Quickly and curtly
I have but a few minutes left at home before I head to the east coast. Vacation was good, but nothing bloggable.
Something is bloggable and relatively urgent, though. If by chance you haven't read this yet, you would probably benefit from so doing.
It is odd and sad that so many good people fail to see the distinction between approval of one limited course of action taken as a response to a particular situation (e.g. the war in Iraq) as opposed to a general policy to be applied in any circumstance (e.g. euthanasia). Similarly, reaching a different conclusion regarding the available facts and the guidlines given by the Church when applying them in good faith is a vastly different matter than rejecting a clear teaching of the Church since time immemorial.
posted by Gregg the Obscure @ 10:04 AM
6 Comments:
From Traditional Catholic Reflections Musing Section:
The War Hawk Bloggers Are After the Popes Again
...by pretending to only attack TCR. They suggest, absurdly, that we don't know the difference between dogma and the prudential judgements of the Popes. How foolish and yet how predictable! Let us say up front that hardly anyone reads these small bloggers so we expect they need a little excitement---that may be the subtext of this whole matter.
The point is we at TCR prefer the prudential judgements of the Popes who are steeped in 2,000 years of Catholic principles, and Gospel mercy, over the prudential judgements of these fellows. They prefer the powerful George W., Karl Rove and Michael Novak, George Weigel and John Neuhaus---the American hawk theologians--- to John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
This we consider sad. Because while they congratulate each other on smashing peacemakers it means death for those who must endure war, blood and bone, broken bodies, mental breakdowns, absolutely terrified children and all the hell that war heaps on a people, old and young. These bloggers---many of whom are glued at their typewriters and do not even hold real jobs---seem not to care about real human beings dying, bleeding, blown away... They prefer to pontificate above their competence and side with the powerful. . But Truth and mercy are more important than pleasing such, even if the bloggers, who daily traffic in inconsequential debate, don't care ---like the Popes do--- about the victims of the money imperialists who proclaim a "freedom" which at the end of the day means war for oil, exporting pornosophic license, and more money, money, money, money. That should make it hard for these bloggers to sleep at night. But when one prefers argument to the cries of the suffering, ego and argument to peacemaking, one sleeps in indifference.
No, we'll take the prudential judgements of the popes over these guys any day, for the prudential judgements of the Popes are intimately related to the dogmas of the Church and are expounded in the light of them, with mercy, not war, topping it off at all costs. "Blessed are the peacemakers," John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Woe to the warmakers, blogsters and all (who at least are lending even more publicity to TCR---which does very well without them--- by their reflexive attack on us for which we here thank them. People will come and decide for themselves as they read our massive archives on the issues of war, economics, the nature of freedom, the death penalty, etc. The material speaks for itself).
As we wrote at our musings section: "Some of us differ with the Pope in some important areas as anyone who reads TCR knows (e.g., mandatory celibacy, reviving women deacons, etc) but we are docile to the teachings of the Church even as we suggest change. And we never turn suggestion into agitation or dissent. (See my article below on Ultramontanism, the meaning of which these fellows don't understand I gather). We never said those Catholics who support this war of "American empire" (Pat Buchanan) are not Catholic, only that they are tragically wrong for doing so. And where death and destruction for all the wrong reasons are concerned we are especially keen to "hear the church".
"People will come and decide for themselves as they read our massive archives on the issues of war, economics, the nature of freedom, the death penalty, etc. The material speaks for itself)."
This is precisely what we want Stephen. I am confident that the reader, if he have at least a modicum of common sense, will see that you are way out in left field.
Why are you not man enough to mention either myself or Mr. McElhinney by name or link to editorial and commentary so your readers could see for themselves. Heck, you could have at least taken a few quotes out of context. That would have been more honest than what you did.
The fact is you don't want your readers to get the full story. And I will take that as a tacit admission on your part that you know what we wrote is right.
In Christ,
Greg Mockeridge
"Not man enough..." Behold Greg's (and friends') apologetics. Manhood, eh?
Our email shows very differently about your attempt at criticism.
In fact it is embarrassing to see the way you argue, Greg.
By the way, my remarks about Mr.Reagan for the sake of the poor whom he trampled upon were ***in response*** to an abundance of outrageously uncritical praise during his funeral, not simply for the sake of it.
No more from me for you, Greg.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Warning to those writing "Apologist" Dave Armstrong privately in email.
Dave thinks he can reveal the contents of private email---as he did in my case--- under the legalistic pretext that it is ok to paraphrase the contents in detail so long as he does not quote verbatim.
This is obviously unethical. I'm sure we would rather he simply publish the actual email than reveal its contents through paraphrase which allows distortions also.
Beware this man.
SH
Post a Comment
<< Home