Wednesday, January 15, 2014

False Ecumenism and the Tyranny of the Aggrieved

In my recent catch-all pile for the ever controversial Codgitator, I tried to make one thing clear: an inane move on the part of a cardinal (or a pope) doesn't somehow become a really great idea just because you call it 'ecumenism' or 'reaching out.' There are such things as bad acts done in the name of ecumenism, and I think Cardinal O'Malley's recent decision to perform a co-ritual with female clergy is a great example of a rotten idea. It's also a great example of why 'dialogue' and 'ecumenism' have gotten an increasingly bad rap with conservatives and traditionalists over the years - eventually they notice that every time someone talks about the importance of ecumenism, it involves selling out the conservative or traditional positions in exchange for some jackass getting a pat on the head and momentary praise by The People Who Matter.

Now, I can go on about this very topic for a while - how on the one hand it is important to truly approach non-Catholics and non-Christians and the irreligious and the rest in a proper way, a sincere way, a reasonably measured way. I can go on about how difficult it's become to even discuss that, since there is a social liberal tendency to hijack such movements immediately and treat respectful dialogue as a means by which to manipulate a surrender or a scaling back of the values they detest but will pay lip service to anyway. Important stuff, truly. But instead, I want to talk about a modern plague - the Tyranny of the Aggrieved.

There is a modern idea that goes like this: how a person should be treated, how much leeway they should get in a conversation or even a negotiation, is heavily proportional to - in essence - how absolutely goddamn insane they are, how willing they are to scream and rant, how irrational they are willing to demonstrate they are. Ben more or less brings this up in the previous thread, justifying the actions of Cardinal O'Malley because, hey, feminists have wound up a lot of women for decades, screaming how if they aren't allowed to be priests then that's equivalent to saying that they're not equal to men at all and misogyny and patriarchy and all the rest. They're very emotionally wound up, you see, so you have to pretty much get on your knees and try to do whatever will make them happy and feel valued, because they are - put bluntly - THAT fucked up.

I'd understand at some point if some people would figure my reaction would be to agree with Ben. I've gotten into it with social conservatives over gay issues, talking about how the SoCon approach typically sucks - they treat 'gays' as a monolithic group, instead of targeting LGBT organizations, etc. I stress the need to be civil, to not make enemies unnecessarily, to speak clearly, to 'reach out'. But the fact is, I reject this kind of thinking completely. Not every woman, not even every feminist, takes this approach - but for the ones that do (and many, sadly, do), I do not recommend or endorse pacification. If a feminist has reached the point where a male-exclusive clergy drives her up the wall and the only thing that will satisfy her is some sign of capitulation on that point - some gesture, however initially small, that a female clergy may not be a COMPLETELY bad idea... at that point, you are not dealing with someone you can speak with, and you move on. Better yet, you - and I say this a lot - speak at them, not with them. Maybe some will listen. Maybe not.

But you do not succumb to the Tyranny of the Aggrieved.

You do not let the least rational person in a dialogue dictate the terms on which a conversation will be had, or whether or not a conversation will be had at all. You do not look at the person who has the mentality of a lunatic and try to figure out the magical gesture that will momentarily pacify them, because - among many other reasons - that this is the reaction many will have is already accounted for. Do not make the mistake of thinking that a ranting, raving group of people is always or even often a spontaneous thing that 'just happened', borne out of the wellspring of their hearts. You can find this right in the Bible itself. Christ was not condemned by a dispassionate jury of His peers, moved by the force of intellectual argument that He had committed a crime, even with the argument being ultimately and subtly flawed. There was a lunatic crowd screaming for his head and - this is key - Pilate attempted pacification. And Pilate knew that what the crowd demanded was wrong! He was, in his view, trying to find some way to get Christ out of the jam He was in. And ultimately, when Christ refused to play along - and why should He, intellectually or morally speaking, play along? - the decision was to sell out Christ. This wasn't lost on the Pharisees, by the way - they were riling up the crowds with an eye on a particular result.

I'm not making a major theological point here - I am making a practical one. Irrational reactions are, believe it or not, often tactical and strategic. They are not the basis for any ecumenism worth having, and the fact that a person is emotionally worked up does not - I repeat, does not - make their demands a hair more justifiable, or their actions more forgivable, outside of the most strictly qualified situations.

