TheAgitator.com
Bishop Carlson/Weekly Standard/Tom Daschle Update
Friday, April 18th, 2003Via the comments section of Atrios’ site, we learn that the bishop who wants to effectively excommunicate Tom Daschle for his failure to be “morally coherent” himself has issues with moral clarity — he helped cover for priests in his archdiocese who buggered little boys, for example.
So, to summarize, here’s your Weekly Standard/National Review guide to appropriate Catholicism:
1. Covering for child molesters: Acceptable. Or at least forgiveable, so long as those doing the covering up abide by item #2.
2. Covering for politicians who support abortion: Unacceptable.
3. Opposing the church on the death penalty: Acceptable.
4. Opposing the church on abortion: Unacceptable.
5. Opposing the church on a war the pope himself called “a defeat for humanity:” Acceptable, recommended even.
UPDATE: Also love this comment, from the original post:
Lovely, the a la carte Catholicism of the right.One would think that when splitting moral hairs over the rightness of a war they’d give more consideration to, oh, the Pope, than, oh, a prominent Methodist.
Then again, as they say, there’s a Methodism to the madness.
When in doubt, err on the side of not blowing anyone up.
“There’s a Methodist to the madness.”
Superb.
To be fair, Daschle seems to have been out of communion with the church for about 20 years. SInce he ALSO doesn’t support most of their major theological positions, IN ADDITION to the fact that he is not a member of good standing, it’s a little odd of him to be calling himself Catholic.
Weaker than most, Radley.
1) I’d expect more from you than the equivalent of “conservatives hate black people” when it comes to the Church.
2) As it should be.
3) If you’d like to understand Catholic teaching before you write about it – the death penalty falls in a different category than the teaching on abortion.
4) As it should be. It’s a practice considered wrong, evil – every time.
5) Again, a different kind of teaching.
If you’re saddled with such a disdain for the Catholic Church, that’s your prerogative. It’s just too bad you’d resort to this sort of garbage to try to score points. On Good Friday.
Mike –
My disdain isn’t for the Catholic Church. It’s for people who hit other people over the head with it — and who do said over-head-hitting with a fair amount of hypocrisy, to boot.
I didn’t attack Catholicm in either post. I attacked certain pundits who exploit it for political advantage.
As for #1 — how is what I wrote akin to saying “conservatives hate black people?” What about #1 is wrong? Bottum favorably quoted a bishop who covered up for a pedophile. Those facts aren’t disputable.
Finally, you and I both know that, in fact, there are a fair amount of conservatives who really do hate black people. No, not all of them of course. But in my two years of working in the conservative movement, I encountered far more racism than I ever expected, and enough to completely turn me off to the philosophy.
As for bringing all of this up on Good Friday, well, perhaps that was poor judgment on my part. But the Standard column ran yesterday, so I commented on it today. The fact that it’s Good Friday never really entered my mind.
Why do some folks feel like religion should be untouchable, and above criticism? That’s a very dangerous attitude considering how much influence religious beliefs have over ones actions and motives. We are influenced by rules and values that we are told come down from God, but who told us that? God didn’t tell us, other people did. Shouldn’t that be questioned?!
“A different kind of teaching”/”falls in a different category”
It is? uh, how? You’re trying to say one is less relevant than the other, which is an attempt to say that one is has no relevance. So, care to back that up?
Talktile,
THe Church teaches that the act of abortion itself is a moral evil – wrong in all cases, at all times. There is no mitigating circumstance imaginable.
Regarding the death penalty, the Church teaches that the act itself may be appropriate – reserved for the state to protect society, but not used for retribution/deterrence, etc. The Church also teaches that in our current society, circumstances surrounding crime and punishment allow us to provide alternative methods of punishment and therefore we are called to mercy if possible. It’s not the act itself that becomes evil, it’s the way in which its applied.
Radley – regarding beating people over the head – I’d agree, to a point. At the same time, the Church ought to be able to set standards for its own members’ conduct. Just because some leaders/bishops/priests have miserably failed their own duty to do so at times hardly voids that duty itself.
And my beef was the insinuation that you claim that the Nat’l Review crowd, etc somehow finds “Covering for child molesters” is acceptable. I think you’d fail to find that opinion there, you’d have to make quite a few leaps.
As far as conservatives and black people, I really didn’t mean anything by that except that it’s often the lowest form of rhetoric used to attack conservatives, as the church sex scandal is tossed about as an easy way to score points attacking the church as a whole.
I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but National Review was out front and strong in its criticism of the Catholic Church regarding child-molesting priests. To my knowledge, which is close to comprehensive (I subscribe to the magazine and keep up with the website), NR hasn’t wavered or backtracked on the subject.