The ad was objectionable because it would never have been printed about men. According to a certain worldly view--evidently not the Lord's perspective, as is easily seen in the Gospels, notably John chs. 4 & 8,--when a woman sins sexually, she is said to *become* something. I won't repeat the disgusting names you quoted.
When a man sins sexually, he is thought to have--sinned. Sexually. But he is still thought of as a man.
No, he's a whoremonger, an adulterer, a rapist, a child sex offender, a homosexual, a sodomite, a pervert, a subhuman monster, etc., etc.
It cuts both ways, Kathy.
My point is that it shouldn't cut either way. Christianity is not like that.
Besides, the ad in question did not call men names. It called women names. You say that both men and women are identified by their sins. But the *ad* singled out women.
Well I, for one, subscribed to the NOR just a few hours ago after reading your article. The reasons are the same as those explained by Leland D. Peterson.
I did not call Vree "irreproachable," as one of my commentators seemed to misquote me as saying. I granted possible "indiscretions of tact."
Perhaps they were referring to this:
[P. Blosser February 04, 2006: With very few and comparatively minor exceptions -- generally constituting, at worst, indiscretions of tact -- my judgment is that Vree's editorial performance has been utterly irreproachable.
By that I mean it's kind of hard to take into account "indescretions of tact" in that particular phrase when your conclusion that Vree's performance is "utterly irreproachable" practically jump off the page.
I would suggest that there are ways to be offensive without being Socrates.
Dr. Blosser:
You wrote:
"What particularly struck me, though, was how often the rhetoric used by Vree is rhetoric directed to a specific religious argument, whereas the rhetoric used against Vree and NOR tends to be personal ad hominem rancor and invective." END
You also wrote something similar previously to me (comments regarding your previous article) regarding Dale's attacks being either "proximately or remotely theological."
What do you make of this quote from "Amy Has Seen the Light" (Feb 2006)? "On the other hand, Amy has stopped writing for Our Sunday Visitor, so maybe she doesn't have to sugarcoar things anymore."
That strikes me as nothing more or less than a personal cheap shot. And his use of "maybe" doesn't provide cover, imo. Do you find that shot legitimately at the service of a theological point in any way? I mean that seriously.
And what of his article "Hit Men for Opus Dei" (Jan 06)? The entire first paragraph is devoted to discrediting Mark Shea's comments through guilt by association with organizations, opinions or people. I suspect one could well discredit Dale in the same way, if one wanted to.
This is not to say that I am a follower of either Shea or Welborn. In fact, I find Shea's approach and style objectionable at times for similar reasons to Vree. And while I don't know much about Welborn, I disagree with her criticisms of Michael Rose.
That said, I agree with your concerns about condemning something simply because it is "offensive" (as in the pro-life example you gave). However, again, your comparison would be more on target if Dale kept his pugnacious rhetoric targeted squarely on clear, black and white matters of wrong and right...like abortion. But he doesn't.
Christopher,
Your reference is correct. But Mark Shea cited my term "irreproachable" without the qualifying clauses about "indiscretions of tact," giving me the appearance of granting Vree carte blanche approval for everything he's ever thought, said, or done. I should think not even Vree would want anyone to draw such an unwanted inference.
Christopher, I take exception to your following comment as well, since -- although the purpose of the article is to defend Vree and the NOR -- I nevertheless take pains to recognize "indiscretions of tact," areas of disagreement, areas where I believe he hasn't had all the facts right or even had all the facts, as well as areas about which I remain ignorant. I don't think most people who had an article written about them portraying them as a vociferous Pit Bull would describe it as a white wash.
"what do you do when Catholic culture is in crisis, and society as a whole is on the greased skids and picking up momentum on its downward slide to hell?"
I never said that it was always wrong to be offensive. I think that to be loud and offensive about abortion--to refuse to shut up and to shout from the housetops is a good thing to do. To shout from the housetops that homosexuality is a disaster for our culture is also a good thing to do. And I think that people who agree in substance with Vree on these matters would grant at least that his approach is at least arguably a good one. You won't get an argument from me about his abortion pictures.
But one thing I would NOT do if our culture was in a disastrous situation is pick fights with those who are allied with me on essentials. I wouldn't as a Catholic conflate abortion or homosexuality with the Iraq war, for example. I wouldn't whittle away at the base of those I could work with by alienating everyone who didn't agree with me on everything. I wouldn't treat everyone else as a fool and make it impossible to ACHIEVE anything. I would concentrate doggedly on essentials and learn to control myself and not offend the few people who know essential truths. I wouldn't mistake myself for a prophet or for God's Pitbull.
(cont.)
