AmericanPapist Comments
Tom,
After reading the column, I think your grammatical RADAR is a bit too sensitive, particularly on the "although" sentence. It is more of an, "on the one hand, the RCC doesn't condone online confessions, but on the other, they do reach out to their flock via technology to encourage them to come and confess to a priest." I agree, the sentence is ambiguous, but your shorts are a bit too bunched up on this one. I don't think the author is assuming any contradiction between word and deed here at all. That being said, you are right that the interview with the priest at the bottom of the article sounds like post-modern psychotherapeutic hog-waller, given that it doesn't say anything about what confession ACTUALLY is or that, you know, God is involved in any way. I really hope that this is due to the lack of education or desire for politically correct wording on behalf of the interviewer and not what might appear to be the subjectivist tendencies of the priest. By the way, this piece reminds me that I should probably make a trip out to my parish on Sat. afternoon . . .
The use of the word "although" invariably implies that the author feels there is some degree inconsistency between the two assertions in the sentence, although I can see how some people might not know that.
Oh, I forgot to say, these confessions are of zero sacramental value for Catholics. See http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/05...rt-on-
line.html
I think this statement which includes the concepts of online confessions and radio advertisements together in the same sentence is about as cogent as saying: "Although the Church believes in the Eucharist, many parishes also host potluck events."
I mean - huh?!
That's 'Father Crunk'. He used to (maybe he still does) appear on a morning drive time radio show here in Atlanta. Very popular with the young adults. I think he may have been our assistant vocations director for a short time.
Some of his on air appearances:
http://www.allthehitsq100.com/be...ure.asp?
id=7671
He's quite popular in the media, thus the CNN interview.
A Google search for Father Crunk will turn up many pages.
I don't know much else about him.
I think you're right, AmPap, although I agree with you.
Father Bailey is a terrific priest. Orthodox and proud of it, and he understands that there is nothing inconsistent about having a great time or a great sense of humor with being a serious Catholic.
I wouldn't expect logic out of CNN, one of whose reporters called Pope John Paul II: "the first non-Catholic pope in over 450 years."
Father Bailey is a very entertaining speaker!
Peters Elder and Peters Younger,
By no means am I condoning the way the sentence with the "although" is written, although I do think any clause following an "although" does not have to be in direct, principle of non-contradiction opposition to the previous clause. Now, the sentence in question is certainly written as if the author were a 5th grader, and thus your comedic responses hold. Although, I'm inclined to think that you both could use a little refresher course in set theory. The problem, I believe, is not that the author is antagonistic, it is that she is witless.
Although,
I could be wrong.
Then what about this response?
"Although I agree, you make a good point."
I dunno, maybe I'm taking crazy pills. I guess it's time to go confess lack of patience over at "imabigloser.com" or something.
I agree with Teep on the grammar. "Although" is not so much about a degree of inconsistency as some measure of contrast. The author was trying to say that while the Roman Catholic Church officially opposes online confessions, the Archdiocese of Washington encouraged traditional confessions last year via radio advertisements. The confusion stems in part, I think, from the use of the adverb "officially", which can *suggest* that the clause beginning with "although" represents a contrast or exception to official opposition. Instead, the contrast was intended to be between sacramental confession, which is encouraged, and online confession, which is opposed. The sentence is grammatical in the sense that it not only violates no rule of grammar, it also can be read to mean exactly what the author in all likelihood intended. That said, the fact that so many commentators have read it differently demonstrates that, while grammatical, it was less than precise writing for a journalist. Nonetheless, I submit that the sin was not so much inaccurate reporting or even grammatical error as less than top notch writing.
Mike and Mountain,
I am then guessing that my comment about psychologistic hog-waller is a function of the author and not the interviewee. This seems to follow, given the ludicrous amount of time I've now given over to analyzing the use of prepositions this afternoon. Oh, and Mike, thanks. I was beginning to think I was on the crazy pills too.
I think I've figured out where all this went wrong:
I see no contradiction between the Church both opposing false substitutes for confession and promoting the true form of confession.
The author, however, because she thinks these subsitutes for confession are, in some manner, actually confession, thinks there is an irony that the Church opposes one (false) form of confession, but still promotes the traditional (true) form of confession.
In essence, she is gramatically correct, but the false premise behind her preposition use caused me to presume she was GRAMATICALLY wrong. In fact, she is CONCEPTUALLY wrong.
I might be re-stating what someone has already said, but putting it this way gets it clear in my own mind.
So hey, she was actually even more wrong than I originally thought. cool!
:)
Now THAT's highly intelligent and inciteful, er, insightful. Fun!
Commenting by HaloScan
