Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Codgitating Codgitator

I have nothing to say at the moment, but for the forseeable future this is the catch-all thread for anyone who wants to gripe about or defend Codgitator's writings on Pope Francis.

Keep it here, folks. And by folks I mean Ben. And think the insults through carefully - Christians/theists/thinkers with whom we share some common ground deserve a certain amount of restraint.

39 comments:

BenYachov said...

The source cited by the daily telegraph for the comment that Bishop Pena was released from his duties due to comments on the Regensburg controversy, is Horatio Verbitsky, a columnist for a socialist newspaper & a former leftist guerrilla who wrote a book critical of Pope Francis. He may not exactly be an unimpeachable news source.

Indeed Codj is relying on the words of a the man who wrote "The Silence," a book that falsely charges Pope Francis with withdrawing his order's protection of two Jesuit priests after they refused to quit visiting the slums, paving the way for their capture. A charge that has been answered by the Priests themselves.
Perhaps as an encore Elliot would like to criticize Pius XII maybe he can cite Rolf Hochhuth?

In 2006 Pena submitted his resignation because he turned 75 and he said he wanted to enter the political arena and apparently was active in local politics which the Vatican never likes.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/holy_see_accepts_resignation_of_controversial_argentinean_bishop_who_aspires_to_political_office/

So far the only other source I can find of Francis almost being "canned" by Benedict is the daily telegraph all articles seem to point back to it. So I would take much of this with a grain of salt.

But hey any wad of monkey poo Elliot can throw at Bergoglio in a storm eh? His clueless radtrad wannabe readers will buy it hook line and sinker without doing any checking.

malcolmthecynic said...

Well, here's the thing: I don't have a problem with some, even a lot, of Codg's articles. He can criticize the Pope if he wants. Maybe I agree, maybe I disagree.

What bothers me is Fr. Guido, "malapapalisms", posting youtube videos of silly scenes he thinks are related to what the Pope says, and generally just laughing at his flaws and foibles. "Laugh so you don't cry", maybe, but it's still disrespectful.

And I still don't understand how he doesn't see that sometimes.

malcolmthecynic said...

And for that matter, Codg gets much more support than not on his blog, but over and over again feels the need to justify his actions. And just for Ben's sake?

BenYachov said...


Cardinals who criticized Pope Benedict.

Cardinal Kaspar spoke about the "aggressive new atheism" rife in Britain, prompting a terse and immediate response from the Holy See that his comments were the "personal view of one individual".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/cardinal-ditched-after-criticising-britain-20100916-15el0.html#ixzz2qPHTfGRW

Cardinal Kasper wasn't with Pope Benedict when he arrived on his first visit to Great Britain as Pope. He was said to have been ill.

Cardinal Pell criticized Pope Benedict's decision to step down calling it a destabilizing action, a break with Tradition & said Pope Benedict was a better Theologian then leader. (see the wiki entry on Pell)

Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz criticised two major liturgical changes introduced by Pope Benedict XVI(allowing for more liberty for the Old Rite & translating pro multis to "for many").

Cardinal Schönborn in 2009 criticized Pope Benedict for lifting the excommunication from the SSPX bishops including the holocaust denying Williamson.

If one wants to dismiss Lehmann & Kasper as "liberals" that is fine. But similar charges can't be brought against either Pell or Schönborn. I am not scandalized if Cardinals criticize the Pope. Paul resisted Peter to his Face. But what radtrad extremists and wannabes don't realize is they where both bishops & saints. It seems you must be one or another if you are going to dare criticize the Pope especially publicly and in every other post on your blog.
Rebuke not a Priest but exhort him as a Father.

But it is jaw drop asinine that Codg and his fanboyz believe previous Papal reigns where Camelot.

I note the only one above who was "retaliated" against was Kasper but we pretty much know what he said was 100%. true.

Pope Francis criticizing Pope Benedict over the Muhammed Gaff isn't out of the ordinary(assuming it happened). But the noxious myth (whose only source is the jerk who smeared the Pope & falsely accused him of turning Priests over to the Right Wing Government of Argentina) that the Vatican was planing to retaliate because it temporarily reigned in another South American Bishop (who was notorious for wanting to formally enter politics) who retired a year later. Well that is just Gossip, backbiting, detraction, rumor mongering etc & how is it not anti-Catholic?

It rubs me the wrong way.

BenYachov said...

>but over and over again feels the need to justify his actions. And just for Ben's sake?