(cont. from above
by Jeff, not anonymous)
I grant you that it is tempting to succumb to bitterness when so many even of the Elect seem not to be able to take things seriously enough. And I grant you that its usually the people who are a little off kilter, a little crazy who are able to see beyond the normal and accepted to the truth. Everyone else is satisified with TV and sex and global warming.
But in Battle, people have to learn to fight TOGETHER, Dr. Blosser. They can't be sniping constantly at their own side. That Dale Vree is essentially ON OUR SIDE, I don't doubt for a minute. But that he's a horrible soldier--that he bravely shoots at the enemy and then turns and equally bravely shoots at the friend--I also do not doubt.
I read NRO, Dr. Blosser. Every issue. I know what Dale Vree writes. I read it. And I am almost always disgusted by his written work, though I love many of the articles he publishes.
I disagree that he is focussing on issues and not attacking character.
The attack on Amy Welborn--which involved a clear misrepresentation--is a case in point. Remember, Dr. Blosser, Amy Welborn is ALSO ON OUR SIDE. She liked Rose's book and thought it disturbing, but she thought that it's methodology left it open to certain complaints.
Now, even assuming that she's insufficiently enthusiastic, she's not an enemy. Describing her as "trashing" a book which she liked, though not wholeheartedly, is a misrepresentation. And sneering at her for it and saying she's "come around" to the right point of view is mean and DOESN'T further ANY agenda, including Rose's.
The manner is which Vree publicly called into question Fr. Fessio's integrity and made his vehicle for attacking his character is also attacking one's own side. Fr. Fessio is an orthodox Catholic. He is ON OUR SIDE, just as Vree is.
I get passionately convinced by arguments, too, just like Vree. But Vree can't separate the God's Truth from an argument that convinces him. He treats abortion, the Iraq War and Fr. Fessio's brusque/unjust method of management as equally important issues and condemns people for them in terms that are equally uncompromising.
People who are REALLY passionate about Truth don't forget to be suspicious of themselves and to guard their tongues, as St. James insists we do. Vree trusts his own intuitions too absolutely and almost NEVER errs on the side of charity. If God has Pit Bulls, they don't turn and savage everyone in sight and then expect to edit magazines and keep a healthy subscriber list.
OF COURSE Vree isn't a Hans Kung or Francis Kissling. The anger and frustration with him is of a different kind. It's because he won't keep his guns on THEM, but keeps turning them on the Fr. Fessios and the Amy Welborns and every poor sap who lets out a peep of objection in a Letter to the Editor. It's because he grossly INDULGES HIS DISLIKES AND DISAGREEMENTS when he should be FIGHTING
(cont. by Jeff)
should be FIGHTING THE ENEMY
~Jeff
Augustine:
"... Amy has stopped writing for Our Sunday Visitor, so maybe she doesn't have to sugarcoar things anymore."
You ask whether this isn't a "personal cheap shot" against Amy. This assumes the frame of reference provided by Amy's contextualization of the piece on her blog, which is that Vree's article had some sort of spiteful undercurrent. I can see how you could read it that way if you accept Amy assumptions, but I don't see it that way. I see it as an accusation levelled against OSV, which has a notorious record of trying to sugarcoat the truth about things in the Catholic Church, not as an accusation intended to wound Amy. If anything -- and I mean this sincerely -- I saw Vree's article as having conciliatory overtones and was genuinely surprised at Amy's sharp recation, wanting -- of all things -- to call for a "retraction"! This was my whole point in my earlier references to what I called the "Olive Branch" clause at the end of Vree's article, which Amy neglected to comment on at all.
And what of his article "Hit Men for Opus Dei" (Jan 06)? The entire first paragraph is devoted to discrediting Mark Shea's comments through guilt by association with organizations, opinions or people. I suspect one could well discredit Dale in the same way, if one wanted to.
I suppose such associations are innocent more often than not, but not above examination either way. If Shea is a columnist for National Catholic Register and we discovered that the journal was owned by the Legionaries, this might create the impression that a conflict of interest could reside in a judgment Shea offered by way of evaluation of any criticism offered of, say, an article critiquing the founder of the Legionaries, for instance. Sure, you could also turn the tables on Vree and examine any extraneous associations you found in his orbit of relations. I suppose that is why he has been at pains to remain his non-profit status and refuse any financial assistance from the neoconservative associations that provide funding for National Review, Crisis, First Things, etc.
I agree with your concern about Vree's need to keep pugnacity focused on black and white moral and religious issues. But I suspect I'm a bit less pessimistic about his success at that than you may be.
But one thing I would NOT do if our culture was in a disastrous situation is pick fights with those who are allied with me on essentials. ... I wouldn't whittle away at the base of those I could work with by alienating everyone who didn't agree with me on everything.
