The American Scene

An ongoing review of politics and culture

• Politics
• Economics
• The Media
• Culture

• Home
• About
• Archive
• Search

Leave a Reply

1. Who’s Freddie? Where’s the link? Not linking is bush league.

   — mwbugg · Sep 28, 09:00 AM · #

2. Fair enough. Will edit the post.

   — PEG · Sep 28, 09:09 AM · #

3. Serious suggestion for consideration—Is it possible that Freddie is experiencing a lot of pressures at this point in his life and things like political differences are getting to him more? If so, he needs support and calling him on his behavior is actually something a good friend does. I’m guessing you remain open to respectful sparring and dialogue. I have faith in youse guys. You’ll work it out.

   — Joules · Sep 28, 09:38 AM · #

4. I don’t think Freddie is going to like that this “olive branch” you’re offering substantially misrepresents his arguments. That you’re being disingenuous as part of an effort to look like the “bigger guy” actually does open you to legitimate questions about your good faith.

   — Chet · Sep 28, 11:15 AM · #

5. Also, re: Catholics and the death penalty, Freddie cites a pope and you cite Wikipedia. I think that speaks volumes.

   — Chet · Sep 28, 11:18 AM · #

6. I wrote a response here but I think it got eaten. If you can find it, please restore it. If not, I’ll try to reconstruct it when I’m not in class.

   — Freddie · Sep 28, 11:55 AM · #

7. So, trying this again: I wish you would consider the possibility that I described that post as fascist not because I wanted to use that as a vague insult but because I find that a fair description of the platform you’re describing. The text of your piece advocates the imposition of an economic platform that you admit is broadly unpopular, enforced if necessary with emergency powers, and dictated by small committees of elites. By invoking emergency powers and admitting that this program would be deeply unpopular with the French people, you’re walking into disturbing territory. Corporate capture of government, enforced by the threat of violence and under the direction of undemocratic oligarchies, sounds like textbook fascism to me. I am opposed to fascism.

   Also, I just disagree about the nature of Catholic teachings on the death penalty. The pope is not only the leader of the Holy Roman Church but according to doctrine an infallible (literally) leader of God’s vehicle for righteousness on earth. The last pope wrote unambiguously and explicitly that the death penalty is cruel, unnecessary, and anti-Christian. If your morality is informed by Catholicism (as Douthat’s surely is) when the topic is abortion, it is fair for me to ask that you be consistent when the topic is the death penalty.

   Further, I disagree with your argument that it would be better for those condemned to death to be executed rather than spend life in prison. It seems to me that this is straightforwardly contradicted by the fact that most of those on death row (and certainly Troy Davis in particular) fight desperately to prevent their own executions.

   I don’t find anything particularly personal about any of that. If you are really personally affronted, please email me at freddie7 AT gmail DOT com.

   — Freddie · Sep 28, 12:18 PM · #

8. Freddie,

   A Pope is only infallible when he teaches ex cathedra. There have been no ex cathedra pronouncements regarding the death penalty. The wikipedia article is accurate. A Catholic ought to take what the Pope says very seriously, but it is not binding.

   — Tim · Sep 28, 12:47 PM · #

9. Not only does Douthat not take the Catholic perspective on the death penalty seriously, he doesn’t bother to mention it. It’s totally absent from his thoughts.

   — Freddie · Sep 28, 12:54 PM · #

10. There have been no ex cathedra pronouncements regarding the death penalty.

    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5:

    Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

    If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

    Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

    That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and is certainly “ex cathedra” since it was released under the auspice of Benedict’s apostolic authority. I can’t see how Freddie isn’t fundamentally correct – a Catholic can’t countenance the execution of Troy Davis (or any other person in custody) under these terms.

    — Chet · Sep 28, 01:00 PM · #

11. I don’t think historic fascism had much to do with “corporate capture” of government. Mussolini talked about “corporations”, but he meant something different from American business corporations. He was saying society should be organized based on professions, guilds, and other groupings of people based on their position in the productive process, which would then cooperate under the guidance of the fascist leader and party. It was put forward as a solution to the class struggle and a third way between socialism and liberal capitalism.

    Clearly, German and Italian business strongly preferred Mussolini and Hitler to communism (and, in the case of Italy, syndicalism). Lots of prominent business people supported them, and almost all businesspeople who weren’t Jewish conformed. However, neither movement was dominated by business.

