Ethics, Morality
See here. I actually said something intelligible! Whose morals are we talking about?... Catholics cannot have separate moral and ethical stances.
In response to James Welle's article, which states, My point is that morals cannot and should not ever be used to justify ethics... All I ask is that when you formulate you [sic] arguments, whatever side ( Read more... )
In response to James Welle's article, which states, My point is that morals cannot and should not ever be used to justify ethics... All I ask is that when you formulate you [sic] arguments, whatever side ( Read more... )
Now, a moment to rant, please - more about the two letters following James Welle's (although that one was scary enough).
I did not state that contraceptives were the "culprits" or "scapegoats" (as Amanda Tarkowski implied) nor "cause" (as Daniel Savage implied) for the moral demise of the late 20th century, and certainly not the SOLE ones (Amanda again). I was very careful about that, choosing the most precise wording so as NOT to imply that. I said that the explosion of abortions and the smaller numbers of young people were the sequelae of America's becoming a contraceptive society. NOT RESULT. Apparently freshmen and sophomores don't know the difference. I guess if we don't know a word, we just assume that it has the meaning that is easiest argue against.
And I said that the contraceptive mentality ALLOWS the removal of certain things from sex - not that it necessarily happens or that it is the sole explanatory mechanism for the things that have happened in our country.
I also did not say that contraception robs the human race of a stable, loving family structure (Daniel Savage). I talked about the MENTALITY that contraception creates and implies. I made NO definitive statements about such direct relationships.
HOW UNFAIR OF THEM.
God, do I wish that some intelligent person would write in and point out how they misread my argument. I am so sick of people erecting strawmen and having the Observer choose to publish that crap in response to a well-thought-out, carefully-worded and succinct piece. More importantly, I am sobered by the knowledge that there are so many kids here at ND who are willing to go to great and insulting lengths to condemn our precious Church.
I really wish they would just admit that it isn't me they hate, but the Church. All I did was articulate the Church's position. Who's scapegoating now?
I would write back myself, but I doubt they would publish it; there's a limit on how many letters you can write in so that the viewpoint doesn't turn into two people arguing back and forth.
And there's also the fact that contraception wasn't even my main point - it was about the "what's morally right may not be best for the country" idiocy. Nobody chose to focus on that, did they?
And for the record, the "alleged" connection between increased sexual permissiveness and increased abortions is NOT "devoid of truth and supportive evidence" (Daniel). Rather, it is WELL-documented. It is a wonder how one eighteen-year-old has managed to read every sociological research report that's come out in the past thirty-five years, isn't it?
Arrrrrrrgh.
I appreciate your response in the Observer, Dan. It addressed a very important part of my letter. Now I can only pray that others will have the courage to back me up and point out how I was misinterpreted. This isn't just a matter of winning an argument. It's a matter of convincing people of the true way - if you will.
Reply
Idiots... argh...
Yes, I was equally pissed off to see those replies. I know I'm just a CS major: I wish I could explain my Catholic beliefs, but it's personally very challenging for me to explain/express myself to others, even in writing. I'd write more but this is a public post; I don't want to say any more publicly about that.
When I read James' article, I was thinking, "What the hell?" Again, I'd say more but I don't want to make public statements against The Observer; not yet, anyway. Likewise for Amanda's and Daniel's articles.
And I said that the contraceptive mentality ALLOWS the removal of certain things from sex - not that it necessarily happens or that it is the sole explanatory mechanism for the things that have happened in our country.
You're correct and you're wise to express it this way.
I also did not say that contraception robs the human race of a stable, loving family structure (Daniel Savage). I talked about the MENTALITY that contraception creates and implies. I made NO definitive statements about such direct relationships.
Again, you're correct and you're wise to explain yourself exactly as you do.
I am so sick of people erecting strawmen and having the Observer choose to publish that crap in response to a well-thought-out, carefully-worded and succinct piece. More importantly, I am sobered by the knowledge that there are so many kids here at ND who are willing to go to great and insulting lengths to condemn our precious Church.