My point precisely: so let's show NOR and Vree some respect.
Jeff,
I shouldn't want anyone to think for a moment I have anything but the utmost respect for Amy Welborn, Jeff. I've always appreciated her work, and I think she's almost always circumspect and careful in her work. Even her review of Rose's book wasn't a bad piece. I do think that in our efforts to cover our bases as writers and scholars and journalists, however, that sometimes we can overqualify ourselves and our statements, and I think this is the problem Vree was reacting to in Amy's piece. She had no conscious intention of "trashing" Rose's book, and even seemed to praise it at one point. However the praise was qualified half-to-death, giving the piece a quite different image on the level of spin.
I grant you the points about Vree's indiscretion and insensitivity in sometimes attacking the "troops on his own side," so to speak. But I simply don't see these attacks as categorically reducible to ad hominems against personalities. Vree doesn't simply attack individuals. He accuses them of acting unfairly, of some act of malfeasance, or teaching heterodoxy, etc. Now maybe it's true that he should pick his battles more carefully. But I do not think the questions raised by the possibility of theological universalism, a feminine Pneumatology, or administrative malpractice at Ave Maria are small potatoes that ought to be simply swept under the rug. Do you? This doesn't mean I necessarily think that Hahn or Neuhaus are heretics. It may mean that they may want to take a second look at how they put things in their texts. Nor does this mean that I think Fessio is a crook. It may mean that he has some unfinished business to attend to with Ann Arbor, but that's beyond my ken at this point.
"This doesn't mean I necessarily think that Hahn or Neuhaus are heretics. It may mean that they may want to take a second look at how they put things in their texts. Nor does this mean that I think Fessio is a crook. It may mean that he has some unfinished business to attend to with Ann Arbor, but that's beyond my ken at this point."
Right. And so YOU don't attack them AS IF THEY WERE HERETICS, do you. You may argue with them, sometimes fiercely, but you PRESERVE BASIC CIVILITY.
If you think--THINK, mind you--that someone on your side has missed something important, you SAY that. You say, "I think you've qualified it half to death." And you talk strategy. You don't do the Pit Bull routine. Blosser can do that. Why not Vree? Why make excuses for his inability to do what you just did: put something firmly but fairly?
If one does the Vree routine all the time, one has to be told that one is messing things up. Friendly fire is endemic; we all lose patience and we all make mistakes. But when you've got someone who's addicted to it, you can't just sweep it under the rug. Vree is intensely destructive and damaging. I wish he'd come to his senses and HELP. He's brilliant, he could HELP. But he won't; he's too self-indulgent.
Sweet talk him, go ahead. See if it works. If I could see just one REAL apology, just one acknowledgement that he'd gone overboard or was vicious when it wasn't justified, I'd have a whole new respect for him. But without that, a generalized respect is unjustified. One simply CAN'T fight with someone who's constantly firing guns wildly at you and other people all around. One can't fight with someone who's always right, because everyone else is a fool.
"My point is that it shouldn't cut either way. Christianity is not like that."
I disagree -- the New Testament lays the groundwork for such language, and I'm not at all aware of any way entirely to avoid using it.
"Besides, the ad in question did not call men names. It called women names. You say that both men and women are identified by their sins. But the *ad* singled out women."
Well, I haven't seen the ad, and I don't read or subscribe to NOR. Overall, NOR is not exactly my bag of potatoes. But I would suppose NOR may have had a message in their mentioning women's sexual sins by not men's.
[Dr. Blosser]: I nevertheless take pains to recognize "indiscretions of tact," areas of disagreement, areas where I believe he hasn't had all the facts right or even had all the facts, as well as areas about which I remain ignorant.
[Dictionary]: "irreproachable" - Perfect or blameless in every respect; faultless: irreproachable conduct.
Suffice to say I think "irreproachable" would be the wrong word to use, in this case.
[Dr. Blosser]: I do not think the questions raised by the possibility of theological universalism, a feminine Pneumatology, or administrative malpractice at Ave Maria are small potatoes that ought to be simply swept under the rug. Do you?
Nobody is disputing that these aren't legitimate issues worth discussing or that Vree ought not to have raised them. It's the manner in which he does so.
Some thoughts on rhetoric.
1. The French Bishops urged delicacy and respect and dialogue in speaking of abortion, bearing in mind the dignity of the women as well as the sacredness of life. That was back in 1980. The shrillness cultivated by many churchmen since, and by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, has been counter-productive.
When the same people who call for crying from the rooftops about abortion in the same breath dismiss homosexuality as a "disaster for our culture", we know we are in culture-wars territory, which is not the way to address so grave an issue as abortion.