I am in favor of ecumenism. I am in favor of a more reasonable, calm, respectful dialogue with everyone from people with same-sex attraction to divorced couples to more. But I will never favor capitulation as dialogue. I will never endorse succumbing to the Tyranny of the Aggrieved. And those Christians who do are not proving themselves to be the more mature, humble participants in the conversation, showing the world how grown up they are by finding some way, any way, to pacify either a frantic single individual or a lunatic mob. More often than not, they're just playing out Pilate's role on a different scale.

26 comments:

BenYachov said...

Crude

Brute fact it is not heresy or improper for a lay woman to give a sacramental(which is not a Sacrament or simulacrum of one) to a man or a member of the clergy.

Much less a woman who believes herself to be a member of the clergy in the heterodox methodist sense(in which case even their male "clergy" are not real clergy in the Catholic sense.

So your objections have no substance and have no meaning.

They are based on emotion and not Catholic truth.

BenYachov said...

>But you do not succumb to the Tyranny of the Aggrieved.

But what if it's not the liberal for once who are the aggrieved but misguided conservatives?

I'll get into it more later and tell you what I think you got wrong.

But I thank you again for the forum & that you treat my argument seriously.

I will catch you later today friend.

Cheers.

Crude said...

So your objections have no substance and have no meaning.

Considering my argument nowhere relied on claims of heresy - I did not utter the word once - I am less than moved by this response.

There comes a point where this kind of defense becomes farcical. Let me give a hypothetical example.

Let's say you have Sister Angelica Frew. Sister Angelica is a LCWR nun who does the following things:

* She routinely praises Planned Parenthood's workers and lobbyists as 'doing God's work on Earth.'

* She also routinely condemns pro-lifers for engaging in a 'war on women', insisting that Christ would be ashamed of them. She never has a word of praise for them.

* She regularly shows up at same-sex marriage ceremonies, talking about how God smiles on the love they share and wishing them a happy union.

Eventually, a Cardinal (mean, reactionary, hateful conservative that he is) criticizes her for representing the Church's message poorly. Upon hearing this - in front of cameras - she breaks down sobbing, pleading that she never did anything wrong and how she is a faithful and loyal catholic.

She points out that while she praised Planned Parenthood as doing God's work, she never specifically mentioned abortion. She meant their other work, such as giving referrals for mammograms.

She likewise points out that 'war on women' can mean many things, and her criticisms were meant to highlight what she saw as inadequate on the part of pro-lifers regarding attention being given to single mothers who do not procure abortions and who now need help.

She points out that she never technically said that same-sex marriage was valid, or moral. She spoke only about love, not about sin. Certainly there's nothing wrong with love, right? As for her hopes for a happy union, she never mentioned a word about sodomy. Clearly one should take her to mean union in a 'friendship' sense.

Now, you could show up and defending Sister Frew to the hilt. No heresy to speak of here, no sir. No disobedience. At most, she's guilty of some poor judgment with regards to how she's perceived. But she's really only trying to reach out to young people and do her best to represent the Church.

Again: you could do that. And I can just laugh, say the defense reeks, and happily endorse the Cardinal disciplining her, because I'm not a goddamn rube. Once again, there's even biblical precedent here - the sister can try her best to forever be 'technically' innocent, but 'technically' isn't the only yardstick here. No, she committed no formal act of heresy. That really doesn't matter.

The Cardinal doesn't go that far. But no, I think his move was stupid - and really man, you haven't mounted a defense here other than 'It was an act of love!' and 'These women are hurting!' All that plus 'Well technically there was no formal act of heresy', as if that means his moves are therefore brilliant and beyond rebuke. I mean it's questionable enough to treat the Pope as beyond reproach, but a Cardinal? We've had some real shitty cardinals.

BenYachov said...

But Crude a woman giving a sacramental to a man and both of them publicly affirming that they accept Jesus as Lord & reject Satan and all his lies and vain promises is not morally equivalent to saying pro-lifers are waging a war on women and praising planned barren-hood.


>Considering my argument nowhere relied on claims of heresy - I did not utter the word once - I am less than moved by this response.

If there is no heresy then there is no obvious evil.

If your argument is one of mere prudence well that is OK but then you have to dial back the criticism by an order of magnitude.

You can't use words like "False Ecumenicism" which imply heresy.
It's extreme and imprudent. :-)

Like co-celebrating the Eucharist with a Protestant clergyperson regardless of gender who by definition has no Orders and is not in full communion with the Holy See.

But on the level of prudence. Kissing the Koran was impudent. The First Assisi event was impudent.