    I find Freddie is generally highly moralistic about his policy disagreements with other people. When Yglesias proposed a looser monetary policy and noted it would have the effect of making it easier for real wages to go down, he had a fit and launched into a profanity-laden screaming match about trust fund babies. But looser monetary policy would also increase the overall demand for labor and reduce unemployment. Deflation is better for trust funds.

    People’s political views don’t tell you anything about how good they are as people. Freddie doesn’t seem to understand that, although I would have thought he’d be old enough to know better.

    — Pithlord · Sep 28, 01:27 PM · #

12. On the merits, every political movement uses crises to push through things that would otherwise be unpopular. That’s what Rahm meant when he said a crisis is too valuable to waste. In Canada, the Federal Liberals used the early 1990s recession to bring in all kinds of neoliberal reforms and austerity measures that their Conservative predecessors had been too scared to do. They were scared because those measures were unpopular, and there was something arguably undemocratic about an ostensibly more left-wing party bringing them in in a crisis atmosphere. But hardly anyone in Canada wants to reverse them now.

    — Pithlord · Sep 28, 01:34 PM · #

13. I find Freddie is generally highly moralistic about his policy disagreements with other people.

    I am one of the few people on the blogosphere who is willing to make the simple point that political positions have moral consequences. People act like that isn’t true in most instances because they prefer not to be genuinely criticized. This isn’t universal. When people talk about, say, racism, they are quite conscious of the fact that political positions have moral content. So to for me: when someone advocates that the state force an entirely new economic model on its people against their will, that is immoral. It’s not just politically wrong, it’s not just ideologically wrong, it’s morally wrong. To advocate that is revealing of the character of the person making the advocacy. Similarly, defending the state strapping a living human being to a gurney and poisoning that person to death is immoral.

    The typical angry response to me, of the kind that Pithlord here represents, is the same old shit I’ve encountered for the entire time I’ve been writing online. The crowd attempts to enforce this morally deracinated vision of politics, and push to exclude me from the realm of the serious because they dislike the consequences of what I’m saying. But I refuse to stop discussing the moral valence of what we’re arguing about. I’m sorry if that’s uncomfortable for PEG, or Pithlord, but I won’t stop.

    — Freddie · Sep 28, 01:34 PM · #

14. Freddie,

    The problem is you can’t know what the moral consequences of your preferred policies are until you know what the consequences of those policies will be. And that’s what people disagree about. You get mad at Yglesias for being born the son of a successful screenwriter. But even if screenwriter’s sons are evil, it may still be the case that a looser monetary policy would put millions of people in work. And if it is the case, then the moral consequences are good ones.

    If it were true that introducing vouchers would dramatically improve African American educational achievement, then it would be highly immoral not to. Now, you don’t think it is true, and you are probably right. A vouchers supporter who got morally indignant at your indifference to all the African American youth whose life chances are negated by the self-interested conservatism of the teachers’ unions would be less likely to listen to your evidence that vouchers actually won’t do what the supporter thinks they’d do. So the voucher supporter would lose an opportunity to learn something in return for confirming her sense of moral superiority. I tend to think too many people in the blogosphere are happy to make this tradeoff. You think not enough are. We differ.

    — Pithlord · Sep 28, 03:10 PM · #

15. Surely the difference between racism and most other issues is that racism, here and now, is a closed moral question where most of the others are open? PEG is able to disagree with Freddie about capital punishment not because he denies that his position has moral consequences— an absurd position which no one holds— but because it’s a live moral question on which the moral consequences are still things that reasonable people can disagree about.

    — Paul Zrimsek · Sep 28, 03:44 PM · #

16. Hey Freddie,

    I agree with you — I think political positions have moral consequences. I also disagree with you! I think you come to all the wrong moral conclusions! Speaking of which, Chet should have mentioned that his quote from the Catechism comes from “Part Three: Life in Christ”, and here is the full quote:

    “Capital Punishment

    2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

    2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
    “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

    Chet doesn’t quote Section 2266 because it adds nuance and quite frankly, confusion to the quote from John Paul II. Those of us who support the death penalty, note that it seems to do a good job of helping to maintain law and order and “contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence.”

    Tim up above is quite correct to note the difference between ex cathedra teachings and other forms of Papal teaching. Which means Catholics of good will can disagree with Blessed John Paul II on this subject.

    P.S. I personally would have pulled the switch for Mr. Davis as he was obviously just as guilty as the other guy they killed in Texas that day…oh, by the way Freddie, I’m sure you wrote voluminous posts on why the State should have spared that guy’s life? Oh you didn’t? How come? Was it because he was racist, and racism is a “closed moral question”?

