(no subject)
On a blog I occasionally read, there is a discussion in progress about Notre Dame's invitation of President Obama, and potential offenses against canon law occasioned thereby. Some commenters there seem to be the sort who would like bishops to respond to every wrongdoing by excommunicating half the Church, and so the discussion has gone downhill from a consideration of the canonical problem, to desires that the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend would apply a penalty that is illegal under the current Code of Canon Law, to questioning said bishop's masculinity.
One voice of reason suggested that the bishop had not only to consider those options which he could rightfully exercise, but also the effects, including the adverse effects, those options would have. To this someone else replied, sarcastically, that the voice of reason considered that masculinity was defined, among other things, by avoiding actions that "will potentially cause people to become angry and maybe do some mean things." Rather than take the bait and hit back, the voice of reason replied thus: "Masculinity, I would submit is not the same as pugnaciousness."
Indeed he is correct, and the difference between masculinity and mere pugnaciousness is the virtue of meekness.
One voice of reason suggested that the bishop had not only to consider those options which he could rightfully exercise, but also the effects, including the adverse effects, those options would have. To this someone else replied, sarcastically, that the voice of reason considered that masculinity was defined, among other things, by avoiding actions that "will potentially cause people to become angry and maybe do some mean things." Rather than take the bait and hit back, the voice of reason replied thus: "Masculinity, I would submit is not the same as pugnaciousness."
Indeed he is correct, and the difference between masculinity and mere pugnaciousness is the virtue of meekness.