This event with Cardinal Sean not so much.

So there you have it.

Crude said...

But Crude a woman giving a sacramental to a man and both of them publicly affirming that they accept Jesus as Lord & reject Satan and all his lies and vain promises is not morally equivalent to saying pro-lifers are waging a war on women and praising planned barren-hood.

If I were the kind of person who got headaches, this would be giving me one. I already pointed out my example was an extreme one, and that what the Cardinal did was not comparable.

The point was that in my hypothetical example the sister is guilty of no wrongdoing, technically. She can squirm out of it with some clever talk. It really doesn't matter.

If there is no heresy then there is no obvious evil.

I'm very sure you can do wrong without being a formal heretic.

You can't use words like "False Ecumenicism" which imply heresy.

Since when? How does it imply heresy? It implies negative actions, and stupidity is a possible culprit.

The point is that saying 'There was no heresy!' doesn't answer me, because I'm not alleging heresy to begin with. The greater point is that people are letting dialogue be dictated by the most frantic lunatics who speak up, and I'm tired of it. Yes, that also goes for the conservative side too, who I also criticize.

If a woman breaks down sobbing in mortified tears when she's told that she can't be a priest - when she tears are her clothes and claws at the floor and has to be dragged out kicking and screaming while she screams 'MISOGYNY!', my reaction is not 'Oh wow, that poor wounded soul. Surely I can find some way to make her feel better?' It's, 'She's crazy, and she has to calm down before any discussion is had whatsoever.'

I will not endorse dialogue with, or concessions to, the rationally impaired. By taking that tack we have encouraged lunacy, because the craftier people quickly figure out that the lunatics will get concessions - so it's wise to encourage lunacy.

BenYachov said...

BTW my evaluation of Codj latest screed.

Long winded, incoherent and chock full of irrelevant tangents as always vintage Codg.

In short a mess. Is there a secret decoder ring I can purchase to translate Codg speak?

So much to pick on. So much he gets wrong.

Love the bit about citing fringers like Randy Engel a woman who supports anti-Catholic Dave Hunt's New Age conspiracy theories. I am surprised he didn't cite a Roswell supporter or an Obama birth-er as well.

Love this bit. Still scratching my head.

"when your first major papal document about the Gospel mentions repentance only twice (over 51,000 words)".

The 73 books of the Holy Bible is God's Word and only condemns homosexuality under a dozen times vs condemning idolatry hundreds of times. It never mentions Pedophilia we have to look to extra-Biblical Rabbinic Tradition for that.

HUMANI GENERIS by Pius XII contains the word "repentance" zero times.

So what is the point here Codg is making?

>and when you make a point (in a desiccated monastery, no less) to shout that trying to convert non-Catholics is a triple “No!”–

I followed the link & read it and it said QUOTE"But, He needs us here and now to bring Christ to others, not in an overbearing way – “ Does this mean going to convince someone to become became Catholic? No, no, no!” –END QUOTE

So Codg equates not being overbearing(being a Jerk) when preaching to others with not giving them the Gospel at all?

That sums up him and his partisans in a nutshell.

Is this a prudent idea or criticism?

Is Codg's criticisms of Pope Francis prudent ones expressed in a Prudent way?

Hell no!!!!!! That is like calling me a nice person!

I am not the only one here who thinks so.

I think I might include you Crude as well as Malcolm & Mr. Green(who has no problem smacking me for my imprudent rage monkey behavior).

Granted I concede I am no prize either as per your just implicit rebuke of moi.

Cheers Brother!

BenYachov said...

You see Crude Codj like the Radtrads he is starting to emulate doesn't make a clear distinction between imprudence vs Heterodoxy.

It like reading Bob Sungenis' criticism of Assisi.

He can't decide if he is saying Assisi was False Ecumenicism & thus false worship or simply an impudent action.

He switches tenses and moves the goal posts in his essay in responding to a Priest who solely sticks to defending the theory of an Assisi event as in harmony with doctrine vs wither or not it was prudently carried out.

Codj is similarly ambiguous as a not practicing what he preaches.

BTW I will explain later why I think your understanding of "False Eccumenism" is wrong.

I must make myself work.

Cheers.

BenYachov said...

I just thought of this. Then I will get back too work.

> you haven't mounted a defense here other than 'It was an act of love!'

Rather unless there is a clear cut case of great imprudence or objective evil (i.e. Co-celebrating Mass with a Female "clergy") then I leave people to their own prudent judgments.