    P.P.S. You all should read more reactionary blogs, like Foseti:

    http://foseti.wordpress.com/

    — Fake Herzog · Sep 28, 04:39 PM · #

17. Actually, American political discourse is at its most irrational and hysterical when dealing with racial issues, with the Israel/Palestine question coming a close second. This is true of both right and left. That was kind of the point of Obama’s race speech. Americans would not be better off to talk about public sector pension and educational reform issues with the degree of moralism they bring to affirmative action or sentencing disparities. The question quickly becomes about who is the real racist deep in their hearts, rather than about when and whether specific ethnic minorities have legitimate grievances about public policy.

    Julian Sanchez made the point that people can talk rationally about what constitutes sexism, but not about what constitutes racism, and was taken to taks by feminist commentators who want an equally moralistic discussion of gender issues.

    — Pithlord · Sep 28, 05:41 PM · #

18. “Americans would not be better off to talk about public sector pension and educational reform issues with the degree of moralism they bring to affirmative action or sentencing disparities.”

    Sure they would — it is moral and right to stop coddling minorities in our educational system and face the reality that they just won’t do as well as white students:

    http://badstudentsnotbadschools.com/

    So “reform” would instead ask how can we provide meaningful educational experiences to those students who aren’t very smart. We need more people to get morally outraged when we read about stuff like this:

    http://profmondo.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/it-adds-up-to-cero/

    I want middle-class white folk in Illinois to demand that Professor Gutierrez get fired yesterday ;-)

    — Fake Herzog · Sep 28, 05:51 PM · #

19. “That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and is certainly “ex cathedra” since it was released under the auspice of Benedict’s apostolic authority. “

    You are confused. There have been no ex cathedra statements since 1954 (the last concerned the Assumption of Mary), nor have any ecumenical councils issued definitive teachings on this matter, nor are these statements part of the Church’s ordinary magisterium. These statements are fairly recent advisories which are contingent upon sociological judgments – i.e. outside the realm of infallible teachings of any kind.

    — Art Deco · Sep 28, 05:54 PM · #

20. Speaking of which, Chet should have mentioned that his quote from the Catechism comes from “Part Three: Life in Christ”

    I apologize; I’m not tremendously familiar with Catholic resources and cited the passage I quoted in the best way I knew how. That said…

    Those of us who support the death penalty, note that it seems to do a good job of helping to maintain law and order and “contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence.”

    Unfortunately for Catholic proponents of executions, the Catechism doesn’t appear to allow for the death penalty on this basis. (And I wonder on what basis you maintain that it does “a good job of helping to maintain law and order” when crime rates in death penalty states are higher, on average, than in those without.) Section 2266 doesn’t “confuse” or “add nuance” to the material I quoted; it actually affirms it, and affirms Catholic opposition to the death penalty:

    Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

    The death penalty does not contribute to the correction of an offender, but to his extinction. It is abundantly clear – except to habitual text-distorters like Herzog – that the official position of the Catholic Church is against the death penalty.

    Tim up above is quite correct to note the difference between ex cathedra teachings and other forms of Papal teaching.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as I mentioned, is certainly “ex cathedra”, having been promulgated under the Pope’s apostolic authority. It’s not a document you’re entitled to ignore as a Catholic, according to the Church.

    — Chet · Sep 28, 06:03 PM · #

21. You are confused.

    No, I’m not. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the official statement of Catholic belief on the subjects that it covers and is issued under the full apostolic authority of the pope. From the Apostolic Constitution that covered it:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith… This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms…

    Given on 11 October 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate.

    Opposition to the death penalty is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. There’s just no room for Catholics to stake out differing positions on this issue, just like how you can’t be a pro-choice Catholic.

    — Chet · Sep 28, 06:09 PM · #

22. Fake Herzog,

    I don’t think racial issues should be highly moralized. On the other hand, I think it’s a good thing that trying to stoke majoritarian ethnic resentment is taboo, so I can’t say I wish you well.

    Silly college professors with relativist notions about math are not the problem. The problem is primary and secondary public education. Educational reform just does not assume that everyone will be a genius. It just assumes that there are some more and some less effective ways of teaching – and there’s plenty of empirical evidence that this is so. Americans of all ethnicities would be better off if American schools taught disadvantaged students better.

