|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 21:20:11 GMT -6
Is your Francomania starting to ebb a bit? It doesn't take much to be a breath of fresh air after Ratzinger. Was that sarcasm or a case of mistaken identity? I've never been more than slightly impressed by the guy's eschewing much of the traditional opulence and regal trappings that his predecessors so favored. I've said since his election that he's all feel-goods, warm fuzzies and window-dressing camouflaging a hardcore doctrinal traditionalist or he'd never have been elected. It was either on Bnet or the Corner that I referred to him as a pope in the Ronald Reagan manner, all charm and contradiction. I still see no particular reason to regard him any more benignly. The velvet gloves are merely more showy on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 23:02:18 GMT -6
Sarcasm. I never would mistakenly identify someone with green hair and eyes to match. FWIW, you did seem to be a bit taken by Franky at first though.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 1:42:54 GMT -6
Only, as you put it, "a bit taken" by the performance.
I'll still give the man a modicum of credit for doing some very uncharacteristic things for even an ordinary bishop much less a cardinal-archbishop. Rejecting the standard cushy residence and transportation accorded the higherups does say something unusual hinting at a level of authenticity atypical for a Catholic cleric who hasn't vowed poverty, imitation though vowed poverty is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2014 10:27:07 GMT -6
It is undeniable that catholics are expressing and embracing more tolerance, but catholic leaders? Not a chance. In my opinion, you overestimate the benignity of your church in the face of overwhelming evidence that their social teachings are regressive and bigoted (just as they have historically been on racism, sexism). Personally, I don't think it reflects well on you. You may now proceed to compartmentalize... This post from one who earlier in the evening reasonably called out an annoying drive-by as "dripping with condescension..." What a riot! I'm OK with a bit of hypocrisy now and then, but seriously, are you blind? My point was based in historical context. The official Church position, as expressed by its leadership, is making baby steps toward tolerance. This is obvious if you compare the Church's attitudes on race, gender and orientation from earlier decades to now. I am not now saying (and never have said) the Church's positions aren't regressive or bigoted. I think they are. You obviously miss the Hammer and are spoiling for someone to defend the Church in the face of your attacks. Alas, I'm the wrong guy for that since I agree with you on the merits. The difference between you and me does not lie in our attitudes toward race, gender and orientation. One difference is that I am willing to try to understand and appreciate the points of view of those with whom I disagree. You go straight to the ridicule and dismiss stage. Another difference is that I am willing to balance what I see as the good with the bad of an institution, e.g. the GOP and Church. You self-servingly slander this as compartmentalization. On the other hand, you prefer to define institutions as predominately good vs. overwhelmingly bad. Then you wonder why anyone who is not a fool or evil person does not join you in completely rejecting those you define as bad. This reflects curious naivete on your part concerning the nature of all human institutions, even those you favor. Jim
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 11:18:37 GMT -6
It is undeniable that catholics are expressing and embracing more tolerance, but catholic leaders? Not a chance. In my opinion, you overestimate the benignity of your church in the face of overwhelming evidence that their social teachings are regressive and bigoted (just as they have historically been on racism, sexism). Personally, I don't think it reflects well on you. You may now proceed to compartmentalize... This post from one who earlier in the evening reasonably called out an annoying drive-by as "dripping with condescension..." What a riot! I'm OK with a bit of hypocrisy now and then, but seriously, are you blind? My point was based in historical context. The official Church position, as expressed by its leadership, is making baby steps toward tolerance. This is obvious if you compare the Church's attitudes on race, gender and orientation from earlier decades to now. I am not now saying (and never have said) the Church's positions aren't regressive or bigoted. I think they are. You obviously miss the Hammer and are spoiling for someone to defend the Church in the face of your attacks. Alas, I'm the wrong guy for that since I agree with you on the merits. Jim has a definite point here, IMO, even though I'm not as confident as he that baby steps are actually being made. Perhaps so, as I freely admit I was astounded when JP2 actually said about the African AIDS epidemic that condom use to prevent infecting one's spouse with HIV or AIDS might possibly be morally justified as long as that and not contraception was the intent. I was a bit confounded by the implication that contraception wouldn't also be desirable if the woman was infected. However, trusting that God would protect any child born of condom failure or unprotected sex in such a situation would be consistent with RCC-approved understandings, for what that's worth--realistically, not much. When a good many women religious who work closely with impoverished women are adamant that contraception is necessary to alleviate poverty, the Church's continued insistence that artificial birth control is strictly forbidden seems hidebound as well as stuck in a golden past when overpopulation wasn't a concern. And insisting that a woman or girl impregnated by rape or incest must carry to term is simply reflective of uncomprehending celibate cruelty. I wonder how long it's going to take priests and bishops to acknowledge that lack of knowledge and understanding of Church teachings on contraception, fertility enhancement and homosexuality is not at all why lay Catholics aren't abiding by them. Surely decades of celibacy and devout promotion of doctrine don't make otherwise intelligent men oblivious to stark reality! Then again...