2. Kathy is right that the NT is not about name-calling, even if Paul's conventional lists of types of sinners sometimes sound like that. Paul talks of pornoi, moichoi, malakoi, arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6.9) in the same breath as thieves, idolaters, misers, drunkards. Such lists are like tables for an examination of conscience rather than abuse of individuals. The basic tendency of the NT is to refer to "sinners" and to remind us that we are all sinners.
Today, to call a woman or anyone else a whore, a slut or even a prostitute is intrinsically degrading and is intended to be so. Even the caste of people traditionally designated as prostitutes should be spoken of with more respect than in the past, which happily is the case when such non-loaded expressions as "call girl" replace expressions loaded with the European "poisoning of eros" and its decline into "vice" that Nietzsche criticizes (and for which he lays the blame on Paul). People who use the word "slut" in an objectifying way are raping the persons they apply it to psychically and stripping them of their humanity.
Christ was seen and criticized by the Pharisees as a friend of sinners, especially tax-collectors and prostitutes, categories of people despised and abandoned by the self-righteous, and He annoyed the Pharisees by saying the harlots would make it into the Kingdom before them (Mt 21.31-2), justified like the tax-collectors by their faith in the Baptist's message. Lk 8.47, "her many sins are forgiven her because she has loved much" is a pretty radical statement, not countenancing prostitution yet showing great sympathy to the woman. One of the central thrusts of the anti-prostitution mentality of the NT is the idea that woman is no longer man's chattel.
Above post is from me.
Sorry PP nice try, but no sale!
It's my money and NOR gets none.
However, I'll gladly read anything good they put for out free.
Not our job to keep NOR alive if Vree insists on shooting himself in the foot repeatedly.
Nice attempts at triage on your part though.
Jordan Potter, what message would that be?
Professor Blosser ends his piece with a quotation from Tony Campolo, which I believe says a great deal about the point he is trying to make. Most of us pre-occupy ourselves with style, as opposed to substance. To put it another way, at some point we must ask ourselves "Is this true?" or "Must I believe this?" as opposed to "Do I like how it was presented?"
The ancient maxim "id quod modus quo" has a fatal flaw, if we put the truth aside, for the sake of how we had to be reminded of it.
David, are you sure that there can be a sharp distinction between the truth of what is being said and the manner in which it is said? Does clear diction have nothing to do with truth? Does rash invective have nothing to do with falsity?
BTW, the Campolo quotation is hardly apt. Campolo made three statements. One is proveable (the 30,000 kids) and the two others are surmises ("most of you don't give a **" and "you're more upset...").
There is no corresponding proveable statement in the NOR ad that was quoted. It can't be true in quite the same way. Besides which, I repeat, Christians have been taught by the Gospel to think differently than this about sin and sinners.
PP, I couldn't agree with you more. All this fastidiousness suggests to me (1) minds that have been seduced by the culture's obsession with political correctness, or (2) blogger cronyism. Those who are offended by Vree's provocative ads would faint away altogether if they were to encounter Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".
Swift is brilliant: witty, highly ironic, and LIKELY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE WHO DON'T ALREADY SHARE HIS ATTITUDES.
That's a howler, Kathy. Swift was hated, reviled, vilified, condemned, denounced, and anathematized. And when his mother finished with him, other people got even nastier.
Let me rephrase that: Swift was likely to convince *some* people. Evidently his mother was an exception.
"A Modest Proposal" was a work of singular genius. Vree's ads are no such thing. They rely on shock value alone. The one quoted above is like a boy in a school yard calling people names and hoping people will come join him in his bullying. For a fee.
If you don't agree, let me ask you: Do you think your great-great-great-great-great-great grand nephew Roister-doister will bring forth Vree as a shining example of rhetoric 261 years after *his* death?
Jeff wrote:"I would concentrate doggedly on essentials and learn to control myself and not offend the few people who know essential truths."
"I wouldn't as a Catholic conflate abortion or homosexuality with the Iraq war, for example."
It is always refreshing to read that some humbly count themself in as the 'few people that know the truth'.
A rather curious thought ,if you asked me, since neither JPII nor Benedict are not part of this illustrious group due to their 'crazy'position on the iraq war,capital punishment and social justice.
Hey what can one expect as an american patriot from these old european guys - so out of touch.
Papa Bush on the other hand certainly represents the complete package of the essential truth- right? - yeah right.
For me it is curious sight to see how testy folks can get when one of their fellow 'know it alls' happen to bark the usual harsh uncharitable language up the "wrong" tree.
"I wouldn't as a Catholic conflate abortion or homosexuality with the Iraq war, for example."
Neither did Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI, in his letter to the U.S. Bishops:
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles June 2004.
