Saturday, May 23, 2015

Miserable craven mawworms...

...also known as certain members of the leaders of the Church in Ireland, do absolutely nothing to stop their country from voting to spit in the face of St. Patrick and invite the Serpent he banished back in to take over their nation.

Oh, sure, the bishops issued a statement, or something, but many of them having squandered their moral authority and destroyed the Church from within for decades, it didn’t amount to anything.

The parable of the talents comes to mind.  The Irish bishops have been remarkably similar to the servant who was handed a treasure and...went off and buried it, out of fear, instead of seeing to it that it increased.  Now their treasure will eventually be given to someone else, but in the meantime the treasure--Ireland’s erstwhile Catholic sons and daughters--are still buried in the muck and mire and manure of modern depravity, which is all they have ever known, and thus from their point of view of  muck and mire and manure are all desirable real-estate.

What a sad end to a once-great daughter of the Faith; she has become a prostitute, and sold herself to the highest bidder.  I am ashamed to share her name.


Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Hope they won't spell it your way, at least!

L. said...

Well, you can probably guess what I think.

But I did find it odd that a matter of civil rights was decided by popular vote.

Red Cardigan said...

L., I always know what you think.

If a country were voting on whether polygamous groups of bisexuals could consummate their marriages on public streets during religious parades and then have any necessary future abortions performed for free on Church altars by nuns, you would also enthusiastically support it and wonder why anybody had to vote on a civil right like that.

You are rather predictable, you know.

Elizabeth said...

Erin, you know the Church lost Ireland over the abuse revelations. I read yesterday, somewhere on this huge thing of an internet, that attendance at Mass dropped from about 96% of the population to 14% after the news broke. No amount of spirited defense by Church leaders would have changed anything.

When Minnesotans voted decisively against defining marriage as "one man, one woman" in the State constitution a few years back, the local RCC leadership engaged in a vigorous campaign. It didn't have an impact, as the revelations of child sexual abuse and coverups continued during that time and maybe since - I lose track of timing as I age.

The Roman Church has lost its credibility, at least in the West, as a moral force on such matters. I hope it doesn't lose credibility as a voice for the poor and disenfranchised, because the small "o" orthodox churches are one of the only organized counter balances to the corporate maw that is consuming our culture - and this from an old quasi-lefty who is frustrated and exhausted by what "left" has come to mean.

Elizabeth said...

Also, your response to "L" is somewhat lacking in charity. Your positions are also pretty predictable.

Don't work yourself into a stroke over this, please. Your family needs you.

Red Cardigan said...

John, I’m actually not seeing a comment from you under any account. Weird!

Elizabeth, there’s no doubt the abuse scandals have muted the voice of the Church on this, and the word “mawworm” means hypocrite (you probably know this already, just pointing it out). The Church’s hypocrisy in looking the other when when priests were having sex with teenaged boys makes it difficult for anyone to take the Church seriously when lay men are having sex with teenage and older young men, and even when they want to call that “marriage.”

Don’t worry about my response to L., though. L. and I have been sort of doing this for a while. She likes to visit various Catholic blogs and say the most shocking things possible (e.g., how she’d have aborted her own children and that would have been no big deal, etc.). I used to fall for it, but now I pretty much say the most shocking thing possible back, or even preemptively. It’s a game. :)

L. said...

It's true that Erin and I go back a long way -- I started reading Catholic blogs about 10 years ago, when I was sending my kids to a Catholic school.

What isn't true is that I say things merely for the shock value -- although I do admit heavy use of sarcasm & emphasis at times. What Erin believes are "the most shocking things possible" are in fact the principles according to which I've lived my life. [And for the record, since she brought it up, I had pre-natal testing in all of my full-term pregnancies, and would have terminated in some circumstances -- and I also would have aborted a healthy pregnancy in other circumstances.]

But one reason I keep coming back here is because I enjoy Erin's superlative use of hyperbole. It's always a fun read, plus there are the (very rare) issues on which we actually agree.