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 6, 2014 12:26:55 GMT -6
It is undeniable that catholics are expressing and embracing more tolerance, but catholic leaders? Not a chance. In my opinion, you overestimate the benignity of your church in the face of overwhelming evidence that their social teachings are regressive and bigoted (just as they have historically been on racism, sexism). Personally, I don't think it reflects well on you. You may now proceed to compartmentalize... This post from one who earlier in the evening reasonably called out an annoying drive-by as "dripping with condescension..." What a riot! I'm OK with a bit of hypocrisy now and then, but seriously, are you blind? I'm asking you the same question (minus the pre-amble). Careful to underline my "in my opinion", I think (again, think) that your relationship with the church represents a significant blind spot in your character, which, I hope have said often enough, I generally admire. As for condescension, you will have noticed in my remarks to Elliot that I had called specific attention to my own ability to do the same. It is not hypocrisy for me to point out his if I have no objection to you pointing out mine, and I don't. Think about it--being condescending about someone else's condescension? That's not an opportunity one gets every day. You will also have noticed that I called him out in the specific context of him complaining about uncivil discussion, when he was actually received here with politeness that isn't difficult to defend. He was whining because he was caught flatfooted by people having credible retorts to position. Dot caught it. Ken didn't. Par for the course. I expected that you would have, but maybe I overestimated you.* My point was based in historical context. The official Church position, as expressed by its leadership, is making baby steps toward tolerance. In your opinion. I think it is far more plausible, given that they still believe (and regularly let slip) that homosexuality is a "moral evil" (verbatim) and a significant threat to society, that the shifts in position represent exactly what I described in my previous post, i.e. a political fire wall--a fall back position to limit gay rights/freedoms knowing that they lack the votes, so to speak, to prevent expansion of said rights. As much fun as it is to paint an opponent as irrational in a debate, I don't think that you have given this possibility/probability adequate thought, if any, honestly. Again, you overestimate (IMO) the benignity of the organization to which you belong. You obviously miss the Hammer and are spoiling for someone to defend the Church in the face of your attacks. Alas, I'm the wrong guy for that since I agree with you on the merits. Regardless of what I am or am not spoiling for, you are self-evidently defending the church in your comments to me by assigning to them a more positive motive and progressive position than there is reason (IMO) to infer from their actions overall. What else would you call that if not a defense. Maybe it is not as rabid a defense as others would offer, but I am definitely not looking for that. I am looking for your position, which personally (again, personally) I find to be disturbing. Jeesh, Jim--just look at prop 8 alone. Somehow you think, based on a few expressed happy thoughts that an institution that has been arguing against gay rights right up to (nearly) the present has undergone a progressive change. My, isn't that trusting (feel free to use the same footnote at this point). As for Dan, sure--I would like to see him come back, but I certainly don't need him here to argue with you. I understand the nuances between your position and his and still find yours (on this specific issue) ridiculously naive, to borrow a charge. The difference between you and me does not lie in our attitudes toward race, gender and orientation. One difference is that I am willing to try to understand and appreciate the points of view of those with whom I disagree. You go straight to the ridicule and dismiss stage. Another difference is that I am willing to balance what I see as the good with the bad of an institution, e.g. the GOP and Church. You self-servingly slander this as compartmentalization. On the other hand, you prefer to define institutions as predominately good vs. overwhelmingly bad. Then you wonder why anyone who is not a fool or evil person does not join you in completely rejecting those you define as bad. This reflects curious naivete on your part concerning the nature of all human institutions, even those you favor. God, how refreshing for you to finally express a personal opinion! It's not like I'm unaware of it. I am no more wounded about your assessment that I am too black/white (or naive, or whatever) than you probably are about my assessment that you compartmentalize. I am here to discuss. Personally (yes, personally), I think your tendency to withhold judgment in writing while still making it in the privacy of your mind is just a lawyerly habit, not moral high ground, although I expect that you disagree. I also think that the more subtle slander is to continue to imply that I haven't understood you. * condescension and sarcasm for humorous effect only. No animals were hurt in the execution of this footnote.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 6, 2014 13:26:39 GMT -6
True enough, as I perceive FB's role and self-assessment.