I don't have to defend anything.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Since you concede there is no heresy or false worship here then the burden of you is to show Cardinal Sean's act was unambiguously impudent. Like Kissing a Koran or accusing Pro-Lifers of a war on women.

Go for it.

I am the council for the defense. I don't have to prove squat.

BenYachov said...

Number of times the word "repent" or "repentance" appears.

ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!

EVANGELII PRAECONES

ON PROMOTION OF CATHOLIC MISSIONS

Number of times the word "repent" or "repentence" appears.

ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!


I guess by Elliot's standards Pope Pius XII sucks as hard as Pope Francis?

BenYachov said...

I should have three posts by my count that are in your que Crude.

Could you let them post I am not sure I saved any copies and soon I would like to continue our discussion.?

Thanks.

BenYachov said...

Maybe two of them are off topic (& might belong on the other Codg thread) but one of them is german to this post and I need to recall it.

BenYachov said...

>The Cardinal doesn't go that far. But no, I think his move was stupid - and really man, you haven't mounted a defense here other than 'It was an act of love!' and 'These women are hurting!'

You asked what practical purpose is there for the Cardinal to take part in this ceremony so I speculated how her response to his excepting a sacramental from her(which is a perfectly orthodox thing to do) might lead her to take a second look at the Church and might one day lead her to abandoning the error she needs to be a clergy to be valuable before God.

It has nothing to do with capitulation.

OTOH what other reason is there for the Cardinal taking part? Read the Article without Codg SSPX filters.

QUOTE"A Rhode Island native, the Rev. Robertson was the only female clergy member who assisted at a special 50th anniversary worship service at Sudbury United Methodist Church. Cardinal O’Malley delivered the homily at the ecumenical gathering, which commemorated a groundbreaking appearance by Cardinal Richard Cushing at the church in 1964.
At a time when Catholics and Protestants were still deeply wary of each other, Cardinal Cushing was the first cardinal to speak at a Protestant church."

So he was there because historically Cardinal Cushing was there in 1964. He was honoring the event. Also "Rev" Robertson was the only female "clergy" there.

Given the details and the circumstances I don't see here what could possibly be impudent about what happened?

The burden of proof is on Codj or you if you want to take up the burden to provide info on this specific event that shows something imprudent is going on.

The lunatic nun you mentioned you gave me specific details that clearly indicated something imprudent was present.

With Cardinal Sean you merely assumed it without proof.

I have a problem with that.

(Anyway I think I said this before so you can let this response stand and I will repost my other off topic complains against Codg in the other tread).

Cheers bud.

BenYachov said...

False Ecumenism harkens back to Pius XI's rejection of the Pan-Protestant Ecumenical movement of his day that made overtures to Rome.

Pius XI said "God's Church on Earth was never meant to be a Federation of Independent Churches each teaching different contradictory doctrines."

I cite from memory.

Actions and ends in terms of rituals that are wrong in themselves are examples of false ecumenicism.

Being imprudent is simply being imprudent.

Crude said...

You asked what practical purpose is there for the Cardinal to take part in this ceremony so I speculated how her response to his excepting a sacramental from her(which is a perfectly orthodox thing to do) might lead her to take a second look at the Church and might one day lead her to abandoning the error she needs to be a clergy to be valuable before God.

So he was there because historically Cardinal Cushing was there in 1964. He was honoring the event. Also "Rev" Robertson was the only female "clergy" there.

So? If Cushing did what O'Malley did, Cushing was wrong too.

With Cardinal Sean you merely assumed it without proof.

I assumed nothing. I made criticism based on his acts, and I found your defenses wanting. So far your latest defense is that he's doing what he's doing in the hopes that she'll convert to Catholicism? What evidence do you have that he even desires that?

I don't have to defend anything.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.


He who makes a claim, has a burden.

If I claim that O'Malley act was wrong, it's up to me to justify my claim.

If you claim O'Malley's act was not wrong, it's up to you to justify your claim.

BenYachov said...

@Crude

>So? If Cushing did what O'Malley did, Cushing was wrong too.

What "wrongness" was done here again? You claim later on to "assume nothing" yet here clearly you are assuming an unstated wrongness. You admit it is not one of heresy or false worship so what is left is a wrongness of imprudence. What in this situation was done imprudently? I need something at least as bad as kissing a Koran, fundrasing for Planned Barrenhood or at least liturgical dancing?