He keeps harping on the Vatican taking down the Scalfari interview as if that is some big major scandal but forgets to this day we still haven't heard from the Vatican Press Secretary what John Paul II's opinion was on THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

Cardinal Kasper doesn't show up in England with Pope Benedict.

How does the Scalfari gaff any better or worst then anything JP2 or B16 did that might have fallen short?

Granted Pope Benedict's gaff on Muhammed lead to deaths so that is a bit worst but all the nitpicking?

It is just galling to me.

Crude said...

Malcolm,

What bothers me is Fr. Guido, "malapapalisms", posting youtube videos of silly scenes he thinks are related to what the Pope says, and generally just laughing at his flaws and foibles. "Laugh so you don't cry", maybe, but it's still disrespectful.

I agree with this criticism, really. I've said I think Codg goes overboard with it - I think some fun-poking is fine, but there have been posts where it gets wall to wall. I think that may not be about Codg's animosity towards the Pope as much as it is about his sense of humor.

I remember a quote from Norm MacDonald. 'If a singer gets up on stage and you think he's a bad singer, you just feel sorry for him. If an actor gets up on stage and you think he's a bad actor, you at least think it's all funny. But if a comedian gets up on stage and you don't think he's funny, you hate him.' That may be apt here.

Crude said...

Granted Pope Benedict's gaff on Muhammed lead to deaths so that is a bit worst but all the nitpicking?

No, Pope Benedict's speaking bluntly led to muslim lunatics to behave like muslim lunatics. If I call a man a shitty thinker and in response he goes home and beats his wife, I'm not responsible for wife-beating.

BenYachov said...

Codg's latest poop is Cardinal Sean O'Malley(one of the "gang of 8" of Pope Francis) asked the Rev. Anne Robertson (female Methodist clergy)of Plymouth to administer a baptism reaffirmation ritual to him

This is some ritual made up by the Methodists.

http://www.gbod.org/lead-your-church/baptism-services/resource/using-water-in-baptism-and-reaffirmation-how-much-and-by-whom

http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior.asp?ptid=43&mid=14625

Apparently it is like re-affirming your baptism vows only with props. Laymen can do it not just clergy. You re-commit yourself to Christ. It is not a Sacrament or anything. It like Charismatics Catholic or Protestant lay hands upon each other it doesn't mean they are imparting holy orders.

So what is Codg's point here? A female clergy from a protestant sect putting oil on the Cardinal's head asking him to reaffirm his commitment to Christ will give him Protestant coodies?

This is some secret signal from Pope Francis via Cardinal Sean to the Catholic Women's Ordination Movement that the Ex Cathedra decree allowing Female Priests and Lesbianism is in the mail?

Something liberal is going on around here?

Sounds like the bitching of someone from the SSPX to me.

Just saying....


BenYachov said...

>No, Pope Benedict's speaking bluntly led to muslim lunatics to behave like muslim lunatics. If I call a man a shitty thinker and in response he goes home and beats his wife, I'm not responsible for wife-beating.

I never said Pope Benedict was responsible. Indeed I went out of my way to say I don't blame him.

But OTOH if I know someone was unstable and could go off & as a result hurt innocents I might be careful in what I say.

Thus I believe if Pope Benedict had the slightest inkling his words would cause riots he would not have said boo.

After all it was the Archbishop of Utrech who loudly denounced the Nazi deportation of Jews in the Netherlands that motivated Hitler to up the antty and round up Jewish converts to Catholicism as well.

This motivated the silence of Pius XII.

Crude said...

I think 'Cardinal O'Malley is behaving like a schmuck by taking part in this garbage, and oh, he's supposedly the Pope's top guy in the US' is the message here. And it's also one more thing we have to explain to idiots, because as far as the world is concerned, O'Malley there just acted as if female pastors from a wholly protestant faith are capable of administering sacraments, full stop.

They even quote her yammering about how 'I almost cried, because I am a WOMAN and here he was accepting my sacramental...' etc, etc.

Let me put it to you this way: you know how one of the things we're called to do is 'avoid the appearance of scandal'? O'Malley failed in that regard.

Crude said...

Thus I believe if Pope Benedict had the slightest inkling his words would cause riots he would not have said boo.

After all it was the Archbishop of Utrech who loudly denounced the Nazi deportation of Jews in the Netherlands that motivated Hitler to up the antty and round up Jewish converts to Catholicism as well.


I think there is a marked difference between directly challenging a single party or head of state with tremendous power, and the great masses of people who are unpredictable and will start throwing molotov cocktails if you draw a cartoon.

