codg's track record is pretty good.

I'll take your word for it & would say when it comes to either defending the Faith or the Pope Mark is the same way but with Codg when it comes to Pope Francis he turns to shit. No doubt he has been good in other areas.

I am upset over the shit since shit smells bad.


So why can't he just cut the shit?

Peace Crude.

Crude said...

Well it seems "obvious" to Codg that something is grievoulty wrong with the Pope's communication skills

I think Codg is making a reasonable case that the Pope has, at the very least, some problems communicating. The Vatican has been signalling that the Pope's interview (which started a lot of this) was not totally accurate. The reaction from liberals and conservatives has been less than ideal. I personally think a good portion of this is people being frantic, or (in the liberal case) lying. But it's not clear cut and obvious.

It is also obvious anybody who takes understandable offense at his over the top snarks must only be doing so motivated by a blind obedience to the Pope and not a simple obedience to mere justice.

I've been critical of Codg's tone and conclusions, and he's not accused me of this. Of course, I've also gone out of my way to point out I think Shea is godawful wrong on this subject too. Too much passion, not enough sense.

Here's what I think is happening here: I think Codg was hitting the Pope, hard. In fact, too hard - I think his analyses were off-base at points, but worse, his tone was too mocking. When you go through a post and it's heavy on the forehead slaps and other stuff, that can be pretty goading. I also think that even when he made reasonable criticisms, guys like Shea just dumped on him (maybe him specifically, maybe critics in general.) Basically, I think the whole thing has been a mess from various angles, and a lot of it comes down to everyone getting worked up and passionate.

I also think he's cooled off on that recently, and that some of what you're criticizing him for is off-base. Jumping the gun. That's why I wanted you to bring out your criticisms - so we could actually discuss them, clear things up. I save my attack dog antics for guys whose opinions I do not give a shit about, or who I think are going to end up as lost causes. It's not operative here.

BenYachov said...

Shawn McElhinney someone I once considered a friend but we had a falling out(don't ask I don't want to air the dirty laundry. It's between him and me) reminds me why I once considered him a friend. He gives a great take down of Steve Skojec attacks on the Pope.

Shawn has always been a thorn in the side of the reactionary pseudo-traditionalist crowd. It's even more fun Kevin T his host is one of the major sane voices of authentic Traditionalism. So it's not a Trad vs Con war. It's mere right and wrong. Being just vs being a jerk. This takes me back.

http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/2013/11/guest-editorial-on-cursing-darkness.html

BenYachov said...

>I also think he's cooled off on that recently, and that some of what you're criticizing him for is off-base. Jumping the gun. That's why I wanted you to bring out your criticisms - so we could actually discuss them, clear things up.

Fair enough.

BenYachov said...

BTW if Codg just made reasonable criticisms sans the off-base hard hitting ones laced with layers of snark & hysteria I doubt even Mark would have said boo.

I know wouldn't have.

I also know I will wait in vain for Codg to acknowledge he made a grave error in suggesting Pope Francis taught error in regards to conscience.

That last bit is why I cannot respect the man.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Look, Crude, I'm DYING over here WAITING for you to get that post about Vatican II up--no, wait, it just dawned on me that you're a busy man, and shouldn't let your blog be run by manic outsiders with their pet issues. I know you've said you'll get around to it, so I'm happy to wait. There's plenty else to do in life besides hounding you for an immediate reply about an issue you've already said that you will address when the time comes. How childish would that be?

BenYachov said...

>There's plenty else to do in life besides hounding you for an immediate reply about an issue you've already said that you will address when the time comes. How childish would that be?

It's interesting how you find the time to print every smear & snarky detraction you can find on the net of the Pope without putting one ounce of time in vetting any of it.

But of course the issue is rather straight forward. In the link you provided me that you claimed gives evidence the Pope was somehow teaching the error that we simply need an appeal to conscience alone to determine objective right and wrong turns out was merely about what was required of non-believers by negation for salvation.

Which is they follow their conscience just as 1910 Catholic Encylopedia says in regards to the salvation of Infidels by negation who worship idols.

So either respond or own your mistake.

You have time to attack the Pope like any anti-Catholic fundie beast or Gnu but no time to even vet the shit you put on your blog attacking him?

WTF?????

Man up already!

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Crude, to give you an idea of how I can sympathize with your demands offline and as a blogger, here's a recent post, which you probably already saw, wherein I outline the things I hope to cover in the near future at my blog.

Let me know when you get a chance to see "Network." Curious of your thoughts.

BenYachov said...


>I want to organize and deepen my comments from another blog for a critique of a key defect in the Pope’s teaching on conscience, as it may be the only point on which I can say with certitude that he’s wrong and must retract the statement as a heretical claim.