Elena LaVictoire said...

Between this news and the Duggar Scandal, it's been kind of a depressing weekend. God's will will be done and goodness will prevail - but one wonders how bad it will get before then.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Duggar scandal?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Erin's response to L is lacking in charity? That reminds me of the nun at a public conference on some controversial subject whose vehemence in debate motivated the chair to admonish us that the Bible calls us to love our enemies. "Oh, I love him all right," the nun responded, "but I don't like him one bit."

I do think L. is a bit confused about civil rights. First, a "civil" right is one established by civil law, constitution, custom... it is not a "natural" right and does not exist axiomatically or ipso facto. Strange as it may seem, Ireland has never adopted the Constitution of the United States of America as its own. In fact, its constitution begins with acknowledgement of The Most Holy Trinity. So there is no pre-existing "civil right" to be voted on. The vote was about whether to establish something AS a civil right.

Then there is the question of whether there is a civil right, even under the U.S. constitution, that two men, or two women, be treated exactly the same as a man and a woman, or whether one or both of the first two combinations constitutes a marriage. There is no "civil right" that the law treat the same that which is in fact different. Couples don't have civil rights, individuals do. As long as all individuals have the same options, the fact that different individuals make different choices is irrelevant. It makes perfect sense that the law would regulate a fundamental biological relation that is indeed normative, and ignore any number of biochemical outliers, while recognizing the civil right of all concerned to be left alone (in the eloquent words of Louis Brandeis). It is those who demand recognition as a matter of right who grate on the nerves.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

To Siarlys Jenkins, you might enjoy this reflection on equality in pursuit of happiness:

HGL's F.B. writings : A Video with Walter Hooper and One or Two Differences with him

As to Duggar Scandal, which I asked about, I googled it.

New blog on the kid : A Question for Mr. Duggar - answered by Google - and a Question for In Touch Magazine

L. said...

I know what civil rights are -- and I repeat, it strikes me as odd, to base them on a referendum.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Gee, L. if you stomp your foot and insist "I do so know what civil rights are" then that must surely make it true.

(Perhaps you could explain WHAT you think they are? Then we could all evaluate the integrity of your claim. You must have SOME definition that does NOT rely on a civil legal framework, but then, why and how ARE they "CIVIL rights"?)

Hans Georg Lundahl... thanks for the links, I most post before I can leave the page to view them. More later, perhaps.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

OK Hans, I'm back. Definitely agree about the difference between "pursuit of happiness" and a right to "happiness." Neither the informal oppression of our neighbors nor the actions of The State should needlessly obstruct our pursuit of happiness by lawful means. Of course if what makes you happy is arson, rape, pillage and murder, probably not in exactly that order, then those are unlawful means, and infringe the pursuit of happiness by quite a few others. We are not guaranteed a happy outcome.

Your reference to shaving legs gave me the impression you are female, belied by both your name and your photo. Must have missed a grammatical construct somewhere.

They are sinners and need conversion. No one should tell them they are "mentally ill" and need therapy.

Fascinating... so the American Psychological Association need not classify homosexuality as a mental illness, its not, but, any church is free to condemn it as a sin. I'm cool with that. After all, if you don't agree, you can always join the Episcopal Church, or, that portion of it that swings your way in the event of an impending schism.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

I am not female.

I have however been portrayed as effeminate.

Among other reasons due to a rumour "I shave my legs" which I don't.

And the reason for this is that I am blonde, my leg hairs down't show black.

That's how certain rumour mongering works.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

OK Hans I got it. A woman who was blonde might not bother to shave her legs because the hair doesn't show. In your case, people who don't see any hair on your legs think you must shave them. And you turned a bit of humor on the whole thing.

I used to volunteer at a Boys and Girls Club where a six year old girl ran her hand over my arm and said "You need to shave." I had heard occasionally that Europeans grow hair in places Africans don't, but it had never had any practical meaning for me before. It hasn't since really, but for a moment it was something to think about.