I apologize for having neglected to grant that FB did indeed compliment Elliott on being FB's superior when it comes to piling on the condescension. I neglectfully omitted acknowledgment of that particular saving grace of FB's. < sassy wink & grin >
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2014 14:27:42 GMT -6
This post from one who earlier in the evening reasonably called out an annoying drive-by as "dripping with condescension..." What a riot! I'm OK with a bit of hypocrisy now and then, but seriously, are you blind? I'm asking you the same question (minus the pre-amble). Careful to underline my "in my opinion", I think (again, think) that your relationship with the church represents a significant blind spot in your character, which, I hope have said often enough, I generally admire. As for condescension, you will have noticed in my remarks to Elliot that I had called specific attention to my own ability to do the same. It is not hypocrisy for me to point out his if I have no objection to you pointing out mine, and I don't. Think about it--being condescending about someone else's condescension? That's not an opportunity one gets every day. You will also have noticed that I called him out in the specific context of him complaining about uncivil discussion, when he was actually received here with politeness that isn't difficult to defend. He was whining because he was caught flatfooted by people having credible retorts to position. Dot caught it. Ken didn't. Par for the course. I expected that you would have, but maybe I overestimated you.* My point was based in historical context. The official Church position, as expressed by its leadership, is making baby steps toward tolerance. In your opinion. I think it is far more plausible, given that they still believe (and regularly let slip) that homosexuality is a "moral evil" (verbatim) and a significant threat to society, that the shifts in position represent exactly what I described in my previous post, i.e. a political fire wall--a fall back position to limit gay rights/freedoms knowing that they lack the votes, so to speak, to prevent expansion of said rights. As much fun as it is to paint an opponent as irrational in a debate, I don't think that you have given this possibility/probability adequate thought, if any, honestly. Again, you overestimate (IMO) the benignity of the organization to which you belong. You obviously miss the Hammer and are spoiling for someone to defend the Church in the face of your attacks. Alas, I'm the wrong guy for that since I agree with you on the merits. Regardless of what I am or am not spoiling for, you are self-evidently defending the church in your comments to me by assigning to them a more positive motive and progressive position than there is reason (IMO) to infer from their actions overall. What else would you call that if not a defense. Maybe it is not as rabid a defense as others would offer, but I am definitely not looking for that. I am looking for your position, which personally (again, personally) I find to be disturbing. Jeesh, Jim--just look at prop 8 alone. Somehow you think, based on a few expressed happy thoughts that an institution that has been arguing against gay rights right up to (nearly) the present has undergone a progressive change. My, isn't that trusting (feel free to use the same footnote at this point). As for Dan, sure--I would like to see him come back, but I certainly don't need him here to argue with you. I understand the nuances between your position and his and still find yours (on this specific issue) ridiculously naive, to borrow a charge. The difference between you and me does not lie in our attitudes toward race, gender and orientation. One difference is that I am willing to try to understand and appreciate the points of view of those with whom I disagree. You go straight to the ridicule and dismiss stage. Another difference is that I am willing to balance what I see as the good with the bad of an institution, e.g. the GOP and Church. You self-servingly slander this as compartmentalization. On the other hand, you prefer to define institutions as predominately good vs. overwhelmingly bad. Then you wonder why anyone who is not a fool or evil person does not join you in completely rejecting those you define as bad. This reflects curious naivete on your part concerning the nature of all human institutions, even those you favor. God, how refreshing for you to finally express a personal opinion! It's not like I'm unaware of it. I am no more wounded about your assessment that I am too black/white (or naive, or whatever) than you probably are about my assessment that you compartmentalize. I am here to discuss. Personally (yes, personally), I think your tendency to withhold judgment in writing while still making it in the privacy of your mind is just a lawyerly habit, not moral high ground, although I expect that you disagree. I also think that the more subtle slander is to continue to imply that I haven't understood you. * condescension and sarcasm for humorous effect only. No animals were hurt in the execution of this footnote.Hi FB: I caught the nuances of you and Dot's interaction with Mr. Elliot and I'm not defending him. He seemed to be quite a pompous jerk. Maybe not quite a Mama Cass - scale windbag, but still... It is a shame that the last two people attracted to these forums have been drive by and fly away carpet bombers. Woodrowli offsets that somewhat of course. I assumed that your initial condescension was bait. I thought I might draw you out a bit more with a like kind reply, but I see that you are being cagey. We can agree that I am somewhat biased by being raised in Catholicism. I think that my pragmatic "benefit of the doubt" bias is quantitatively less than your "assume the worst in all cases" bias concerning RCC leadership. My relationship with the Church is fairly minimalist my the way. We are old friends who see each other infrequently. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 6, 2014 16:05:24 GMT -6
I think that my pragmatic "benefit of the doubt" bias is quantitatively less than your "assume the worst in all cases" bias concerning RCC leadership. And you come off as thinking that as well. Oops...was that cagey? Select emoticon:
|
|