Dr. Blosser,
You write: "You ask whether this isn't a "personal cheap shot" against Amy. This assumes the frame of reference provided by Amy's contextualization of the piece on her blog, which is that Vree's article had some sort of spiteful undercurrent...I see it as an accusation levelled against OSV, which has a notorious record of trying to sugarcoat the truth about things in the Catholic Church, not as an accusation intended to wound Amy." END
I don't see an either/or. I see a both/and. If you read the entire article in context, it is completely about Amy. It is also rather one long toot of his own horn, saying, "we were right, Amy, you were wrong, glad you finally admit that, even if unintentionally."
No doubt, Dale also got in a brief two for one by swiping at her association with OSV. But the entire article was about Amy and her error. Frankly, if he had refrained from trying to read her mind and intentions, which he obviously cannot possibly know without talking to her, I would find it much less objectionable (even if still somewhat unnecessarily contentious).
Honestly, Dr. Blosser, I don't know many people who would consider what Dale wrote as an "olive branch". If that is an olive branch, then I suppose his attack on those who support the Iraq war is a playful nip?
My point is, I'm not sure it's helpful to create a whole new set of rules just for Dale and those like him. Pit Bulls are dangerous and need to be restrained in civil society...both for the sake of others and for the sake of the Pit Bulls themselves. We don't say, "hey, everyone knows that Pit Bulls are likely to maim and kill, so it's up to everyone else to be careful and stay out of their way...you need to UNDERSTAND the Pit Bull", right?
You continue: "I suppose such associations (the guilt by associations Dale made of Shea) are innocent more often than not, but not above examination either way." END
But Dale did not really examine them at all. He merely made a negative implication in order to blanket-tarnish what Shea had to say, right out of the box. That doesn't strike me as intellectual, Catholic discourse. And neither case (Amy nor Shea) strikes me as related in any way to a legitimate theological point.
I appreciate your continued patience and assumptions of good will on the part of those who continue to challenge you, here, btw. It speaks volumes about you (and I don't say that just to flatter you. On the internet, this kind of measured, thoughtful response is sadly rare.)
Grega,
Christopher is right. As from a previous discussion, it seems you do not understand the difference between a binding teaching of THE CHURCH, a pastoral/disciplinary matter (which can change) and a non-binding personal opinion expressed by the Pope.
These are not categories we made up. The Church has taught us these important distinctions and we are only following and taking them seriously.
That is not arrogance. That is humility. To make one's own categories up is the real arrogance (or ignorance) it would seem to me.
More on this at Against the Grain. Oh, and Mark Shea says, "A drama for our time! They were a father and a son bound together by unbreakable cords of love..."
I want to be clear, again: I am not against NOR and Dale Vree. My position is simply this:
1) NOR occupies a place that others either will not or cannot. NOR covers topics that National Catholic Register and others avoid for whatever reason. (Yes, I know everyone has their own suspicions).
2) Not everyone is reached in the same way. Some people really do respond well to strong rhetoric...as I learned firsthand decades ago at my first dinner with an Italian family. (I thought they were going to start throwing punches.). And some people do live in a half-unconscious state that requires an occasional slap.
3) BUT there are many inherent dangers in the approach and path Dale has chosen, many pitfalls, and I believe he is starting to fall into more of them over the past year or so. And if he is not careful, he could end up undoing all the good as enumerated in #1 and #2 above...along with endangering his own soul.
I subscribe to NOR and will continue to do so. But I think that responsible complaints about and to Dale (along with prayers for him in this difficult job) are also an act of charity.
Amy Wellborn did not overreact. Her fellow bloggers, however, chimed in with a wrath easily equalling anthing in NOR. Oh that they might apply an equally zealous anger at bishop plying heresies.
The Tony Campolo quote nails it.
Vree needs to watch his words. And keep sounding the alarm.
Campolo was trying to give an object lesson about people's priorities, to people who were likely to take offense at his methods. Vree was trying to sell magazine subscriptions to people who were likely to applaud him for "telling the plain truth." Both used offensive language--that's where the similarity ends.
"Jordan Potter, what message would that be?"
It's hard for me to answer that, since, as I said, I haven't seen the ad.
Dale Vree lied about someone in print and then tried to excuse it when he was called on it. His defense was pathetic and cowardly and also a lie.
He used to count. But I've come to the conclusion that Kathy Shaidle is the only one in the RCC with any balls left.
The above was satire, and should be read in that context
"Vree was trying to sell magazine subscriptions..."
Please. If you think Vree is in it for the money or fame, your critical orbs circle a different planet from mine. And if Vree wants to score points with his readers, attacking NeoCons and the war effort is certainly NOT the way to go about it.
By impugning his motives, you are in danger of engaging in the sort of character assasination that you say troubles you so much. Is it only wrong dependng on the target? You'd think Vree was as evil as... Bush.
