Uncle Jay reports that in the past week, "the earth shook, the sky swirled, the waves crashed, and Beyonce is pregnant!"
In other news ...
• Adam Wilson of the Cardinal Newman Society reports that the majority of Catholic college websites do not have the identifier "Catholic" on their home pages. Given how they describe the state of Catholic higher education, one wonders why they make that sound like a bad thing.
• In Batavia, New York, a man's colorful golfing attire was mistaken for a clown outfit, and he was cited for drunk driving. Naturally, there's more.
• A report from Berlin says that an eight-year-old boy was left in a school bus by the driver. It was rather hot that day, but by the end of it, the boy was found. He rationed his school lunch to last the whole night. Police are investigating the driver for possible negligence. Wow, ya think?
• Finally, police in the town of Elsloo, Netherlands, "battled for over an hour Monday to clear traffic on a main motorway after a cash-in-transit van lost a money trunk, showering the road with 10-, 20- and 50-euro bills." And here all this time I thought money grew on trees.
For now, that's all the news that fits. Ah, but the week is still young. Stay tuned, and stay in touch.
9 comments:
the Cardinal Newman Society reports that the majority of Catholic college websites do not have the identifier "Catholic" on their home pages
Nor does the word "Catholic" appear once on this website home page:
http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm
I have come to think the CNS is a silly organization.
Katherine:
Two false assumptions: 1) that the Holy See needs to identify itself as Catholic to be recognized as such, and 2) that concern over the lack of Catholic identity of ostensibly Catholic institutions makes an organization "silly." Regarding the latter, just how did you "come to think" this anyway?
I wasn't commenting on the CNS's concern over the Catholic identity of Catholic institutions. I was commenting on their use of the appearence of the word "Catholic" on the home page of the their website as a measure of it. I think that shows them to be rather silly.
"As a measure of it."
It is obvious from their position statement that the concern is not confined to the use of the word, or the lack thereof, but the premise behind it as manifest in other actions on the part of those institutions. In short, their concern has more substance than the mere use of a word.
I imagine their concern does go beyond the lack of the word. And to those who are already convinced of the validity of their assertion based on other evidence they are aware of, their statement would be a defensible "rah, rah for our beliefs." -- i.e asserting what we already know but offering no particular evidence.
But to anyone looking for an informed commentary, it offers only a measurement that seems to not be a very good one.
"[T]o anyone looking for an informed commentary, it offers only a measurement that seems to not be a very good one."
Which is why their "measurement" goes beyond this singular issue, even within the position statement concerning it. The firmness in Catholic identity of any Catholic university is critical to those who attend, whether they appreciate it or not. The Church has the right to defend Herself in Her own house. Places of higher learning which do not permit that, deprive the Church of Her rights to speak the Truth, and mislead the students to attend (to say nothing of the parents who shell out tens of thousands of dollars).
Just how much "informed commentary" are you looking for? Have they not addressed this enough to satisfy you? What more could they say?
Just how much "informed commentary" are you looking for?
Something more than just "they don't have the word 'Catholic' on their website's homepage."
CNS offers the intellectual equivalent of a shout of "Go Redskins." If you are a pre-existing Redskins fan, that may be enough for you. But by itself, it is about as shallow as you can get.
"Something more than just "they don't have the word 'Catholic' on their website's homepage."
That's just it. They already have, referring to their broader position statement within the one in question. The problem with your argument is that you assume that this is all they have to say, when there is a body of evidence to the contrary -- basically the equivalent of "Go Cowboys."
And every bit as shallow.
Katherine:
When I say "shallow," I'm referring to the argument, not you personally. I just wanted to be sure that was understood. It is all too easy to take one statement and build a conclusion around it to suit one's own preconceptions. If you are to critique CNS with any intellectual honesty, it seems to me that you have to look at the whole of their position (less than one web page to read), and build your case against them from there.
THAT'S when your adversary has something to chew on.
Post a Comment