>I assumed nothing. I made criticism based on his acts, and I found your defenses wanting.

Not true you assume a wrongness.

You have already conceded no heresy or false worship was involved and nothing technically wrong. At the end of the day you are left with imprudence. When I argued back in the day with David Palm and other Traditional minded Catholics I conceeded the Assisi event might have been imprudent. But I pointed out if it was a case of false worship then arguing it was also imprudence was redundent. False worship and acts that are intrinsically wrong are imprudent in themselves.

But you want to make the case for imprudence then you need to concede nothing intrinsically wrong per say took place at Assisi. Pick one or the other you can't have both without confusion & equivocation.


>So far your latest defense is that he's doing what he's doing in the hopes that she'll convert to Catholicism? What evidence do you have that he even desires that?

I have no evidence of any of his motives or yours or anyone else's in the strict sense. I speculated in charity but if you wish to claim imprudence took place you have to read up on the event and point out the imprudence.

>He who makes a claim, has a burden.

No argument.


>If I claim that O'Malley act was wrong, it's up to me to justify my claim.

So far you have failed to do that IMHO. But you have at least stepped up to the plate & again I commend that.


>If you claim O'Malley's act was not wrong, it's up to you to justify your claim.

How does one prove a negative? Prove to me Crude you didn't steal $25 today!

Do you think that is a good argument?

I respectfully don't.

Cheers.

BenYachov said...

BTW I apologize if I put up too many posts.

Feel free to move any you think are off topic or edit them or delete them as you see fit.

BenYachov said...

BTW as diverting as the discussion on the exegesis of the cleansing of the Temple passages was I have lost interest.

I have a response to your last in my notes if you are interested. But I don't really think it's all that important we agree on that topic or argue it anymore.

Crude said...

What in this situation was done imprudently?

Accepting a gesture that is going to very easily be spun as 'female "clergy" gives blessing everyone thinks is reserved only for male clergy', and which superficially gains nothing but emboldening people who are forever at war with the church over the female clergy issue.

Not true you assume a wrongness.

I assume nothing. I stated why I think it's wrong - on multiple levels, in fact.

But you want to make the case for imprudence then you need to concede nothing intrinsically wrong per say took place at Assisi.

Honest to God, I'm not even sure what you're talking about with Assisi. What event? What happened?

How does one prove a negative? Prove to me Crude you didn't steal $25 today!

"Proof" doesn't take place outside of math and formal logic, whether dealing with a positive or negative claim. I can offer plenty of evidence I didn't steal 25$, including appeals to my character. Likewise, if you're not claiming I stole 25$, you're not going to be able to convict me of such.

Color me skeptical that O'Malley's move was done with the intention of showing people that, put frankly, made-up imaginary clergy can give completely effing meaningless 'sacramentals', a word few people have even heard of.

To hear you put it, the woman was practically moved to tears because the cardinal indulged her in a pointless gesture that meant nothing theologically. You think she'll stick with your version of the story if she were asked?

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Since the feminine perspective is allegedly vital to this conversation, I think it would be fruitful to read Robertson's own account of the incident. The "meat" is in the final heading called "The Significance", and the penultimate paragraph is totally clutch. What ecclesiology did O'Malley entrench, wittingly or not, and will he deign to address the scandal/topic in rigorously Catholic terms at some point? Methinks not, but, hey, a new spring is always on the way.

Crude said...

It was imperfect. In a perfect world this reflection would not exist because a a United Methodist clergywoman anointing a Roman Catholic Cardinal would be routine and unremarkable. In a perfect world Cardinal O'Malley and I would preside together at the Lord's Table. In a perfect world I might preside with a Cardinal Brighid O'Malley.

Nothing problematic here, eh Ben?

BenYachov said...

@crude
>Accepting a gesture that is going to very easily be spun as 'female "clergy" gives blessing everyone thinks is reserved only for male clergy', and which superficially gains nothing but emboldening people who are forever at war with the church over the female clergy issue.

How is that any worst than Benedict XVI lifting the excommunication of the SSPX Bishops and some anti-Semites feel it is a vindication of Williamson' s flakey views on the holocaust? Or in general the idea rebellion against the Pope's authority via illicit Episcopal Consecrations is rewarded with him changing the liturgy to suit the rebels? How is the possible danger of spin on the part of Women ordination enthusiasts on the level of kissing a Koran?