I do not believe in goading people unnecessarily. But I also believe there comes a point where the proper response to a hair-trigger violent temper is not 'appeasement' but 'do it and we shoot you in the face'.

BenYachov said...

>I think 'Cardinal O'Malley is behaving like a schmuck by taking part in this garbage, and oh, he's supposedly the Pope's top guy in the US' is the message here. And it's also one more thing we have to explain to idiots, because as far as the world is concerned, O'Malley there just acted as if female pastors from a wholly protestant faith are capable of administering sacraments, full stop.

Except it's not a sacrament. Cardinal Sean didn't ask for re-Baptism or Confirmation. So your argument is not valid.

>They even quote her yammering about how 'I almost cried, because I am a WOMAN and here he was accepting my sacramental...' etc, etc.

Big deal this reminds me of the Radtrads who claimed a Hindu "Priestess" anointed Pope John Paul II(she was aCatholic woman BTW).

A sacramental is not a Sacrament(& this assumes she shares our definition of sacramental). You might as well complain if she gave him a Rosary.

>Let me put it to you this way: you know how one of the things we're called to do is 'avoid the appearance of scandal'? O'Malley failed in that regard.

I don't agree. This is a subjective judgement. I am not scandalized since I looked up the relevant info. Publishing it without explanation to make the Cardinal look bad is the sin of detraction.

BenYachov said...

>I think there is a marked difference between directly challenging a single party or head of state with tremendous power, and the great masses of people who are unpredictable and will start throwing molotov cocktails if you draw a cartoon.

Dude it's your metaphor. I am just working with it.

The principle is the same. Don't kick a bee's nest if you can avoid it.

>I do not believe in goading people unnecessarily. But I also believe there comes a point where the proper response to a hair-trigger violent temper is not 'appeasement' but 'do it and we shoot you in the face'.

That applies to Caesar who must weld the sword. Not to a Shepard who holds a Croiser.

Crude said...

Ben,

Except it's not a sacrament. Cardinal Sean didn't ask for re-Baptism or Confirmation. So your argument is not valid.

Do you think most people understand that this is some special made-up methodist rite? Is it being reported that way? Here's the key: did O'Malley think it would be reported in the proper way? If he did, he's insane.

I don't agree. This is a subjective judgement. I am not scandalized since I looked up the relevant info. Publishing it without explanation to make the Cardinal look bad is the sin of detraction.

And you have to account for people's subjective judgments. That's why 'avoiding the appearance of scandal' is key, regardless of the presence of actual scandal.

The principle is the same. Don't kick a bee's nest if you can avoid it.

This is where I disagree. Sometimes bees nests deserve to be kicked. In fact, they need to be dismantled. That doesn't mean I advocate causing pointless ruckuses, but sometimes it's appropriate. I think the muslim communities that tend to riot are at the point where walking on eggshells around them constantly is creating a problem.

That applies to Caesar who must weld the sword. Not to a Shepard who holds a Croiser.

How about a Shepherd who wields a whip?

BenYachov said...

> female pastors from a wholly protestant faith are capable of administering sacraments.

Actually to be theologically correct. They can baptize like the rest of us. Also if a female pastor gets married to a man she with her Fellow administers the sacrament of marriage to each other.

That is why Trinitarian Protestants without valid Orders have two sacraments Baptism and Marriage.

In the Western Church the Priest is the witness to the two baptized people marrying each other.

Only in the East do they believe the Priest gives the sacrament of Marriage.

Crude said...

Ben, I understand and realize those things. Truly. My understanding is that such baptisms are only supposed to be done in extraordinary circumstances, but let's say your view is correct.

Back to 'appearance of scandal'. Because you're dealing with distinctions a lot of people do not realize and which - here is the key - cannot be expected to be reliably communicated in reporting.

You tell me: what was gained by O'malley engaging in what he did?

BenYachov said...

>How about a Shepherd who wields a whip?

You watch too much TV. The Gospels say Jesus used the whip to drive out the animals in the Temple. It never says he used it on the Moneychangers. That is only in Jesus movies & TV.

>Do you think most people understand that this is some special made-up methodist rite? Is it being reported that way? Here's the key: did O'Malley think it would be reported in the proper way? If he did, he's insane.

Do these same people understand Catholic rites? No they don't. When I defended Benedict on a Jewish message board for lifting the excommunication of Williamson I had to explain Catholic excommunication is not the same as Jewish. Oh was that a mess!!!
I think Cardinal Sean was dealing with the people in front of them in their world and not worrying about playing to the Cameras.

