The Trouble With Blogging
One of the greatest problems with blogging is that it is too easy to rant without thinking; and the rant becomes public domain. The consequence is, of course, you find yourself writing things you did not intend to say; at least publicly. I do that, myself, all the time; though I am trying to develop more discipline in that area.
So here we are gearing up for a new Presidential campaign (though, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why we're doing it so early). One of the Presidential hopefuls has already gotten into hot water with the Catholic League; see here and here.
It appears that two bloggers John Edwards hired has some anti-Catholic sentiments. John Edwards gave an apology. In Edwards' statement, he said:
they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word.
I have three thoughts about this. First, I do not believe the bloggers did not intend to malign Catholicism; though I do believe they did not mean to malign anyone's faith. Sound confusing? It shouldn't be. I deal with people all the time that have angry, and even hateful, thoughts about Catholicism. But they don't see Catholicism as anyone's faith, they see it as a power structure. Power stuctures are open targets these days, especially given the blatant, arbitrary and corrupt abuse of power we are witnessing in so many circles. Catholicism is not a power structure, though. It is very much a faith... a sublime and powerful faith. And I would challenge anyone who holds onto the culturally-engrained attitude that Catholicism can be referred to as anything but faith in their attitudes towards it to open their minds and interact more openly with authentic Catholics. They may just learn a good thing or two.
Second, I do not believe the attitudes of these bloggers represent the attitude or opinion of their employer, John Edwards. Nor do I think it would be appropriate to begin a campaign of attacking John Edwards because of the very stupid and offensive commentary of the bloggers he employed.
Third, I do not agree with Catholic League that we should make demands on the John Edwards campaign regarding who he hires or fires. Nor am I willing to interpret his hiring/firing decisions as emblematic of what attitudes or opinions he may or may not have towards Catholicsm. I do think that his position that he should give his empolyees another chance is consistent with his professed populist position towards workers in general; and hope, should he be elected, that position will be reflected in the policies he enacts as President.
The Left Wing of CfD
User login
14 Stations
You can also support:
Catholic Relief Service
and Catholic Charities
Social Doctrine of the Church
Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II
Centesimus Annus, John Paul II
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, JP II
Laborem Exercens, John Paul II
Populorum Progressio, Paul VI
Pacem in Terris, John XIII
Mater et Magistra, John XIII
Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI
Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII
--------------------
Pontifical Council for Justice & Peace
USCCB Life & Justice
Catholic Life & Justice Organizations
Catholic Conservation Center
Catholic Relief Services
Catholic Media Report
Catholic Peace Fellowship
Catholics Against Capital Punishment
Catholic Worker Movement
Center of Concern
Dominican Call to Justice
Franciscan Justice Peace & Integrity of Creation Resources
Franciscans International
Jesuit Advocacy Network
NETWORK
Office for Social Justice
Pax Christi USA
Priests for Life
Salt of the Earth
State Catholic Conferences
Sisters of the Good Shepherd NAC
Comments
Informative and inspirational
That about sums up my experience the last couple of days of talking to and about catholics.
As someone who's only been to 4 masses, one wedding and one funeral (sounds like a movie title) in a catholic church, I won't pretend to know much about it -- other than some research on canon law many moons ago and being raised by former catholics that turned presbyterian in their 20s.
But reading and corresponding with catholic people on this issue has reaffirmed my faith that true men and women of faith, people who's only agenda is making the world a better place for everyone regardless of creed or sect, can see beyond the surface of agitators like Donohue (who exist merely to muddy the waters) and understand the message underneath the madness -- even if they don't agree with the message or appreciate the manner in which it was delivered.
Amanda broke a fundamental precept that is taught in everyone's bible and is a nearly universal doctrine in every religion throughout history -- treat others as you wish to be treated. Fortunately, she was dealing with people who not only follow that golden rule, but also the teachings of the world's greatest philosopher (for those that do not believe in his divinity) -- that we should love our enemies. That always struck me as one step beyond, one essential step beyond all other instructions on how we should conduct ourselves.
Forgiveness is central to all christian believers, but you folks really, really know this stuff backwards, and live it. It's been fabulous to see the preaching get practiced.
Mark Adams
Dispassionate Liberal
As an Irish-American
As an Irish-American Catholic who grew up in the South I thought a Southern Democratic Senator standing by employees who defamed the Catholic Church, Catholics and Catholicism was behind us. I guess I was wrong. We had hoped that the election of JFK had put hatred of “Papists” and their religion behind us. Even though JFK and Bobby were murdered we retained hope and saw our religion gain acceptance in the virulent Anti-Catholic South. As we remembered, “Irish need not apply” we stood with MLK and integrated our institutions in the face of opposition from Dixiecrats. We sang “We Shall Overcome” at Montgomery.
