Crude7/24/2012 2:19 AM
This is one more reason not to be Catholic. The church of Rome can’t provide basic moral guidance on an issue this basic. Indeed, it is giving the wrong advice.
You shouldn't be a Catholic, because a Jesuit favors gun control? Really, this is a reason?
Steve, c'mon. Is it impossible for some particular Catholic to do something wrong or hold a wrong opinion, and for that not to somehow work into a "and THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is one more reason not to be Catholic" move? I mean, would a pro-gun-rights Catholic count as a reason to BE Catholic?
At this point I half expect you to pull something like "Conan O'Brien isn't very funny. Is he Catholic? Because if so, ONE MORE REASON NOT TO BE CATHOLIC." And to mean it! That level of insanity.
i) Fr. Martin’s position is hardly idiosyncratic. For instance, the USCCB takes a similar position. Where do you think the Fr. Martins of the world get their views in the first place? They are parroting the party line:
ii) From you we’re getting the stereotypical reaction of the loyal Catholic layman. The fixer. Catholic laymen often assume the role of fixer. Whenever an official representative of their denomination makes an embarrassing public statement, the fixer makes a bunny-ears hand sign behind the head of the foolish Catholic cleric or prelate, assuring us, with a wink and a nod, that that doesn’t count.
The lay Catholic fixer is typically a guy with far more sensible views than the views of the institution he serves. He agrees with us that of course the priest/monsignor/bishop/cardinal/pope is spouting nonsense, but somehow we shouldn’t hold that against The One True Church®
But this is upside down. The folks at the bottom are wiser than the folks at the top. So why not make Bill Donohue (i.e. The Catholic League) the next pope? Wouldn’t that be a signal improvement on the status quo?
Or, to paraphrase the late William F. Buckley, it often seems as if picking the first ten names from the phonebook would yield better results than the USCCB.
Also, holy hell. You need some more hyperbole over there? I am strongly in favor of gun rights. I reject idiotic attempts to limit people's right to possess handguns, to force them to register, I'm in favor of stand your ground laws. But this sort of thing is just going over the edge.
Look at Australia. They passed some draconian gun control laws. They were a stupid plan, and haven't helped much with their crime situation, by their own records. But it didn't turn Australia into a Mad Max style place. It just trampled their rights. You'd be better off saying it's an open invitation to the government to wreak mayhem, if they see fit.
Really, the guy's argument was easy to take apart, but you blew it because you've got this whole "Man do I hate the Catholic Church" thing going on, to the point where it blinds you. Granted, not to the sociopathic levels it hits Bugay, but still.
Your objection results from a careless reading of what I wrote, as well as a careless reading of what Fr. Martin wrote. Fr. Martin’s position doesn’t reserve gun possession for law enforcement officers. According to his pacifist interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, no one should be allowed to have guns. Not private citizens. Not police. Not FBI. Not US soldiers.
Hey, I get a direct post in reply. I'm honored!
ReplyDeletei) Fr. Martin’s position is hardly idiosyncratic. For instance, the USCCB takes a similar position. Where do you think the Fr. Martins of the world get their views in the first place? They are parroting the party line:
Great! Guess what? The USCCB's views on gun control isn't a statement of Catholic dogma either. I think their political opinions are incorrect on a number of topics.
The problem is trying to connect this to Catholicism, or better yet, as evidence that Catholicism is incorrect. You're expecting something out of the jesuit and even the USCCB that Catholics aren't supposed to expect. Priests and bishops can make crappy political decisions? It's not surprising.
The lay Catholic fixer is typically a guy with far more sensible views than the views of the institution he serves. He agrees with us that of course the priest/monsignor/bishop/cardinal/pope is spouting nonsense, but somehow we shouldn’t hold that against The One True Church®
Yeah, you shouldn't. I ask you again: should I hold Jesse Jackson against protestants? How about against baptists? Or would that be ridiculous to do?
I see you're gunning for Ben Witherington on this topic. Protestant, I believe. Yet more evidence that protestantism generally, or his particular version of it, is wrong? Again, quite nuts.
Or, to paraphrase the late William F. Buckley, it often seems as if picking the first ten names from the phonebook would yield better results than the USCCB.
Yeah, Buckley helps me out here more than you. Buckley was a practicing Catholic, a traditionalist Catholic, and knew that idiocy from the USCCB wasn't a mark against Catholicism. He'd also, I assume, regard Jesse Jackson and others' political antics as a poor reason to dismiss Protestantism.