"He was trying to sell magazine subscriptions"--I don't mean that as an attack. I was referring to an advertisement that was designed to sell magazines.
Has anyone every heard of Evelyn Waugh, GK Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, or Orestes Brownson? Each of those writers was accused -- in his own time -- of criticizing the "wrong" people. And some, such as Waugh, did so in the manner of a Socrates or a Vree. None of them was particularly interesting in being liked as well as a ten pund note.
Oh. My mistake. Sorry.
Dr. Blosser, I am another who had heard nothing but negative things about NOR and had never gone near it until after I read your original NOR post last weekend. When I went there, I thought the articles were excellent and intelligent, and for the most part more civil than most blogs I visit. I certainly did not think the Scott Hahn article was a hatchet job. It seemed to be very respectful of him overall and constructive in its criticism.
So, anyway, I'm another who bought a one-year subscription because of you! Maybe Vree is a jerk, but I didn't see any evidence of it.
Joe, thanks, no problem.
Christopher:
as you know better than most of us -certainly me -Cardinal Ratzinger was rather clear in his own opinion regarding the unjust war in Iraq, as was JPII. It must be difficult for you to go against your personal hero - particular since the facts in 2006 are even more in favour of JPII's 2003 accessment of the unholy nature of this endeavour.
You guys normally claim to be obedient followers - you personally obviously admire Papa Ratzinger. Why would you even want to risk being morally wrong on this one when not one but two Popes differ in their wise judgement?
Yes, Augustine I am certainly aware of the finer points and technicalities you raise - did I accuse anybody of not being in communion here? I did not think so, either. That was not the point of the post - the point was that it seems to me that some can not stomach their own medicine - this certainly seem to include Mr. Vree from all I can tell, but not only him.
I personally find it actually rather charming to see as much "obedience at your convenience" amoung you conservatives as their seem to be. Makes you guys more like the rest of us.
Christopher ,please allow me to cite additionally this quote from a Zenith interview. (In fairness I might add that you did include this quote in your generally excellent webside - thus I know that you at least wrestled with it.)
"Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?
Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.
The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
Grega,
I suspect that all orthodox Catholics who supported the war likely did so while wrestling with the various statements of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger (Fr. Neuhaus, Fr. Schall, Weigel, Novak, Prof. Robert P. George . . .) -- not because they were "knee-jerk super patriots" (Dale Vree) or at the beck and call of the Zionists (common belief of some radtrads), but rather because they weighed the evidence and arguments and found those to go to war convincing.
I would note that the fact that he is my 'hero' doesn't necessarily mean I agree with him 100% on every matter, nor do I agree with every prudential judgement of John Paul II, though I think he is well-deserving of the title 'Great' and consider him one of the greatest popes of our age).
However, in the end and after consideration of the evidence, I thought there were sufficient conditions to wage war against Iraq -- like other Catholics I know, these were not necessarily the same conditions put forth by the Bush administration, which in my opinion over-played/emphasized the 'WMD' argument and subordinated the others. (On a related note, Senator Barbara Boxer's assertion that it "was WMD, period" that motivated congressional support flies in the face of the congressional record itself).
As to the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger that "we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'" -- I think it as preposterious a question as it was when it was first raised by Martino, and just because it was made by the Prefect of the CDF doesn't mean that it is immune to criticism. James Turner Johnson, a scholar on military ethics and the just war tradition, has weighed in on this very question and I find his criticism of this position that the just war tradition is now irrelevant convincing.
In the end, the various statements of the Vatican on the Iraq war should be weighed against the acknowledgement of Ratzinger that "while the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war . . . it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor, [and] there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war." Of course as the Pope himself noted at the time, the ultimate responsibility to wage war lies with are nations' leaders and those entrusted to make such decisions.
At the same time, said responsibility of the heads of state does not excuse us from making our own judgement on this matter -- I support both our soldiers who after careful consideration deemed Iraq a war worth fighting, and those conscientious objectors who found themselves compelled to resist on moral grounds.
(Note -- I've no wish to turn this into a combox debate over Iraq; I've had many discussions on this topic; you can plumb the archives of my various blogs if interested).
Grega:
I think you are only proving my point in your last post: you do not understand the difference between personal opinion (even if expressed by the Pope) and binding teaching with no wiggle room. Liberal/heterodox disobedience on things like women priests, homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia is NOT the same as disagreement on the war or capital punishment. So, "conservatives" are NOT "like" you, as you put it. That is what I was referring to. It may make you feel better to assert it, but it is not true.
While it may not have been the primary point of your post, THAT was what I addressed.