Yet we slide backwards. When my wife read these comments by campaign employees, particularly the defamation of Mary, she was reminded of the bigotry of her youth. As a young schoolgirl in the public schools of Montgomery, Alabama she was told that she could not read the Bible verse when it was her turn because Catholics were not Christians. We understand the separation of church and state. We became Democrats because the Party came through the 60’s as the party of civil rights and equality. They accepted Catholics and indeed the party’s greatest son, while perhaps not the most devout member of the Church, was proud of his faith and overcame virulent bigotry to reach the Oval Office. How did we get to the point where that bigotry is again acceptable in the USA let alone the Democratic Party? Ronald Reagan drew many of us away with his vision of the city on the hill. Those of us more interested in social justice remained stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Over the years we have enjoyed the big tent of the Party. Now, however, with outright bigotry being accepted by what we thought was the mainstream of the Party, we are being forced out. This is particularly hard on my wife. She supported Senator Edwards in his ’04 primary campaign voting for him over Senator Kerry, a fellow Catholic. She supported the Kerry/Edwards ticket. She again had chosen Sen. Edwards her favorite in the upcoming campaign but now, in light of his decision to stand by those who defame her religion, she must sadly move on. Hiring these folks is an honest mistake. Standing by them supports the worst kind of throwback bigotry. And the Party wonders why the Catholics are leaving. Many of us, men like Ray Flynn, chose to stay and fight. Many of us must accept the fact that the party has left us. We are sorry you made that decision Senator. We had such high hopes.
Catholics??? For Democracy
WilliamSB - Although your organization now seems very concerned with appearing nonpartisan and moderate, Catholics for Democracy actually evolved from a fairly partisan organization: Catholics for Dean. Of course, I don't have to tell you that. You were there.
What I find appalling is that, for the sake of a Democratic presidential nominee's political future, you are willing to lend your organization's good name to support for Amanda Marcotte's continued employment with the Edwards campaign. Are you aware, sir, that Ms. Marcotte suggested that the world would be better off if the Virgin Mary had used Plan B - in other words, if Jesus Christ, whom Ms. Marcotte refers to as "Jeebus," had never been conceived - and that she equated the Holy Spirit, our God, with semen? Is this really someone you believe should be speaking for a Democratic presidential candidate?
Although there have been many reasons to question the "Catholics" part of your organization's name - such as the startling omission of Evangelium Vitae from the list of social encyclicals maintained by your site - I've never done so. But supporting Ms. Marcotte makes me think that you folks should perhaps change your organization's name to "Catholics??? For Democracy."
I've cross-posted this to the Edwards blog.
No... I'm Pretty Sure I'm Catholic
I'm pretty sure I'm Catholic. Though you're right. Evangelium Vitae is missing from our list of Encyclicals. We'll correct that. If it's any consolation, though, most of the Encyclicals in the list have a lot to say about the dignity of human life and the human person. You might take some time to read them. I think you'll find them enlightening.
I want to clarify up front that I am not lending Catholics for Democracy's good name to anything. I am lending my name (though it has yet to be determined how good that is). I am, after all, not the only blogger at CfD. If I worried about my positions being confused with CfD's collective positions all the time, I would never get to write what I think.
Nor is Catholics for Democracy engaged in deceptive image-cleaning -- if you want to imply that. Yes Catholics for Democracy was originally Catholics for Dean; and I am very proud not only of CfD's participation in that, but in my own involvement in the grassroots Dean movement. I will not apologize for that. Nor am I trying to hide it; as you should be able to tell by my bio.
Catholics for Democracy has become more inclusive, though. We did so because Catholics with political philosophies that lean more to the right had become engaged in discussion at CfD and we felt that the opportunity was there to facilitate that political dialogue. That open dialogue is fairly rare among Catholic blogs these days, but we still intend to continue the risk of promoting it at our site.
You are right, though. I am personally "fairly partisan." In fact, if you read my posts in our archives, even more recent ones, you will find that I am more than fairly progressive when it comes to promoting justice. After all, my Catholic faith teaches me that children should not go to bed hungry; that people should not be sleeping on a sidewalk; that people who work an honest day's work should be able to pay for their housing, clothe themselves and their children, and put food on the table for their family. My faith also teaches me that people engaged in public office should be there to promote the common good, not the greed of the affluent. You'll find those things in the Encyclicals you referred to. Take time to read them.
But, you know what else my faith tradition teaches me? It teaches me that we should not rush to rash judgement about people; that, in the words of St. Ignatius Loyola:
John Edwards said he was offended by the private (albeit in a public forum) commentary of the bloggers in question and I believe him. After all, it's not like he lied about the danger of a foreign power in order to bring our nation to war.
One thing that really ticked me off during the last Presidential campaign is the very ugly conduct some Catholics engaged in, both towards other Catholics and to candidates and their staff. With public behavior like that, is it any wonder people have cynical things to say about us? It amazes me that now, so early in this campaign season (if you can call it a campaign season already), we already have some people willing to try to determine on their own authority who is Catholic.