We should have more of that.

>And you have to account for people's subjective judgments. That's why 'avoiding the appearance of scandal' is key, regardless of the presence of actual scandal.

But that is based on personal prudent judgement. For the Jews I argued with online based on their Jewish understanding of Excommunication lifting Williamson's excommunication meant the Catholic Church supported holocaust denial. No the Church was trying to heal schism.

>This is where I disagree. Sometimes bees nests deserve to be kicked. In fact, they need to be dismantled. That doesn't mean I advocate causing pointless ruckuses, but sometimes it's appropriate. I think the muslim communities that tend to riot are at the point where walking on eggshells around them constantly is creating a problem.

Again it's based on prudent judgement. Yours says it's justified mine says it is not. Since prudent judgement even by Popes isn't infallible it's your fallible opinion vs mine or Cardinal Sean's.

Which is fine but you need to see that you have no absolute way to know you are right & am wrong. That is just the way it goes do your best.

OTOH I find it ironic if hypothetically Codg agrees with you why he objects to me kicking his nest?;-)

BenYachov said...

I hope I didn't double post my connection is misbehaving.

>Ben, I understand and realize those things. Truly. My understanding is that such baptisms are only supposed to be done in extraordinary circumstances, but let's say your view is correct.

I am just pointing out that Female "clergy" can do some sacraments according to Catholic doctrine. Not that my Brother should take his unborn daughter when she comes out to a heretic clergy woman instead of a Priest.

>Back to 'appearance of scandal'. Because you're dealing with distinctions a lot of people do not realize and which - here is the key - cannot be expected to be reliably communicated in reporting.

If you can figure out how to act without confusing anybody I recommend you patten it. You would make a bundle brother(& if you need to hire a lackey I am available).;-)

>You tell me: what was gained by O'malley engaging in what he did?

He was reaching out in love. I read of female clergy who joined the Catholic faith and gave up believing they where real clergy.
Why do you have to gain when you should give?

Crude said...

You watch too much TV. The Gospels say Jesus used the whip to drive out the animals in the Temple. It never says he used it on the Moneychangers. That is only in Jesus movies & TV.

Feel free to quote the bible on this one, because the texts I'm reading don't make the qualification you do.

Yours says it's justified mine says it is not. Since prudent judgement even by Popes isn't infallible it's your fallible opinion vs mine or Cardinal Sean's.

Sure is. But I'm still left with my opinion.

If you can figure out how to act without confusing anybody I recommend you patten it.

Okay: For one, I don't accept 'sacraments', including 'made-up' ones, from female methodist ministers.

He was reaching out in love. I read of female clergy who joined the Catholic faith and gave up believing they where real clergy.

No. Don't do this. Don't hit me with poetics.

What did he gain by this act? What message was conveyed? Because I tell you what - the minister sure presented the situation as making it seem as if the Cardinal was providing traction for the idea of women clergy.

BenYachov said...

Rosemarie my wife wasn't always the bastion of womanly Catholic orthodoxy.

In her youth when we first dated she was attracted to the Woman's Ordination movement and she was a Feminist.

She could tell you that it is ingrained in young women by feminism that the only reason women aren't ordained is somehow that means God doesn't see them as of equal worth.

There is a ton of low self-esteem in these women. My wife learned that she was of equal worth to a man & not being able to receive Holy Orders had nothing to do with it.

Long story short ridiculing her would not have conveyed that message. That Truth which moved her to not flirt with heresy anymore.

Just saying.

Crude said...

I am not advocating ridicule whatsoever. I didn't say O'malley should have mocked this woman. I said he should not be getting apparent sacraments from her, 'fake' or no.

BenYachov said...

>Feel free to quote the bible on this one, because the texts I'm reading don't make the qualification you do.

It says he made a whip & drove out the animals? Can you cite me a verse where it says he hit a money changer with the whip?
Come on dude.

>Sure is. But I'm still left with my opinion.

As long as you realize it is mere opinion and not dogmatic fact then You & I have no beef.

>Okay: For one, I don't accept 'sacraments', including 'made-up' ones, from female methodist ministers.

Nor could we but the woman said "sacramentals" not sacraments. Go read a Theology dictionary sacramentals are not sacraments. By definition they are made up. John Paul II added the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary.

>No. Don't do this. Don't hit me with poetics.

There are no poetics. It is simply a brute fact you don't always act for gain but merely to give.