If women's ordination enthusiasts wish to spin it that way then Catholics can rebut it by pointing out that even lay people regardless of sex can give mere sacramentals to clergy. We have lay ministers. When John Paul II allowed Altar girls the Women's Ordination Movement crowed that soon women Priests would follow. Extreme Traditionalists balked at the Pope changing this practice.

But not long after John Paul II released an Encyclical re-affirming the all male Priesthood and stating using language that strongly resembled Ex Cathedra language that the Church has no power to give Priestly Ordination to women. Which told them "Hey it's not like WE Popes and Bishops don't want you gals to be Priests. Rather God has not given us the Power to ever make it happen.".

In light of this Altar girls & ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS together sent the message "Hey if we could make you gals Priests we would but we don't have the power to do it so there you are".

Thus instead of crying scandal based onwhat might happen I say use the opportunity to teach.

>I assume nothing. I stated why I think it's wrong - on multiple levels, in fact.

I rebutted you.


>Honest to God, I'm not even sure what you're talking about with Assisi. What event? What happened?

I see. Then I won't bring it up anymore.


>"Proof" doesn't take place outside of math and formal logic, whether dealing with a positive or negative claim. I can offer plenty of evidence I didn't steal 25$, including appeals to my character. Likewise, if you're not claiming I stole 25$, you're not going to be able to convict me of such.

But if you fail to make the attempt am I justified morally in believing you in fact did steal it? No & I submit you can't prove a negative. You can give me reasons why you might not be the sort of person who steals but you can't prove you didn't steal, I might think based on those reasons you give it is unlikely you did but I can't know for certain so the only fair thing is to take the burden of proof and put it solely on the accuser. Christian charity demands no less.

BenYachov said...

>Color me skeptical that O'Malley's move was done with the intention of showing people that, put frankly, made-up imaginary clergy can give completely effing meaningless 'sacramentals', a word few people have even heard of.

You really don't understand doctrinal Theology Crude? A "sacramental" is not meaningless. This is a worthless response. Go read the CCC.

>To hear you put it, the woman was practically moved to tears because the cardinal indulged her in a pointless gesture that meant nothing theologically. You think she'll stick with your version of the story if she were asked?

I don't know what she will think but the case for imprudence here is weak sauce.

>>It was imperfect. In a perfect world this reflection would not exist because a a United Methodist clergywoman anointing a Roman Catholic Cardinal would be routine and unremarkable. In a perfect world Cardinal O'Malley and I would preside together at the Lord's Table. In a perfect world I might preside with a Cardinal Brighid O'Malley.

>Nothing problematic here, eh Ben?

Not if you are a believing Methodist. It means she is still convinced her religion is true. It also shows in Ecumenicalism the people we dialog with will come to the table believing their religion is true. They may even leave an Ecumenical event still believing the errors of their religion. Even if she was a Protestant Man who believe in an all male clergy s/he would still hold heterodox Protestant views on Orders and Sacraments. But praying together with such people is an appeal to Grace and we should not discount the acts of Grace.

OTOH this also tells me she didn't see this event as anything that was by her standards "perfect". She know doubt knows she didn't do anything a Catholic lay minister couldn't also do. But a lay minister even a Catholic one, even a male, can't co-celebrate the Eucharist.
So I don't see any opportunity for propaganda. In fact what I see here is the opposite. She acknowledges what happened was not "perfect" by her standards. If she was into propaganda she would be saying this now means the RC Church is in total agreement with liberal Methodists on women clergy.

But obviously this woman is too intellectual honest to say that. I can't help but admire that.

PS. Nice Try Codg but you got no game. Your evidence shows an honest women not a propagandist.

BenYachov said...

BTW it is not an example of Propaganda for members of a False Religious system to espouse their views that they in good faith believe to be True even if they are objectively false. Such as this Methodist woman putting forth her denomination' s heterodox views on Orders. It is not propaganda for such people to try and convince others to believe their views or hope others will.

But if she said that Cardinal Sean because of this event was no doubt now ready to ordain women and that it would happen well that is propaganda. Misrepresenting the known view of the Church or others in Propaganda. Clearly by the evidence of her own words this woman has not used this event as an opportunity for Propaganda.

So if this is suppose to be a smoking gun it backfires on Codg & I am afraid Crude renders your argument for imprudence all the more implausible.

BenYachov said...

>Accepting a gesture that is going to very easily be spun as 'female "clergy" gives blessing everyone thinks is reserved only for male clergy', and which superficially gains nothing but emboldening people who are forever at war with the church over the female clergy issue.