I move that Catholics try to be more civil to each other this time around; and give those who think we're arrogant and power-hungry a reason to think they might just be wrong. And I move that we leave ad hominem attacks about candidates' staffs alone. We're not trying to figure out which campaign staff members to elect into office. We're trying to figure out which candidates -- you know, the people who signed up with the FEC -- to elect into office. And, after all, gratuitous ad hominem attacks are immoral in Catholic teaching.
Like you, I will cross post.
check out the Greatest Commandment...
... and check out Mark 3:23-30 while you're at it.
Blasphemy is a grave sin, graver than the full panorama of Catholic social ethics. The assault of Edwards' blogger against the Person of the Holy Spirit is satanic in origin. Her insult toward the Blessed Virgin Mary is an added mortal sin. Why Edwards, a nominal Christian, could abide a blasphemer on his staff is beyond me.
"After all, it's not like he lied about the danger of a foreign power in order to bring our nation to war."
Even if that was true (which I don't believe since no evidence has been brought forth to claim that Bush intentionally lied about WMD in Iraq) it is still a lesser sin than blasphemy.
Our priority as Catholics must be God, then service to neighbor. These are both indispensible-- but they must be lived in the proper order. No social program can make up for an evil heart.
...Not Greater, Because...
Metaphysically, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is greater than all of Catholic Social Doctrine put together, but in practice it is not. Here is why....
First of all we need to define blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The footnote in the New American Bible (the authoritative translation of the bible for Catholic Americans, for those unfamiliar) to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit verse reads:
Going further, Catholics are regularly taught there are two sins of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: absolute certainty of salvation and absolute despair of salvation. Amanda has uttered neither. Even if her contention that there is no afterlife is problematic, she is not guilty of the unforgivable sin.
You go on to say that Amanda committed another mortal sin of blasphemy against the Holy Mother. Her provocative commentary involving the Holy Mother was deeply offensive -- and, had it been made by someone who knew better, it would have been a mortal sin. However, while what Amanda said was a gravely evil (and offensive) utterance, whether it was a mortal sin depends on a few things, one of which is knowledge of the gravity of the act. I do not know that Amanda is aware of the gravity of evil of what she said, so cannot suggest she committed mortal sin, and neither can you -- unless you know something about her that nobody else knows, at which point you should not be sharing that knowledge.
While it is true that we have to keep in perspective the 'love of God' v 'love of neighbor' tension, the two are integrally linked to a degree that you cannot claim one without the other. The human person is the image of God, the imago dei, and our love of God is reflected through our love for the chief creation of God: the human person, our neighbor. This too is supported in scripture:
It's sort of a paradox, isn't it? No it isn't, not for those truly in love with God. Anyone who loves God, who is the source of Love, automatically loves his neighbor. And if you do not love your neighbor, you are lying when you say you love God.
So, while it is true that we should love God with all our heart, soul and mind and our neighbor as ourself, it is not true that we can love God wholly to the point that we forget our neighbor. We love God first by loving our neighbor: that is the first test of our love for God who is the Creator of our neighbor.
On the question of justice -- and that is the odd claim being made by radical right-wingers invoking this so-called scandal claiming to speak for, and to mobilize around, the Catholic faith -- Saint Alphonsus Ligouri reminds us to lean towards mercy if in doubt. I am in doubt as to the guilt of Amanda, who is the firestorm of the current debate, so I will do as Saint Alphonsus suggested and err on the side of mercy. I know she is a young woman who was freely venting thoughts. I do not believe she would have said much of what she said had she had the discipline to think about her thoughts, or the consequences of her thoughts. She deserves, in my opinion, another chance.
it's over
Looks like the blasphemer realized she was an albatross around Sen. Edwards' neck and resigned. I hope she takes time in this aftermath to look at the sorry state of her soul and look to God her Savior for help.
I Pray
Father,
I think some things are seriously lacking in Amanda's understanding of what Catholicsm is. More importantly, I know (from her admission) Amanda was raised Catholic. I do not know what is going on in her mind.
I pray Amanda learns who her God is and where she fits into the scheme of salvation.
More importantly, I pray that Amanda can, in the near future, address and move forward from whatever pain created her anger against the Church.
Politically, I am happy that a positive Presidential campaign is relieved from the "baggage" of Amanda's anger. But, personally, I cannot keep from feeling sorry for Amanda because of her anger.
A pastoral response is instinctively triggered in me. I want to know what is causing Amanda's anger and to help her resolve that anger so she can rediscover her faith. Unfortunately, I think political posturing among so-called Catholics interferred with that. So much for being pastoral.
At any rate, I am glad that, hopefully, this issue is over and that we can return to promoting positive Catholic messaging.