>What did he gain by this act? What message was conveyed? Because I tell you what - the minister sure presented the situation as making it seem as if the Cardinal was providing traction for the idea of women clergy.

She might think that but she also saw he valued her as a woman and served as a counter to decades of Feminist propaganda.

BenYachov said...

>I am not advocating ridicule whatsoever.

I know that more then anyone.

>I said he should not be getting apparent sacraments from her, 'fake' or no.

Like I said even fake sacraments would be bad. But sacramentals aren't sacraments. They are rituals that develop over time. Calling them fake is a category mistake. It is like calling a Rosary a fake sacramental.

That makes no sense.

If the Cardinal co-celebrated a sacrament with her that would be a naked violation of Canon Law.

Crude said...

It says he made a whip & drove out the animals? Can you cite me a verse where it says he hit a money changer with the whip?
Come on dude.


I can quote the part where Christ walks in, whip in hand, chases everyone out, overturns tables, and generally destroys the place.

I can also quote Aquinas on the death penalty. Sometimes when people engage in violence, they should be suppressed. And sometimes the proper response to suppression is to react with violence.

Nor could we but the woman said "sacramentals" not sacraments. Go read a Theology dictionary sacramentals are not sacraments.

If properly interpreting what was said requires going to a book that most people don't even realize exists, a mistake has been made.

There are no poetics. It is simply a brute fact you don't always act for gain but merely to give.

Fine. What did he give?

She might think that but she also saw he valued her as a woman and served as a counter to decades of Feminist propaganda.

No. No, no, no, no, no.

Look, I am the first person who will argue that we need to reach out to people. I was arguing this well BEFORE Francis became pope, against some riled up social conservatives. I stand by it. But no, I will not mindlessly assert to easily misunderstood token gestures to calm the tactically irrational. You can just as easily make the case that O'Malley bolstered feminist propaganda by giving them a glimmer of hope that they were moving the church towards ordaining women clergy.

I think my interpretation works better than yours here. No, I'm not laying out dogma, I am giving opinion.

BenYachov said...

Crude does it not strike you as odd that when Pope Francis makes mere charitable statement about Gays (that I can find chapter an verse in the Desert Fathers so it's not new) and the World reacts as if this is some new thing?

They are so jaded that simple truths escape them.

If you are Gay and trying to find God who am I to judge you or stop you or shut the Kingdom of God in your face?

You are a woman & you are worth something and I truly believe that even if you feel you are not.

All right I am being a little poetic (sorry)but sometimes sharing the Truth is more Art then mere science.

Crude said...

And I defended Francis on his handling of gays, precisely because I think a new approach is needed there. But there's also such a thing as a bad approach.

If Francis showed up and gave a blessing at some gay civil union, I'd be through the roof. This, in spite of the fact that I agree a new approach is needed.

If the only way for a particular woman to feel 'valued' is to gesture that her aspirations to be clergy is anything short of ridiculous, then the priority is no longer on making sure she feels valued but on making her understand why her ideas about what constitutes 'valuing' are out of whack.

BenYachov said...

>I can quote the part where Christ walks in, whip in hand, chases everyone out, overturns tables, and generally destroys the place.

The text says he drove the animals out and told people with cages to take them out of the temple & the things you said above. You won't find a verse that says he hit them with a whip. Otherwise you would have quoted it to me.

>I can also quote Aquinas on the death penalty. Sometimes when people engage in violence, they should be suppressed. And sometimes the proper response to suppression is to react with violence.

That is for the public Authority. Jesus is King of Judah & God Incarnate so yeh he has authority to make these people leave and the divine Charisma to back it up. But he didn't hit anyone with a whip or threaten too that is just on TV. If you want to imagine that is what happened then fine you can't prove it from the text or Tradition.

>If properly interpreting what was said requires going to a book that most people don't even realize exists, a mistake has been made.

No it requires knowing the difference between the Seven sacraments which are instituted by Christ and may not be added too or taken away vs rituals the Church and her members came up with over time. My mother is not the theology hound I am but she knows the difference between the Sacrament of Baptism vs blessing with holy water. My Coptic friends know the difference between Eucharist vs eating "blessed bread". We can't govern our lives based on the stupidity of the stupid. If we must explain then we should welcome it and thank God for the opportunity to further share more of the Truth.

>Fine. What did he give?

Dude I just said it. She said it Acceptance,love and affirmation. Those aren't bad things that are only for hippies.

>No. No, no, no, no, no.

I am afraid so. The logic is very clear to me.