Personally, I am ambivalent about the war, but you are wrong to effectively equate Weigel-types with Kissling-types.
Sweet talk him, go ahead. See if it works.
Jeff, I'm not trying to see if anything "works." I'm not looking for any kind of reaction from Vree. Apparently you are. But if so, you need to organize your thoughts into a respectful letter and try to make your case with him. He'll read your letter. He may not like it. He may not publish it. Yet again, he may. He's not unreasonable. If he thinks you have a case and he's guilty of having seriously misrepresented someone, he may even offer a public apology. But I'm not holding my breath that an apology from him would change people's attitudes about him.
I can think of other figures we encounter in the pages of ancient literature whose vocabulary is no less intemperate, and who seemed to lack a habit of civil restraint or apology -- who used expressions like "You brood of vipers!" "You hypocrites!"
Christopher writes:
"... 'irreproachable' would be the wrong word to use, in this case."
You may be right. Perhaps a more qualified term would have served better. I picked the term because I wanted a strong one that would catch the reader's attention, "awaken from dogmatic slumbers," and so forth.
Anonymous (I take you to be Fr. O'Leary),
I think your counsel to talk about the issues of sexual degradation, exploitation, and baby-killing with "delicacy and respect" as the French bishops before the 1980s is a bit myopic, to say the least. Since Griswold vs. Connecticut severed the tie between sexual intercourse and procreation, we've suffered a social epidemic of recreational sex leading to breakdown of families, plague proportion HIV, and moloch-scale baby massacres -- and you want to chide the late Pope John Paul II's encyclical on the Gospel of life for being "shrill" for talking about a "cultue of death"?
Jesus was an embodiment of mercy where there was repentance, true. But he was hardly that when confronted by the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees, whom he called "snakes," "liars," "hypocrites," and "whitewashed tombs." Was Jesus "stripping away their humanity" when he used such language, do you think?
I think Chris Garton-Zavesky's point is a propos here, which is about language, and, as I interpret him, comes down to something like this: when will we hear clergymen move away from the befuddling obfuscation of language about "I'm okay - you're okay" to the crystalizing clairity of "I'm a sinner - you're a sinner"? It's fine to have compassion for a prostitute -- a victim of the sex trade: a Christian must have compassion on a prostitute. But there can be no such thing as Christian prostitution. Prostitution is sin. A prostitute, by definition, is engaged in a sinful trade. Any glorification of such a trade is a glorification of whoredom. Why should you want to put it "delicately" so it digests nicely in your polite company over cheese and wine?
R. R.-Doister,
Funny you should mention Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". My wife brought up that very example in conversation about this NOR controversy over dinner the other evening. Good example.
Kathy, you write:
" ... the Campolo quotation is hardly apt. Campolo made three statements. One is proveable (the 30,000 kids) and the two others are surmises ('most of you don't give a **' and 'you're more upset...')."
How about "rauncy sex ed, titillating TV shows and movies, free condoms for every teenager, free abortions in case the condoms fail, full rights and benefits for shack-ups, same-sex 'marriage' ..."?
You make two good points -- one McLuhan-esque point about the relation of the medium to the message, the other a point about how the Gospel teaches us to distinguish the sinner from the sin (if I read you correctly).
About the former, I would say that different media (voices) are fitting to different messages. Mercy and peace aren't the only messages of the Bible: there are also justice and judgment.
About the latter, I would say, indeed and Amen! But sometimes the only way sinners begin to see their need for repentance is when those around them stop treating their sins (adulterous affairs, decisions to abort their infants, homosexual lifestyles, etc.) with respectful "delicacy" and call it by it's proper name: sin. But that's a detail, with which I'm quite certain you'd agree. Cheers!
Do you think your great-great-great-great-great-great grand nephew Roister-doister will bring forth Vree as a shining example of rhetoric 261 years after *his* death?
Kathy, I'm not sure the value of a prophetic cultural critic is measured by the sophistication of his 'rhetoric.'
Augustine,
I don't know how much more can meaningfully be said about the Amy W. and Mark S. thing. You may be right about Vree being a trifle too eager to toot his own horn about Amy's having "come around" to his point of view. Perhaps. And I've already commented on his use of the term "trashed" to describe her review of Rose's book. At the very least, the thing is a mixed bag. I don't think Vree was completely unfair to Amy in his description of her review as overly critical, even if he may have seemed unfair or 'gloating' in his tone (I say 'seemed' since I can only guess at motives). On the other hand, although I think Amy is a careful writer, generally, I don't think anything in Vree's remarks warranted the kind of reaction it elicited on Amy's blog, with talk of asking for a "retraction" from Vree and what I call the "hate [Vree] fest" that followed in the comment box.