Your objection results from a careless reading of what I wrote, as well as a careless reading of what Fr. Martin wrote. Fr. Martin’s position doesn’t reserve gun possession for law enforcement officers. According to his pacifist interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, no one should be allowed to have guns. Not private citizens. Not police. Not FBI. Not US soldiers.
Then it should be real easy for you to cite Martin saying that he's advocating for laws against soldiers and police lacking access to guns. In fact, I'll be extremely impressed if you can do that, given the following from his article:
"Pro-life religious people need to consider how it might be made more difficult for people to procure weapons that are not designed for sport or hunting or self-defense."
"There are some cogent arguments against restricting access to firearms. People enjoy guns for sport and hunting. The Second Amendment permits the private ownership of guns (though I doubt that the need for a “well-regulated militia” envisioned by the framers of the Constitution translates into easy access to assault weapons.) But there is nothing to say that more stringent gun control laws that could prevent such horrible crimes cannot be judiciously balanced with constitutional rights."
If he's advocating what you're saying he's advocating - and he may well be - he sure as hell doesn't do it in that article. In fact, he seems to be allowing for gun ownership for self-defense and hunting - instead he seems to be making the usual stupid move of complaining about "assault weapons", aka, "guns that kind of look scary because they're all black and they have those intimidating attachments that they don't know what the use is for but probably EVIL".
Now, let's see it. I want to see where Fr. Martin calls for laws banning guns for all people, police and soldiers included. And it had better not be some crap like "in a totally idyllic world, guns wouldn't exist" given a reaching policy spin.
Crude:
Delete“Great! Guess what? The USCCB’s views on gun control isn’t a statement of Catholic dogma either. I think their political opinions are incorrect on a number of topics…The problem is trying to connect this to Catholicism, or better yet, as evidence that Catholicism is incorrect. You’re expecting something out of the jesuit and even the USCCB that Catholics aren't supposed to expect. Priests and bishops can make crappy political decisions? It’s not surprising.”
i) That’s classic now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t Catholicism: Yes, we mustn’t connect the teaching of Catholic bishops with Catholicism. And not just individual bishops. Even the conference of US bishops is conveniently detachable from Catholicism.
You’re like a consigliere who sets up a series of front organizations to shield the papacy from accountability. The pope is untouchable…like the Hidden Imam.
ii) Catholics are duty-bound to submit to many teachings which fall short of “dogma.” The teaching of the ordinary Magisterium is still authoritative.
iii) Moreover, the political slant of the USCCB is consistent with the social teaching of JP2 and B16 in their encyclicals. Take Benedict XVI’s recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate:
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/227839
“Yeah, you shouldn’t. I ask you again: should I hold Jesse Jackson against protestants? How about against baptists? Or would that be ridiculous to do?”
The USCCB is the Catholic analogue to Jesse Jackson? That’s a pretty damning analogy.
Protestant ecclesiology doesn’t make the same lofty claims for its clergy that your denomination makes for the Roman episcopate. Jackson is just a charlatan. By contrast, the USCCB is not a rogue agency or schismatic organization. You act like the USCCB is the leftwing counterpart to the SSPV.
“I see you’re gunning for Ben Witherington on this topic. Protestant, I believe. Yet more evidence that protestantism generally, or his particular version of it, is wrong? Again, quite nuts.”
Indeed his version is wrong. He’s Arminian. I’m a Calvinist.
“Then it should be real easy for you to cite Martin saying that he's advocating for laws against soldiers and police lacking access to guns.”
Don’t play dumb. He’s a pacifist. He talks about a “consistent ethic of life.” He places self-defense on the same plane as murder, abortion, and euthanasia. He makes no exceptions for the “sanctity of life.” Everyone is “deserving of life.”
He says “the Christian outlook on this of course has less to do with self-defense and more to do with the defense of the other person. Jesus asks us to love our enemies, not to murder them; to pray for them, not to take vengeance.”
The principle he articulates is hardly confined to private citizens.
i) That’s classic now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t Catholicism: Yes, we mustn’t connect the teaching of Catholic bishops with Catholicism. And not just individual bishops. Even the conference of US bishops is conveniently detachable from Catholicism.
