Rants Revisited
It's fair to say that yesterday's commentary was even less even-tempered than usual. I realize I have a debt to queen-size women in spandex the world over. [UPDATE: The reference in question has since been tempered, after "taking counsel with my pillow." It can happen.] Then again, perhaps more appropriate attire while occupying the Holy of Holies would be every bit as kind a gesture, as any to be expected from me.
(Or just paint a bulls-eye on your hind-quarters, for all the difference it makes.)
Until then, I'd recommend to "Anonymous" that he or she obtain the book that was referenced in the essay. It's also available in paperback, and a used copy can only cost a few dollars. And when you do, pay close attention to a woman with a doctorate who started out as part of the parish's inner circle, then lost all her friends when she reconsidered her position on the ordination of women. It was all my fault, of course. I gave her a copy of an essay by Peter Kreeft which basically blew the opposition away. But the woman and her husband ended up leaving the parish because all the "enlightened ones" at the parish ostracized them.
And as an added bonus, read about the pastor's "inappropriate" relationship with a young man -- the operative word being "young." Some of the people who looked the other way are local supporters of VOTF (including a woman with a masters degree who spent an awful lot of time re-writing the Lectionary). Duh...
Which leads me to wonder, where is the compassion of all these over-educated nimrods when things fall apart? So read the damn book, then explain it to me, will ya? I promise, HERE AND NOW, an open forum for your response.
Then maybe -- just maybe -- I'll be impressed.
Stay tuned.... and stay in touch.
10 comments:
Concerning your comment: "But the woman and her husband ended up leaving the parish because all the 'enlightened ones' at the parish ostracized them."
I believe an early post I made on this blog concerned itself with parishioners in my little world who walked out of Mass in a self-righteous huff when a certain priest spoke of the evils of war. The departing ones were heard to say that said priest simply did not understand our soldiers needed our support.
Said priest was NOT saying that the soldiers were wrong; he said the concept of war is wrong. And I agree. Remember the priest has one hour per week to indoctrinate us with the teaching of our Church. That works out to .6% of the ENTIRE week.
Give me a break. Suck it up, get tough skinned and listen to the words of the Lord. War is evil, women aren't to be ordained. Period. Arguments to the contrary can be presented to Him on Judgement Day. Please don't be surprised if He's not overly enamored with your logic if you continue to adhere to tenets not in support of the institution He founded.
You just might want to re-think contrary positions on matters you may have pertaining to the Church prior to expiring, friends.
Thanks, Jack.
Concerning the evils of war, as with capital punishment, the Church has never taught that it is an objective evil in all circumstances. Having declared that, she gives us the conditions of a "just war." The particular case of the USA's involvement in Iraq has given the Apostolic See reason for pause.
What both difficult teachings have in common, is the matters of both self-defense and last resort. History and circumstance cause each to be applied differently. And so, we defer to Peter on a matter of prudential judgment.
My friend reached the conclusion that she did, regarding the question of women's ordination, on the basis of "faith seeking understanding," as opposed to "reason demanding proof." For this, she was willing to give up her friends and her social position, to follow Christ. It is a lonely journey for some, and the history of the Saints is full of accounts of pilgrims who rested from their solitary journey, only in the next life.
The wise man knows he is a fool in the sight of God, and humbles his wisdom, in the face of the Source of all Wisdom.
And me -- hell, I don't claim to have all the answers myself. A lot of impertinent questions, though.
And so we travel on...
Who are you to ask "where is the comparrion" after that mean spirited dreck you were spewing out?
Your uncharitable characterizations of those with whom you disagree does nothing to advance your argument.
Your suggestion of an "open forum" is disingenuous and appears to be nothing more than an opportunity for you to continue with your cheap shots.
Whoever you are...
To answer your question, who do I have to be? I've been perfectly willing to admit to the imperfections in my remarks, even as they are written. If you ever get a tighter grip on your own horses, you'll observe that my "cheap shots" do not extend to the comments area. I have nothing to gain by driving people away from an "open forum" (unless, of course, somebody's asking for it -- in which case they can start packin').
Now, do you have something to challenge the substance of my remarks, or shall I exercise my Imperial Perogative?
{I'm so glad to be a fly on the wall!}
A thousand pardons your majesty.
Jack- I'm glad someone else is enjoying this.
There, that's more like it.
Now, the question as posed remains on the floor for your consideration, as denoted in bold italics toward the end of this post.
Weren't you saying something about banning anonymous commenters?
Whoa! Mrs. Darwin's pointed remark does beare some truth, does it not?
Or, should the sparing partners "go at it" one more time?
Perhaps this news item was missed by a few (reading MSM will do that...)
It has been reported that GWB had an agreement in place by which Saddam would evacuate. The Arab states surrounding Iraq had to agree.
They did not; as a result, Saddam could not go to a "safe haven;" and as a result, he stayed.
This brings the "last resort" into play, as SH was clearly an illicit and murderous ruler. Yes, one can argue that the 'better course' was UN intervention.
But even JPII clearly stated that the UN was (is) a very poor vehicle. Perhaps when he made that comment he had discovered that one of his Stato underlings was on the take in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
Finally, JPII did not have the intel that GWB did (or thought he did.)
Post a Comment