>Look, I am the first person who will argue that we need to reach out to people. I was arguing this well BEFORE Francis became pope, against some riled up social conservatives. I stand by it. But no, I will not mindlessly assert to easily misunderstood token gestures to calm the tactically irrational. You can just as easily make the case that O'Malley bolstered feminist propaganda by giving them a glimmer of hope that they were moving the church towards ordaining women clergy.

Rather we must thank Cardinal Sean for the opportunity to explain the Truth further & to point out that a woman can give sacramentals.

My wife put some Lourdes water on me when I was sick. She did the same for our kids. She wasn't giving anointing of the sick.

She knew the difference.

>I think my interpretation works better than yours here. No, I'm not laying out dogma, I am giving opinion.

I believe my logic is solid here as are my clarifications. Also your disagreement provided me with an opportunity to explain further.

So practically I think it really works for me. But we have disagreed before & we are still cool.:-)



Cheers.

BenYachov said...

>If Francis showed up and gave a blessing at some gay civil union, I'd be through the roof. This, in spite of the fact that I agree a new approach is needed.

He would have to explicitly say he was blessing their union which would be evil. I know from anecdotal evidence some gay couples who met John Paul II & he gave them ordinary blessings.
He wasn't affirming their union.

This reminds me of Veronica Loykan. A weird woman in Queens who said the BVM appeard to her. She sent the messages via an intermediary to Paul VI when he visited NYC. The Pope thanked the man who gave him he messages & gave hm a blessing. She claimed that meant he was endorcing her and printed that in her literature in spite of repeated assertions by the local Bishop that she was nuts and her apparition heretical.

You can't stop the stupid. You can't. You can only work around them.

>If the only way for a particular woman to feel 'valued' is to gesture that her aspirations to be clergy is anything short of ridiculous, then the priority is no longer on making sure she feels valued but on making her understand why her ideas about what constitutes 'valuing' are out of whack.

To you it is ridiculous. For her it is decades of Feminist dogma that is telling her she is not worthy because she is a woman.

God did not choose an all male priesthood because we dudes are worthy. If worth had anything to do with it BVM is more worthy then any Pope.

So I don't agree.

So here we are.

Crude said...

The text says he drove the animals out and told people with cages to take them out of the temple & the things you said above.

Told nothing:

"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

He wrecked it, Ben. With whip in hand. There's no specific mention of Christ striking anyone, but there is absolutely no mention that he only used the whip on the animals and kindly asked everyone else to leave and, oh, leave your money behind so He can throw that around like confetti.

But he didn't hit anyone with a whip or threaten too that is just on TV. If you want to imagine that is what happened then fine you can't prove it from the text or Tradition.

You're in the situation of having to argue that Jesus tore up a temple, whip in hand, and no one felt *threatened*, regardless of whether he hit them.

We can't govern our lives based on the stupidity of the stupid. If we must explain then we should welcome it and thank God for the opportunity to further share more of the Truth.

Pity, then, that this isn't going to get explained to much of anyone beyond the inane way it is *already being reported*.

I am afraid so. The logic is very clear to me.

What logic? Hypothetical appeals to the imagined emotions of a woman who presented the entire 'gesture' as an advancement for female clergy?

Where is this logic? And if the logic is 'You say things that make people feel better, and what you actually say and how it's misinterpreted doesn't matter because what's important is how they feel', I reject it, because there's no logic to speak of.

I am tired of this attitude, because it enables the tyranny of the perpetually aggrieved.

Crude said...

He would have to explicitly say he was blessing their union which would be evil. I know from anecdotal evidence some gay couples who met John Paul II & he gave them ordinary blessings.
He wasn't affirming their union.


No, if he showed up and gave a blessing to both of them in a way that was even so much as ambiguous and, at first blush, could be interpreted as a blessing of their union, he would have made a mistake. It would have been a scandal.

To you it is ridiculous. For her it is decades of Feminist dogma that is telling her she is not worthy because she is a woman.

If we're going to speculate freely about her psychology, then I will say that 'feminist dogma' has told her that if she gets anything short of full blown clergy status, that she is being told that 'she is not worthy because she is a woman.' The proper response, again, is not 'Well gosh, if she feels that strongly, then I guess it's time to ordain women.' It's 'your metrics of evaluating worth are wrong, here's why.' And it may eventually come to a point where she's recognized as beyond conversation, at which point the conversation is over.

BenYachov said...

>He wrecked it, Ben. With whip in hand. There's no specific mention of Christ striking anyone, but there is absolutely no mention that he only used the whip on the animals and kindly asked everyone else to leave and, oh, leave your money behind so He can throw that around like confetti.