Of course there is no defect in the Pope's teaching on conscience or heretical claims just the pathetic rantings of an obvious amateur arm chair "theologian" & a morally dishonest one at that. .

BTW here is Francis quote in context from the link provided to me by Codg himself.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari_en.html

"I now wish to address the three questions from your article of 7 August. I believe that in the first two questions, what interests you is to understand the attitude of the Church towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. Above all, you ask if the God of Christians forgives those who do not believe and who do not seek faith. Given the premise, and this is fundamental, that the mercy of God is limitless for those who turn to him with a sincere and contrite heart, the issue for the unbeliever lies in obeying his or her conscience. There is sin, even for those who have no faith, when conscience is not followed. Listening to and obeying conscience means deciding in the face of what is understood to be good or evil. It is on the basis of this choice that the goodness or evil of our actions is determined."

Here is again the Quote from the 1910 Catholic Encylopedia in the entry under Idolatry..

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm

QUOTE" Considered in itself, idolatry is the greatest of mortal sins………………………….No sin is mortal — i.e. debars man from attaining the end for which he was created — that is not committed with clear knowledge and free determination. But how many, or how few, of the countless millions of idolaters are, or have been, able to distinguish between the one Creator of all things and His creatures? and, having made the distinction, how many have been perverse enough to worship the creature in preference to the Creator? — It is reasonable, Christian, and charitable to suppose that the "false gods" of the heathen were, in their conscience, the only true God they knew, and that their worship being right in its intention, went up to the one true God with that of Jews and Christians to whom He had revealed Himself. "In the day when God shall judgethe secrets of men by Jesus Christ . . . . . the gentiles who have not the law, shall be judged by their conscience" (Romans 2:14-16).God, who wishes all men to be saved, and Christ, who died for all who sinned in Adam, would be frustrated in their merciful designs if the prince of this world were to carry off all idolaters.END

So what is the difference?

BenYachov said...

The Pope does not need to retract anything on conscience. Rather arrogant & incompetent lay persons need to retract their slander.


The quote I produced from the link given by Chick Comics Boy(aka Codg) is the sole mention of conscience in the whole document. From it no reasonable person can conclude the Holy Father was teaching the peculiar error that claims all objective or moral truth can be determined by conscience alone.

That is not true one needs a properly formed conscience. Thought an erroneous conscience as per moral dogma binds & we sin if we transgress it.

But as we can see from the context the Holy Father is talking about the role conscience plays in the salvation of non-believers who do not know the truth. Does God forgive them & save them and if so on what basis? The answer the Holy Father gives is the same as the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia. Conscience.

There is nothing in the text of the Holy Father that deserves the isogesis of Codg that he was in anyway outlining a general theory of determining objective right and wrong based on the error that conscience alone determines it without being properly formed.

But Codg's error is obvious & his cowardice in putting it off to the future is understandable.

I wouldn't be surprised if he put it off all together.

BenYachov said...


BTW here is The Friendly Atheist's reflection on the Pope latest Encyclical Light of Faith. Apparently he is not happy (mind you he is not frothing at the mouth. I only wish certain so called Catholic would learn from his example) with the Pope's very Catholic view of Atheism and that He hasn't really changed anything the Church teaches.

We can read it here.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/02/pope-francis-first-encyclical-shows-what-he-really-believes-about-unbelievers/

BenYachov said...

Of course this is the only other blurb regarding conscience which comes from the Scalfari interview.

Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.
"And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

This of course is true. Even an erroneous conscience binds and you sin if you transgress it.

To cite Aquinas:

"Moreover, according to Damascene, conscience is the 'law of our intellect.' But to act against the law is a sin. Therefore in whatever way a conscience be erroneous, it binds" (Article 4, sed contra: ibid., p. 233)."

"But those who say [this sort of thing] seem not to understand what it is for conscience to bind. That conscience binds means that when when does not follow it he incurs sin, not that one following it does the right thing. ... Therefore conscience is not said to oblige us to do something because to follow it is good but because not to follow entails sin. ..."END

Codg channeling his inner Paps is equivocating the error, that objective acts are made right or wrong on the basis conscience alone(which is not found in Pope Francis' teaching) with the Pope's actual teaching we are bound to our conscience which of course is the Church and Aquinas' teaching as well.

But Codg would rather slander the Pope by claiming falsely he believes & is teaching objective acts are made right or wrong based on the judgement of conscience.

An error to be sure but one not taught by the Pope.

Sorry Codg you are wrong. I can see why you want to push this discussion off to the future. I guess you hope it will die down so you can continue to slander the Pope.


BenYachov said...

"My point in defending the pope is not, as his accusers keep insisting, that he is above all question and that his every stray action and remark is infallible. It is that he is innocent until proven guilty and awful lot of people are ready to accuse him of heresy on the flimsiest provocation."-Mark Shea

I've said it on the other thread when it comes to defending the Faith, church or Pope, Mark Shea is common sense and sanity itself(of course bring up politics and all that goes away but we covered that already).