    — Pithlord · Sep 28, 06:27 PM · #

23. Chet,

    You are certainly right that the Catechism represents the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. You aren’t right about what “ex cathedra” means and you aren’t right that there is a claim of infallibility for the contents of the Catechism.

    — Pithlord · Sep 28, 06:30 PM · #

24. You aren’t right about what “ex cathedra” means and you aren’t right that there is a claim of infallibility for the contents of the Catechism.

    Please. This is special pleading. The Catholic Church’s position on the death penalty is given precisely the same weight as the Church’s position on abortion and euthanasia. You can’t claim that the latter two are non-negotiable for Catholics but then claim that there’s some wiggle-room for Catholics to be pro-execution.

    There isn’t. It’s just that Catholicism is a religion of convenience for conservatives, but when religious ideology conflicts with political ideology, we see which one they choose.

    — Chet · Sep 28, 07:01 PM · #

25. Chet, I agree that conservative Catholics ignore parts of the Church’s teachings that they don’t like. There’s a “First Things” cafeteria, in which Rerum Novarum is all about marginal tax cuts. However, it is also a fact that not all official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are said to be infallible. The Immaculate Conception is said to be infallible doctrine. The position that the death penalty is unnecessary (and, therefore, immoral) in modern conditions is not.

    — Pithlord · Sep 28, 07:20 PM · #

26. “I am one of the few people on the blogosphere who is willing to make the simple point that political positions have moral consequences.”

    My comment is in relation only to this sentence, because I’m not aware of the disagreement. I agree with Freddie that too many people online propose certain political solutions which are not thought through, and when they’re called out on the consequences, they react as if you’re being too serious and ideological – hey, it’s only politics, man — but political actions can have devastating consequences and should be taken seriously. It shouldn’t be a game of pragmatism, jerking people around with different experiments — people’s lives are at stake in many cases such as the mideast wars, drones and such, and at least their freedom, health, quality of living and happiness are at stake.

    — mfarmer · Sep 28, 07:50 PM · #

27. “I am one of the few people on the blogosphere who is willing to make the simple point that political positions have moral consequences.”

    If that isn’t an example of moral self-infatuation, I don’t know what could be.

    — Pithlord · Sep 28, 08:11 PM · #

28. Regardless of whether the Catechism is infallible, its content certainly is, being of the ordinary and universal magesterium, which is infallible. It’s not necessary for the pope to speak ex cathedra to be infallible; he just has to say something that is already infallible.

    And infallibility is hardly a necessary condition for obligatory belief. When the pope asserts a universal teaching, that obligates Catholics whether or not he speaks ex cathedra. The material I’ve quoted constitutes such a universal teaching on the basis of appearing in the Catechism, by definition. Catholics, simply put, are as obligated to oppose the death penalty as they are abortion or the ordination of women.

    — Chet · Sep 28, 11:15 PM · #

29. Pithlord,

    When I traveled all over Europe, I was slightly annoyed at the Canadians I encountered as they always seemed to be so quick to make a point of distinguishing themselves from Americans (always with the cute little Canadian flag pin). On the other hand, as individuals, they were friendly, open and intellectually honest — just like you!

    So while we may disagree about many political issues, you have a lot of good things to say. To wit, I can get behind this:

    “Educational reform just does not assume that everyone will be a genius. It just assumes that there are some more and some less effective ways of teaching – and there’s plenty of empirical evidence that this is so. Americans of all ethnicities would be better off if American schools taught disadvantaged students better.”

    Unfortunately, for many educational reformers (see e.g. No Child Left Behind), they do think everyone is a potential genius, or at least that we can CLOSE THE GAP. But it ain’t so…which doesn’t mean there aren’t better ways to teach poor, dumb kids.

    Also, this is pretty good: “Chet, I agree that conservative Catholics ignore parts of the Church’s teachings that they don’t like. There’s a “First Things” cafeteria, in which Rerum Novarum is all about marginal tax cuts. However, it is also a fact that not all official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are said to be infallible. The Immaculate Conception is said to be infallible doctrine. The position that the death penalty is unnecessary (and, therefore, immoral) in modern conditions is not.”

    As one of those “First Things” Catholics, I have to admit that after reading all of the Church’s Encyclicals on what might be broadly called the social order I am somewhat uncomfortable, to say the least. Like it or not, I have to deal with the fact that Holy Mother Church is O.K. with unions, wealth redistribution, and using the State to regulate business (of course they are also O.K. with capitalism and using charity to help the poor, so it gets confusing).