I'm running out of time to make any comments on Mark Shea here, but would similarly try to be cautious on both sides. All of us can be careless, and while it's fair to call one another on questionable points we make, it helps if the benefit of a doubt is given. Perhaps I need to write a post at some point entitled, "Dale Vree: God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Others Some Courtesy!" But until then, I'll stick with what I've said so far: extend to Vree the courtesy you would want. You may be surprised that there's more substance there than meets the eye. There's certainly more than meets the cyber-image in the usual blogsphere. And don't forget about the beer ...
"I'm not sure the value of a prophetic cultural critic is measured by the sophistication of his 'rhetoric.'"
In the matter at hand, I do think this comes into play. A skilled rhetorician can more make a point without broadside attack, much as a diplomat can win a battle without firing a shot. My mechanic can fix my car, whereas I can only kick the bumper and call it names. If someone wants to critique a culture, let him speak in a way that has a real hope of changing things, by changing minds.
(I meant "more easily make a point")
Dr. Blosser,
I think we each see Welborn's original piece on Michael Rose's book in the same light. It was somewhat of a "stinging recommendation" if I can coin a phrase. I would not have taken it as much of an endorsement, really.
Also, I reread Ms. Welborn's complaint on her website and noted the following in her comments section:
QUOTE:
Al and all:
This is the basic point: Vree says that I a)trashed the book and b)denied there was a problem. Neither of which are true, correct?
Posted by: amywelborn at Feb 7, 2006 4:08:02 PM
END QUOTE
Where did Dale accuse her of "denying there was a problem" in his latest piece or even in the original piece in 2002?
Augustine,
I think Amy was referring to Vree's presentation of her book in the following:
Amy called Rose's book "incendiary" and a "purported exposé." She said the book should be read with a "healthy dose of skepticism." She claimed that the thesis of the book is a "churchwide conspiracy against the orthodox and straight" in the seminaries.
"But," says Vree, "Amy has seen the light . . . "
One might conclude from the way Vree presents it that Amy had simply dismissed ("poo-poohed" -- Vree's words] Rose's book, "denying that there was a problem."
Now, what Amy did in fact say was that ""Goodbye! Good Men" is a book that all Catholics concerned about the present and future state of the priesthood should read."; at the same time, she (rightly, I think) questioned Rose' reliance upon personal anecdotes and interviews from men who have either been turned away from the priesthood or persisted through great difficulties.
And here's the context of her remarks:
In order to really prove his thesis that there has a been a churchwide conspiracy against the orthodox and the straight, Rose would have to get data from many dioceses, seminaries and religious orders about how many candidates have applied, how many of those have been turned away and what the reasons for dismissal were. He might even have had to personally visit some of the seminaries he critiques and do on-site reporting, rather than relying on the testimony of only the dissatisfied. As it is, all we have in "Goodbye! Good Men" is the story of what happened to a self-selected group of men who attended particular seminaries. It's their stories, more often than not anonymously related. It's their side of their stories.
I think Amy Welborn offered a balanced review of the book, and her criticism of Rose' methodology is legitimate. I don't think she dismissed it outright and only later "came to see the light" as Vree suggests in his Notes. However, instead of addressing her criticisms of Rose's methodology, Vree goes into "pit bull attack mode."
Again, it reflects my experience of reading Vree's presentation of what someone is saying, and then going to the original source and reading what they actually said -- and there is often a discrepency causing me to wonder if Vree is just a bad reader or if he is deliberately misrepresenting his subject.
Augustine,
You ask: "Where did Dale accuse her of 'denying there was a problem' in his latest piece or even in the original piece in 2002?"
The operative phrase here, "denying there was a problem," is a quotation from Amy Welborn, correct? My answer is that I have no idea what she's referring to here. All I see in Dale Vree's comments is the observation that her views had shifted, that she had 'come around,' as it were. I can't find anything quite like Amy's suggesting, though I could be missing something -- as my wife tells me I often do.
As to the accusation that Vree is a bad reader or misrepresents his subjects, I refer you to my analysis of the exchange between Weigel and Vree, in which I argue that is Vree who (despite his pit-bull image) is the more careful reader and thinker, and Weigel who (despite his more subdued and 'respectable' image) who is playing fast and loose with the concepts of 'freedom', 'habit', and 'virtue'.
But enough of this. I'm just about done with this business. I'm made my point. I don't like "he-said-she-said" gossip anymore than any of the rest of you. To Guinness! Cheers!
bleccch.
Amen.
As Dr. Blosser said, "To Murphys! Cheers." (I know that's what you really meant)
motorola v276 ringtone motorola v276 ringtone motorola v276 ringtone // mortgage rate loan mortgage rate loan mortgage rate loan
Commenting by HaloScan