How is this unreasonable? Why is it wrong to assume the Pope is innocent till proven guilty?

Why did Codg read into the Pope's brief statements on conscience a heretical interpretation? Yet I with ease found an orthodox one?

Well I am trying to be fair to the Pope.

Codg should try it sometime.

BenYachov said...

BTW am I being fair to the Codg?

Not really. But I am sure he finds it as pleasant as the rest of us do his treatment of Pope Benedict.

Stephen Spencer said...

Unfortunately for Ben's point, the atheist and his audience were not conversant on Aquinas. Rather, given their outlook, they understood the comment to mean that they were fine: they did not need a Savior. They did not need to form their consciences in accordance with Church teachings.

The atheist made that quite clear, and yet the Pope did not make the needed clarification.

The issue is ALMOST a secular one of communication: sound principles of adult education based upon our human nature.

There is no such thing as a successful, prudent communication approach which causes wide-spread confusion.

Stephen Spencer said...

Why are their conflicts among orthodox Catholics? As Pope John XXIII said in Ad Petri Cathedram (1959): "But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity." A few possible reasons for the conflicts:

1. In systematic theology, all things are related: so it is hard to draw a line between “essentials” and “doubtful matters.” So, essential matters that are part of the Magisterium are sometimes directly connected with matters concerning which we may disagree in good faith.

2. “Doubtful matters” often concern very serious issues: it doesn’t seem right, in a way, that they are doubtful. We can easily understand Protestantism--private judgement concerning ALL things, and a religion which defines ALL things--leaving no room for personal judgement at all. But Catholicism is one of those in between things...were we have to take up His cross and struggle.

3. The greatest problem is NOT failure to understand the meaning of what is stated by our “opponent”--who, in fact, is on the same team as ourselves...and tearing him down tears ourselves down as well... Rather, the greatest problem is refusal to credit our “opponent” with good faith: to understand what he could NOT possibly mean--given that he is orthodox--and so adjusting our thinking accordingly.

A common example of this is when an orthodox Catholic makes a statement, and another orthodox Catholic strongly “disagrees”--with a statement that is, in fact, not a disagreement at all...but rather a fundamental statement of Catholic theology...as if the original speaker did not know that.

Ben has done a lot of that above, combined with being harshly judgmental: slandering Codgitator by falsely accusing him of slander.

4. Catholics are NOT Nazis except with a good end. That is, Catholics and Nazis do NOT share the same view of obedience and respect to authority: the only difference being that Catholicism directs that Nazi obedience/respect towards a good end rather than an evil one.

Rather, Catholic obedience to, and respect for, authority is fundamentally different. It is something deeper more balanced. An analogy would be the difference between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad).

The underlying difference may well be the centrality of truth in Catholicism--as opposed to the Nazi centrality of the lie. Therefore, a Catholics should not spin, explain away, rationalize, dissemble, state half truths, etc., out of a sense of loyalty like a Nazi: because God is truth...and so truth always leads you towards God...and falsehoods--even if well intended--always lead you away from God.

5. Catholics commonly act in ways to "support" the Popes (or Vatican II) in a way widely at odds with the Pope's (or Vatican II's) own approach: in a sense, they are more Catholic than the Pope…or effectively over-ride the Pope although in his name.

Crude said...

There is no such thing as a successful, prudent communication approach which causes wide-spread confusion.

I disagree. All it takes is someone willing to misrepresent your message and take quotes out of context, and enough people to repeat it.

BenYachov said...

>Unfortunately for Ben's point, the atheist and his audience were not conversant on Aquinas. Rather, given their outlook, they understood the comment to mean that they were fine: they did not need a Savior.

A person determined to believe that would get the same impression from the Catholic Encyclopedia article i quoted. Briefly Crude is right, in my black box of anti-Catholic material which I keep in a place of dishonor in my basement I own a copy of GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ROME written by an ex-Catholic which proposes to compare Catholic Doctrine to the Bible by citing the Catechism. Let's just say it's like reading Codg's smear mongering of the Pope. Apparently the CCC isn't clear enough for the likes of Mr. James McCarthy to see Catholicism as a Biblical faith. I guess the CCC isn't a successful, prudent communication approach either.

>They did not need to form their consciences in accordance with Church teachings. The atheist made that quite clear, and yet the Pope did not make the needed clarification.