But you just admitted he never hit anyone and the text never say so. So that kind of makes my point. The exegesis shows he made a whip drove them out. "Them" being the the sheep, and the oxen; Young's Literal translation renders it "and having made a whip of small cords, he put all forth out of the temple, also the sheep, and the oxen; and of the money-changers he poured out the coins, and the tables he overthrew,"

The whip was for the animals & not the people. Driving out the animals with a whip and overturning the tables are two different acts. One physically directed at the animals the other at people.

>You're in the situation of having to argue that Jesus tore up a temple, whip in hand, and no one felt *threatened*, regardless of whether he hit them.

I think overturning the tables intimidated the people & yelling at them. I don't think text says he whipped the people or threatened to do so. You can disagree but these are my reasons.

>Pity, then, that this isn't going to get explained to much of anyone beyond the inane way it is *already being reported*.

If we wait for the media to educate the masses on the faith then look forward to centuries of ignorance that will be a true Dark Age and reduce people to what the O'Flynn calls Techno-Serfs. People who are smart enough to use the new tech but too stupid to think beyond what they are told.

We have to get behind the Pope and do it. Get behind Cardinal Sean.

>What logic? Hypothetical appeals to the imagined emotions of a woman who presented the entire 'gesture' as an advancement for female clergy?

Verses your hypothetical appeals to an imagined feminist propaganda that is using the Cardinal here to promote female clergy. How do you know for certain that this is this woman' s motive? My wife's experiences are real and I took more then a few Women's studies courses. This is how they think and feel. I've seen it.

>Where is this logic? And if the logic is 'You say things that make people feel better, and what you actually say and how it's misinterpreted doesn't matter because what's important is how they feel', I reject it, because there's no logic to speak of.

The simple logic of reaching out to people and acknowledging what is true. Any woman can give a Cardinal a mere sacramental.
Cardinal Sean's mother can give him Lordes water. Cardinal Sean can affirm his baptismal oath with a Methodist woman who has the same oath. Just as John Paul II can pray the Nicea Creed minus the Filique with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It's not hard.

>I am tired of this attitude, because it enables the tyranny of the perpetually aggrieved.

I am too. But in this case I believe it is the ultra-Conservative Catholics who is the perpetually aggrieved. We are not without sin nor immuned to our opponents weaknesses.

That is how I see it.

BenYachov said...

>No, if he showed up and gave a blessing to both of them in a way that was even so much as ambiguous and, at first blush, could be interpreted as a blessing of their union, he would have made a mistake. It would have been a scandal.

How is Cardinal Sean showing up to affirm his Baptismal oath with this Methodist clergy woman(who holds the same oath as we do) equivalent to this? It simply isn't.

>If we're going to speculate freely about her psychology, then I will say that 'feminist dogma' has told her that if she gets anything short of full blown clergy status, that she is being told that 'she is not worthy because she is a woman.' The proper response, again, is not 'Well gosh, if she feels that strongly, then I guess it's time to ordain women.' It's 'your metrics of evaluating worth are wrong, here's why.' And it may eventually come to a point where she's recognized as beyond conversation, at which point the conversation is over.

Crude this is Art not science. Stop treating this as a science. In interacting with individuals it is always dicey & you have to make a prudent judgements. We can't predict everything. He let her give him a sacramental. It is morally no different then if his mom gave him Lourdes water.

The Proper response here is "There is no reason why a woman can't give a man a sacramental". Even if that woman is a member of a heretical sect and has a heretical belief about the nature of Christian clergy.

So it is not clear cut to me.

BenYachov said...

>And it may eventually come to a point where she's recognized as beyond conversation, at which point the conversation is over.

If you reach out you might be rejected or someone might misinterpret. Still there will be some who might open a dialog to you & find the truth.

Nothing ventured nothing gained.

The Pope is right we must get out of our comfort Zones.

BenYachov said...

Crude,

I am grateful you are decent enough to test your objections with a worthy opponent.

You honor me.

I don't agree with you but I am grateful you have the moral courage to put your ideas in some areas contrary to mine where we disagree to the test.

That means a lot.

BenYachov said...

The only down side to this discussion is it doesn't post in real time.

I seem to remember reading you telling your readers why moderation is always enabled. I also remember thinking it was a very good reason. But for the life of me I forgot the reason?

Oh well I don't need to know it I simply remember is was a good idea.

Crude said...