DeleteNo, connect the teaching of Catholic bishops with Catholicism all you like - so long as, you know, it's relevant to freaking Catholicism. Nor is the US bishops "conveniently detachable from Catholicism". Political opinions are.
Really, your logic sucks here. If we did a survey of Catholic bishops about their favorite movie and the result was that the majority favored "Bladerunner", we'd see a post here about how Groundhog Day was clearly the BEST movie, the bishops are wrong, and that their praise of Bladerunner "is just one more reason not to be Catholic". And just as now, that'd be freaking ridiculous.
ii) Catholics are duty-bound to submit to many teachings which fall short of “dogma.” The teaching of the ordinary Magisterium is still authoritative.
And yet, you can still disagree with USCCB and Pope on economic policy. Really, this is news to you?
Protestant ecclesiology doesn’t make the same lofty claims for its clergy that your denomination makes for the Roman episcopate.
You mean Protestants ecclesiology expects that some or all Protestants can be as accurate as Jesse Jackson? Talk about being damning. ;)
Don’t play dumb. He’s a pacifist. He talks about a “consistent ethic of life.” He places self-defense on the same plane as murder, abortion, and euthanasia. He makes no exceptions for the “sanctity of life.” Everyone is “deserving of life.”
And here it is, the end result of any point where you, Steve, make a statement you can't back up: You double down.
He doesn't say what you said he did. That's a wacky extrapolation you made from his article, the same article where he talks about recognizing certain arguments for gun rights, even self-protection. I ask you to back it up, and I get the stammering internet reply of 'Don't play dumb, he SAYS THIS and you KNOW IT! I just, you know, can't point out where he actually says this. But I feel it, in my BONES!'
You were wrong, Steve. And just like I said, you screwed up in your response. You could have gutted him intellectually on this issue, but you got way too greedy and too sloppy. So now you're backed in a corner where you made an obvious mistake, everyone can see you made the mistake, and everyone can see you failing to cop to it.
This is usually where you'd double down again, and make another post desperately trying to prove your point - in this case, that Fr Martin believes in complete unilateral disarmament of police and soldiers, taking every single gun away either for protection or hunting. And hey, go for it if you so choose. But man, you don't look the way you hope you do when you do it.
By the way, Steve. Just to be clear, I actually like a lot of your posts. I think some of your criticisms, like this one, is totally valid. But I think you miss the boat and overplay your hand whenever you try to parley it into 'an argument against Catholicism'. You could have ripped this guy apart from multiple levels if you stuck to the issue. But when you go overboard, it just blunts your points across the board.
ReplyDeleteScale it back, learn how to make a measured response, and don't up the ante unless it really works.
Don't flatter yourself in thinking I live for your approval.
DeleteDon't flatter yourself in thinking I live for your approval.
DeleteYeah, because that's anywhere suggested in my post, right?
Look, you screw up. I do too. The difference is that you think an appropriate response to any screwup on your part is to double down, maybe in the hopes that if you just get progressively more decisive and loud in your responses, no one will notice you screwed up. Surprise! They do.
I couldn't care less if you like or dislike my approval, but I'm trying to give you some helpful advice, and pay you a compliment (Not that you care about those!!!! ;) in the process. Partly because when you're not swinging madly at Catholics, you're engaging atheists and Cultists of Gnu, and I'd like to see you do a good job there. You often do. And sometimes you screw up and everyone knows it.
Go ahead, ignore this advice completely because I'm, you know, a dirty Catholic or whatever. But I've seen this pattern for years now, and you'd do better in these arguments if you learned the lesson I'm telling you about.
Hi Crude,
DeleteFor what it's worth, if anything, I happen to think Steve offered a reasonable response.
I'm not saying this because I'm a Protestant. Or because I disagree with Catholicism. Or because I agree with his response. After all, it's possible to think Steve's response is reasonable even if one disagrees with it.
Rather I'm saying this simply because I think it truly is reasonable. I don't think he went over the top or screwed up or anything like that. From my perspective it was a fair and level-headed response, whether or not one happens to agree with it. So there's nothing for him to scale back on.
Maybe you could say I say all this because I'm a Protestant and agree with Steve or something along those lines. But by the same token I could say you've said what've said because you're a Catholic and disagree with Steve or something along those lines. But let's not go down this road.
At any rate, I'm afraid I don't see how your otherwise well-intentioned advice to Steve is apropos.
Just my two cents' worth.