I would like to believe you but you have just made a bald assertion. You haven't backed it up with an actual citation of text. So how do I know the Atheist said this? I don't recall Scafari saying the Pope said he was all right and need not be Catholic & that he need not properly form his conscience. A further problem noted by Jimmy Akin with this interview is it may not be a straight forward interview but might be part narrative. Still if your contention here is the old canard the Pope is ambitious (one I heard back in the 90's about JP2,Vatican II, & even the CCC from Reactionary pseudo Trads day after day) then that gives me the lion's share of the argument here against Codg regarding his slander of the Pope on conscience. Since if the Pope isn't clear then he made no clear heterodox statement that needs to be retracted. Unless Codg wants to walk it back & change his claim the Pope made a clear heterodox statement.

Your citations of John XXIII are edifying & your statements about Catholics and authority are interesting too but I fundamentally object to Codg immoral practice of accusing the Pope of heresy on the flimsiest provocation. Why is what Mark Shea said in this particular case unreasonable?

>Ben has done a lot of that above, combined with being harshly judgmental: slandering Codgitator by falsely accusing him of slander.

If my satire here is not obvious let me be more clear. I am treating Codg the same way I & others see him treating the Pope.
It is pleasant is it not? If I am slandering him by going out of my way to be unfair, attribute the worst possible motive to him and presume him guilty till proven innocent well I am just following his shining example.;-)

BenYachov said...

Let me be clear in regards to the Codg slander that Pope Francis in regards to his teachings on conscience. I hope when he gets around to it sometime in the far future after he has no doubt churned out dozens of fresh new accusations against his Holiness and responds to justify this one he doesn't repeat the crap he did over at Dale Price's blog.

Which is he cites this statement " Listening to and obeying conscience means deciding in the face of what is understood to be good or evil. It is on the basis of this choice that the goodness or evil of our actions is determined." Which appears at the end of my full quote above & excludes any reference to the Church's concern for the salvation of non-believers. He reads into it the idea the Pope was proposing a model for determining right & wrong in general for all people and not in the context of the salvation of nonbelievers who do not know. He then goes on to refute this view he reads into the Pope's statement with citations from Aquinas.

The burden of Proof is on the Codg. He must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Pope meant to teach & in fact did teach that objective right and wrong can be determined by conscience alone. The only thing I see is the natural Catholic teaching we are bound to our conscience & road non-believers by negation must walk to obtain eternal life. Nothing more.

I simply see nothing in the "evidence" he provided to make his conclusion. If anything I see great carelessness toward the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

How is that good & why is he surprised it won't be received well among fair minded Catholics?

BenYachov said...

I must go to confession now. My own conscience it bothering me in that I might be returning evil for evil instead of overcoming it with good.

So I should listen to the Holy Father's teachings in this matter.

So from now on I will no longer call Codg "Chick comics boy etc....

But I will still hold his feet to the fire.

BenYachov said...



Now to hold some feet to the fire.

Codg writes on his blog
> I can’t deny that, on the whole, I’m embarassed to call Pope Francis the Vicar of Christ. I have never considered myself a traditionalist, but looking back only a few centuries, I can’t deny that he seems to be the odd man out.

Pete Vere is a Traditionalist. Kevin Tierney is a Traditionalist & Codg simply is not. He is merely a mindless reactionary & I predict will devolve into an embarrassment himself. That is he will become either THE REMNANT lite. or another Rod Dreher or at worst God forbid another Bob Sungenis or Gerry Matatics.

That is his fate unless he repents and changes course.

Here is what a Faithful & rational Catholic blog role looks like(not counting this blog role). He should learn from it.
http://christopherblosser.blogspot.com/2013/09/pope-francis-interview.html

As for the "Odd man out" mishigoss clearly Codg has not been paying attention at all during the reign of John Paul II or listening to the rants of fringe pseudo-Trads on Assisi or kissing the Koran.

Not only does Codg latest post show a lack of prudence, charity and shows amazing disrespect for not only the Holy Father but for his fellow Catholics but manifests an amazing ignorance of even recent Catholic history.

It's sad & it is not reasonable criticism.

PS Christopher Blosser is a know & tough critic Mark Shea so let us not be bored to death with empty posttests about the "papal personality cult".

BenYachov said...

For everyone's attention.

Constructive respectful criticism of the Pope without the bedwetting, slander, disrespect & misplaced sense of shame of wannabe fringers. Nor the recycled apocalyptic mishigoss of reactionary & disordered Anti-Vatican II criticism which is so 1990's.

More of these guys please. I would not say boo to their criticism. It is mature & faithful. Exhortations of the first in rank Presbyter Francis sans forbidden rebuke which is in line with scripture. (1 Tim 5:1)

Carl Olson
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2622/pope_francis_the_good_the_baffling_and_the_unclear.aspx#.UoAFURZbt0h

James V. Schall, S.J.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2619/The_Popes_Chat_With_An_Atheist.aspx#.UoAGaxZbt0h

Robert Royal
http://jesus-logos.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-pope-s-interview-spirit-of-bergoglio.html

Like I said more of these.