The whip was for the animals & not the people.

Where is THAT in the text? The text says Christ walked into the temple, whip in hand, and chased out everyone - people and animals. And he overturned their tables and wrecked the place. You have to do some fancy exegesis footwork to confidently say that Christ whipped no one, and also no one felt threatened by the guy wrecking the place.

We have to get behind the Pope and do it. Get behind Cardinal Sean.

I will not mindlessly get behind any Cardinal who engages in PR acts that I find stupid and short-sighted. This was not a good move.

How do you know for certain that this is this woman' s motive?

How do you? The point is if you get to imagine motives, so do I.

And what's more - do you think feminism is all just a big misunderstanding and NARAL women need a hug? Why are you railing against Codgitator for his criticisms, but feminists are victims who need understanding and genteel interaction?

The simple logic of reaching out to people and acknowledging what is true. Any woman can give a Cardinal a mere sacramental.

No one cares about sacramentals! Few people even know what they are! This stuff doesn't even have a wiki page that doesn't link it to the sacraments!

The Proper response here is "There is no reason why a woman can't give a man a sacramental". Even if that woman is a member of a heretical sect and has a heretical belief about the nature of Christian clergy.

Let's see him take communion from the hand of an SSPX member, then. It's valid, if not licit. We'll see how quickly the talk of the importance of reaching out changes then.

Crude this is Art not science.

Some art sucks. Saying 'it's art' doesn't excuse a shitty artist. I should know.

I am grateful you are decent enough to test your objections with a worthy opponent.

It's fine, Ben. I can argue without denouncing someone as morally depraved or such nonsense.

Crude said...

I seem to remember reading you telling your readers why moderation is always enabled. I also remember thinking it was a very good reason. But for the life of me I forgot the reason?

Because I will not allow my blog to turn into what we see at Reppert's, where it's a collection of Village Idiot Atheists derailing every conversation and letting things devolve into an off-topic shitstorm. For as small as my blog is, you can practically be guaranteed that any conversation had in the comments sections are on-topic, intelligent, and civil. It keeps people's time from being wasted.

BenYachov said...

I seems Cardinal Sean is a man with a plan. Maybe he is combining art with science?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/13/cardinal-malley-joins-service-sudbury-methodist-church/aWehNqZMfzGahpdCD0DReN/story.html

"“What moved me was not so much that I was anointing him,” she said. “It was him being willing to accept that from my hand – to ask me, as a woman in ministry, to do that.”

I have no problem with this woman giving me Lourdes water. I would politely refuse anointing of the sick from her like I politely refused a Messianic Rabbi friend's offer to hear Rosemarie's confession back when we where in the hospital having our first born and Rosemarie needed to confessI my friend prayed instead I'd find a Priest then he left us an ran into a Syrian Orthodox Priest & brought him back. That was fraking awesome. that is a Story in itself.

Anyway I see no reason why I could not affirm my baptismal oath with her & have her put oil on my head. I see no nefarious agenda here with her. It is IMHO a true spirit of ecumenism.

There is a lot more too this story then Codj's perpetual outrage & outrage by sound bite.

That is all for me for the night.

Cheers Crude.

BenYachov said...

One last thing needs to be said.

>It's fine, Ben. I can argue without denouncing someone as morally depraved or such nonsense.

I reply: I am the first to acknowledge here that is a valid dig and rebuke of me. I have it seems gone overboard in my outrage of Codj as much as Codg has gone overboard in his "criticism".
I am sorry. I picked on him really hard. Again I am sorry.

I wrote some responses I'll leave it on tap.

Well maybe this bit. I can resist everything but temptation.

>I will not mindlessly get behind any Cardinal who engages in PR acts that I find stupid and short-sighted. This was not a good move.

That is cynical and I don't agree. Look at my earlier link. Obviously Cardinal Sean is building up a relationship here and it's been long term. Go read Cardinal Sean's blog clearly his ministry specialty is ecumenism. Go read his sermon during the event. So calling this is a mere PR stunt doesn't fit the facts.

His specially is Ecumenism.

>Let's see him take communion from the hand of an SSPX member, then. It's valid, if not licit. We'll see how quickly the talk of the importance of reaching out changes then.

Bad example & category error. The SSPX rejects Vatican II's decrees on Eccumenism and they reject ecumenism across the board, The Eucharist is a sacrament not a sacramental so it is not equivalent here.

BTW while they where still trying to come back before Felley blew it up you could receive communion at an SSPX church. You should talk to Peter Vere for the details.