    I liked it better back in the days of Pius IX:

    X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

    77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

    78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

    79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

    80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

    — Fake Herzog · Sep 28, 11:35 PM · #

30. Chet,

    Please stop. Once again you have no idea — repeat — no idea what you are talking about. Tim, Art Deco (I like him!) and even Pithlord, the nice Canadian, has tried to help you but you continue to act ignorant. Now it’s time for the heavy artillery — after Ed Feser gets done with you you’ll come back here begging to be saved and asking to repent (and like a good Catholic, I’ll be happy to oblige):

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/deadly-unserious.html#more

    Professor Feser is a national treasure!

    — Fake Herzog · Sep 28, 11:48 PM · #

31. I can’t resist:

    “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
    Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
    Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
    [Note: The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.]

    1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

    2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

    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.”

    — Fake Herzog · Sep 29, 12:07 AM · #

32. Thanks for this post! i really enjoyed reading it!!!

    — custom research papers · Sep 29, 05:48 AM · #

33. I’m not a Roman Catholic, but I agree with Pius IX that it is unreasonable and indeed unjust to ask anyone over the age of forty to come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

    — Pithlord · Sep 29, 01:10 PM · #

34. Tim, Art Deco (I like him!) and even Pithlord, the nice Canadian, has tried to help you but you continue to act ignorant.

    Tim, Art Deco, and Pithlord have simply stuck their fingers in their ears and started humming until I go away.

    This stuff honestly isn’t that hard. The Comprehensive Rules of Magic: The Gathering are a lot more complicated. Roman Catholicism? Not as nuanced as you all seem to think.

    Note: The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.

    Well, that’s his opinion. Am I supposed to take it as “infallible”? Did you?

    — Chet · Sep 29, 07:29 PM · #

35. Now it’s time for the heavy artillery — after Ed Feser gets done with you you’ll come back here begging to be saved and asking to repent

    Regarding abortion, the temporizing bishop will speak vaguely of “promoting a culture of life” and emphasize the compassion owed women who find themselves “in difficult circumstances” – rather than, say, calling attention to the unique depravity of willfully murdering your own flesh and blood for the sake of a hassle-free orgasm.

    What about this am I supposed to find compelling? It’s like you’ve discovered the Catholic mirror-universe version of Amanda Marcotte.

    — Chet · Sep 29, 07:31 PM · #

36. Interesting! post! Thanks for sharing!

    — custom research papers · Sep 30, 09:59 AM · #

37. There’s actually an interesting relationship between the subject matter of this post and the digression about the RCC’s claims for itself. The RCC accepts that policy issues always include a mixture of moral issues and judgment about social fact. It claims expertise on moral issues, but not on social facts. So it always has to hedge its position on things like the Iraq war and the death penalty, although it can insist that believers must accept the basic premises of just war theory and just punishment principles.

    Freddie, on the other hand, is an expert on everything.

    — Pithlord · Sep 30, 07:43 PM · #

38. Pithlord,

    Well said.

    — Fake Herzog · Sep 30, 08:15 PM · #

39. You’re a polemicist. That can be entertaining for like minded readers, but is going to raise the ire of non-like minded readers. It’s also going to open you up to understandable charges of being disingenuous. I’m perfectly willing to believe specifically that you are not motivated by things like careerism, and certainly some of Freddies rhetoric in response to your article is over the top, but the fact that you routinely offer arguments that you must know are dishonest in support of positions that you (presumably) really believe in understandably is off putting to people who disagree with you.

    The fact of the matter is that, if you honestly want a dialogue with people who disagree with you, you’re going to have to make pretty big changes to your style. Being a polemicist pretty much precludes serious dialogue with your opponents.

    — LarryM · Oct 2, 11:24 AM · #

40. The Pope is not the last word on moral issues. I consider him to be among those whose ideas should be given serious consideration but I don’t consider him to be the official spokesperson for Christian morality. Obviously he’s a highly important Christian leader. The Bible verse containing “Upon this rock I will build my church,” can be interpreted as upon the rock of faith, not upon Peter himself. It’s my understanding that Catholics view Peter as the first pope with authority given to him by Jesus to build His church which, early Catholic leaders decided, was their church.

    — Joules · Oct 3, 11:22 AM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.

↑ Back To The Future: Healthcare Edition

↓ How the Rest of 2011 Played Out

All contents copyright The American Scene unless otherwise noted. Colophon. Archive.