But the opposite happened. She rejoices they put oil on each other's forehead and mutually affirmed their baptismal vows. But she laments they did not celebrate the Eucharist. Is she at war with the Church? No she isn't Catholic. She is no more at war then a Rabbi who hopes in vain the Catholic Church would dogmatically decree Jews don't have to believe in Jesus.
Catholic Women who push women's ordination who instead of leaving and joining a denomination that believes these errors stay and undermine the Church are at war with Her. As are SSPX types who try to undermine Vatican II & other dissidents.

That is war the other is not.

Crude said...

How is that any worst than Benedict XVI lifting the excommunication of the SSPX Bishops and some anti-Semites feel it is a vindication of Williamson' s flakey views on the holocaust?

Completely different, because the SSPX was never excommunicated for 'anti-semitism' and 'anti-semitism' in and of itself will not yield an excommunication anyway. Show me the anti-semite who believed that the lifting of the excommunication evidenced Church sympathy for that view.

If women's ordination enthusiasts wish to spin it that way

ROBERTSON. IS. SPINNING. IT.

Jesus God. I defend the pope and others against misunderstanding. I don't defend complete blindness and stupidity.

You really don't understand doctrinal Theology Crude? A "sacramental" is not meaningless.

NO. ONE. CARES.

Not if you are a believing Methodist.

WE'RE. NOT.

Look Ben, let me spell out the situation for you. We had a Cardinal receive a public "blessing" in a media-covered situation that was presented, while the Church is being portrayed in the media left and right as 'starting to open its mind towards liberal dogma on these issues', as formal signs of a softening towards women's ordination. The woman HERSELF presented it as evidence of progress on that front. NOTE: PROGRESS. NOT A TOTAL CHANGE OVERNIGHT. And the only thing gained by it WAS furthering that understanding. No one gives a shit about obscure theological talk about 'sacramentals'. Feminists are not up in arms that the Catholic Church does not engage in meaningless goddamn gestures, nor will they be pacified by a pat on the head with regards to dogmatically obscure theological acts. There's a goddamn reason this woman immediately drew the line from the act the cardinal took part in and women's ordination - the association wasn't an accident.

And you know what? Your move of "Ben gives a play by play of his own argument and keeps declaring himself the winner in every comment" doesn't impress me. I'm not going to be jedi-mind tricked into thinking that you gave a good argument just because you put on your narrator voice and said 'Ben gave good argument, Crude no!', and no one who reads here regularly will either. So kindly holster it - you need a dumber crowd for that to work.

I would be impressed if you made even the slightest inkling here to understand my criticism. Instead I get 'nope no nuh uh crude totally wrong here sorry bucko totally wrong you're totally emotional and have no argument and I rebutted your arguments totally sorry man.' Here's a tip: dialogue is a two way street. If you come in here and your sole goal is 'prove Crude wrong on this, come hell or highwater', we have no dialogue - you're just yammering at me, because you won't consider anything I say on its own terms. You just look for a spin opportunity, no matter how stretched.

So, let me take a page out of your book: I proved you completely wrong. So, frankly, did Codg. I said this event was being used as one more step in a battle re: Women's Ordination, and the woman herself used it as such. Your response is 'Well she didn't say the Church totally changed its policy overnight'. That ain't much of a response.

Crude said...

She rejoices they put oil on each other's forehead and mutually affirmed their baptismal vows.

She rejoices that a high member of the Catholic Church hierarchy treated her as legitimate clergy, because she sees this as a stepping stone.

Is she at war with the Church? No she isn't Catholic. She is no more at war then a Rabbi who hopes in vain the Catholic Church would dogmatically decree Jews don't have to believe in Jesus.

She is at war with the Church's teaching just as the Rabbi is. Note: they don't give a shit about becoming Catholic. There are plenty of *atheists* who push hard to change the Church's stance on women's ordination.

She is not 'hoping' here. She is engaged in public acts with apparently sympathetic cardinals.

This is exactly the sort of bullshit I have precious little time for. The woman saw the act with the cardinal as a step towards female clergy - a step towards legitimizing the idea, something she is working towards. That is the ONLY thing that was gained by this stupid move by a cardinal. I have given you ample opportunity to have a respectful, polite dialogue with me - you've spent the entire time spinning so fast I'm frankly surprised you're not airborne, and insulting me left and right.

It ends.