Might I add that James Welle is both a ND student (presumably of his own volition) and a Peace Studies major? We can't always change the students, but we can change ND.
God, do I wish that some intelligent person would write in and point out how they misread my argument.
I'll forward all five articles to Fr. Foster, my resident priest. If he can't answer this, I bet that Fr. Coughlin would know what to do.
In the meantime I hope that somebody has the nerve to misquote and/or publicly attack what I said about the Catholic Church; if such an attack doesn't evoke a reply from the public, well... I can't imagine that.
I would have replied directly to James' criticism of your letter except I don't have nearly the background you have on this issue. I know that what he said is very wrong.
I really wish they would just admit that it isn't me they hate, but the Church. All I did was articulate the Church's position. Who's scapegoating now?
You're right. The amazing thing... not once did I say I hated James, not even here. Proverbs probably has something to say about "fools".
And there's also the fact that contraception wasn't even my main point - it was about the "what's morally right may not be best for the country" idiocy. Nobody chose to focus on that, did they?
Hence my letter; I missed the point, but addressed another equally important (and perhaps underlying) issue.
Argh... Daniel... what a fool...
You're most welcome Eleanore! I have a hard time expressing myself (even in anger) but your opening up this issue made it much easier for me. I too pray that those who call themselves "Catholic" will have that courage. This is about far more than a single argument; it's about convincing those both inside and outside all churches (established religions) of the true way. John Paul II wrote interesting encyclicals; I just finished reading Salvifici Doloris and I really like how he calls the earthly church to action!
Reply
I finally had time to calm down and carefully read Amanda's and Daniel's articles.
*throws a fit and goes for a nice half-hour walk*... these two fools think they can discern right from wrong on their own without the assistance of the Church. I pity them.
Daniel is also a Peace Studies major... I wonder what they're teaching those students about morality. I really wonder.
Of course my peers won't listen to me; why should they care about music, faith, or even chess when they can gorge themselves on the things money has to offer them? Why should my dormmates waste their time around me when they think that they can win my friendship with mere low-level flattery? Why should they care about my well-being (both physical and emotional) when I seem nonhuman to them?
I'm glad for the few true friends in Christ I have. I hope that I won't suffer as much this semester as I did last semester, or if I do, I pray that I'll have the strength to face it this time.
Talk with you later, El?
Reply
Plus, people are STUPID. Maybe it's an unconscious desire to be deceived and keep believing the more comfortable thing, but look at those articles. Ever heard of getting someone's argument right before attacking it?
...and an especially annoying quality of ND kids is the tendency to try to mask their stupidity with a bunch of big words. They might be able to memorize rules and information and spit them back out, but they sure as hell can't think for themselves, even when "thinking for oneself" just means being openminded enough to read something else the way it is written.
Okay, enough ranting for me now. Hang in there, Dan, and I'll try to do the same. I don't really know what else to say at this point.
Reply
I made a post a while ago explaining that I have a form of Asperger Syndrome; this also means I have a **very** strong tendency to be naive. I didn't even realize that there was a problem until I read those two letters today. And of course, now that facts dispel my naive nature, I'm strongly angered. Oh well.
"The complacency of fools will destroy them." (Proverbs 1:32)
Yes, people are stupid. Especially complacent people. The more complacent the person is, the more they think that using big words, rules, statistics, etc. can conceal their idiocy.
I admit that I'm not a very proficient reader, but through much correction and self-discipline I've learned to read more carefully; I'm learning to read something else the way it is written. I'm not complacent. :)
You're welcome to rant any time about faith; I'm happy to see that other people sincerely care. (And I have serious issues with loneliness so it's very good to hear from other people. Thanks El! :))
I don't know what else to say at this point, but I do hope that someone will reply to my letter; I certainly gave others enough rope to hang themselves with. I shall pray.
Reply
Never give up.
Reply
Leave a comment