Yuku free message boards

tizzidale: Agreed that not only the original article but also the comments following are illuminating.

What's painful, of course, is that there is quite a bit of truth in the criticisms. What's overlooked is that those truths are far outweighed by the incontestable truth that these commentators do not consider (or maybe do not know), which is that the Church as an institution has done more good for mankind in more areas of human endeavor for more people than any other organization in history.

Although we are trying to keep the number of active threads on the forum within manageable scope, I've decided to leave this new thread up rather than incorporate it into another topic because I think "you should know your enemy." If there's disagreement on that score, I will consider moving this thread elsewhere.

rcesq, moderator

NewPerspectives:

As I noted in my initial response to tizzidale's post of the Black Agenda Report article, it and the comments that follow, contain partial truths. But it does Catholics no good, I believe, to ignore those partial truths or the distortions that arise from them. Thus, loathesome though the overall tone of the piece is, the following is true:

Ratzinger wrote a letter to American bishops and instructed them to deny communion to politicians who supported abortion rights. This letter was written in 2004, when John Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic, ran against George W. Bush.

This, too, is accurate, although taken out of context:

He said that Christianity was not imposed on Indians because they "secretly longed" for it. Rubbing salt into the gaping wound, Benedict added that worship of traditional Indian religions would be "a step backward."

Same with this:

He quoted a 14^th century Byzantine emperor who said that the prophet Muhammad brought only "evil and inhuman" things to the world.

The tangled story of Christianity and slavery is one that is far too complicated for discussion here, but it's not intellectually honest to dismiss out of hand those who maintain that there were times when the Church itself sanctioned slavery. The same problem exists whenever the subjects of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition or the Protestant Reformation come up. The "soundbite" versions are tempting for those who distrust or hate the Church, and unfortunately many if not most people have little patience or tolerance for nuance or ambiguity or outright contradictory positions.

So Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to Cardinal McCarrick about "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion." It was within his purview. And McCarrick lied about the document and the way he had received it. And the contents were entirely appropriate.

NewPerspective:

I'm sorry, but you seem not to understand my point, which is that even in the midst of vitriolic remarks, the author of the article in Black Agenda Report said things that were true. How one interprets those truths is, of course, a matter of debate. For example, I consider your statement about Cardinal McCarrick to be both disrespectful and uncharitable. Unless you have personal knowledge of the entire context of what was said and done by the Cardinal in connection with the communication from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith about communion to pro-abortion Catholics, it is inappropriate to say that "McCarrick lied." The Catechism warns the faithful about the sins of rash judgment, detraction and calumny:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁷ He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁸
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁷⁹

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

I realize that it seems to be acceptable in certain blogs and comboxes to fling around accusations of lying, engaging in fraud, deceit and other grave moral failings and to launch ad hominem attacks willy nilly; however, this forum is dedicated to Pope Benedict XVI and those who post are expected to adhere to a better code of conduct and a more mature standard of discourse. I would hope that you understand and accept these forum rules.

You obviously don't understand the theology of the Holy Father.

Nothing in my original post or in my reply to you discussed the Holy Father's theology. Thus, I am entirely mystified by your comment about my understanding. True, I am not schooled in theology or philosophy; however, I have read a bit and am not totally ignorant. I cannot see anywhere the basis for your sweeping negative judgment about me.

Let me point out again the very limited nature of the discussion here: it focuses entirely on the following exchange:

tizzidale: Agreed that not only the original article but also the comments following are illuminating.
What's painful, of course, is that there is quite a bit of truth in the criticisms.

and your response:

I find your comments odd. Where is the "quite a bit of truth in the criticisms"? It was the usual retro bashing of the Holy Father and the Church (not to mention the USA).

My point remains that even if someone engages in "the usual retro bashing" it is foolish for Catholics to ignore and dismiss those criticisms out of hand. Being mightily indignant and "holier than thou" gets us nowhere. We should aim for understanding the bases of the critiques, accept those points that have merit, reject and correct those that do not, and try to keep a dialogue going. We must be willing and able to listen even to people who are flinging invectives at us. Again, the approach of the person to whom this forum is dedicated sets the example: Professor Fr. Ratzinger may have retreated from Tuebingen when the shouting became too loud for him to be heard, but he did not retreat altogether from the field of debate.

New Perspective:

This is what Cardinal McCarrick has said on the subject of civil unions. I don't see much there that, according to you, is "in direct opposition to the Vatican." Perhaps you would be so good as to point it out:

BLITZER: Another very sensitive issue that's being dealt with in the Senate right now involves a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Senator Ted Kennedy said this yesterday. He said, "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple." You disagree with him, don't you?

MCCARRICK: On this one, I do. Ted and I have -- do have differences from time to time. And this is a real big one. It seems to me that we really have to continue to define marriage as we've defined marriage for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman.

Now, I think the legislation as it is proposed would not throw out the possibility of a civil union. And I think we can -- we can live with that if this is what -- if this is what the Constitution will provide for. But to say that you can take this concept of marriage, this word of marriage and use it in ways that it has never been used before, as far as I know, in the history of the world, I think that makes no sense.

BLITZER: So just explain. You think that you could live with -- you could support civil unions between gays and lesbians, but you wouldn't like them to get formally married, is that right?

MCCARRICK: Yes. I think -- I think basically the ideal would be that everybody was -- was able to enter a union with a man and a woman and bring children into the world and have the wonderful relationship of man and wife that is so mutually supportive and is really so much part of our society and what keeps our society together. That's the ideal.

If you can't meet that ideal, if there are people who for one reason or another just cannot do that or feel they cannot do that, then in order to protect their right to take care of each other, in order to take care of their right to have visitation in a hospital or something like that, I think that you could allow, not the ideal, but you could allow for that for a civil union.

But if you begin to fool around with the whole -- the whole nature of marriage, then you're doing something which effects the whole culture and denigrates what is so important for us. Marriage is the basic foundation of our family structure. And if we lose that, then I think we become a society that's in real trouble.

CNN Transcripts

Although the Cardinal's statements dealt in a traditional Catholic manner with the subject of the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, like New Perspective, some commentators chose to interpret his remarks as espousing homosexual relations. The Cardinal issued a clarification three days later on the Archdiocese of Washington DC website:

Some remarks by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, former Archbishop of Washington, that were made during an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN (air date June 7, 2006) were not clear and have been misinterpreted by some individuals. To prevent further confusion, the Cardinal issued the following clarification:

"I'm afraid that I misspoke last Wednesday when I was being interviewed on CNN.

"We were talking about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment and the protection of marriage between a man and a woman. Here is what I said: 'We really have to continue to define marriage as we have defined marriage for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman.'

"After that, I spoke of the legislation as it had been proposed and that it would not eliminate the possibility of civil unions. I said, 'If this is what the legislation would provide for, I think we can live with that.'

"My point was that the wording of the proposed legislation to protect marriage, which did not eliminate civil unions, might be necessary in order to have the votes needed to pass it. I added, 'to say that you can take the concept of marriage and use it in ways that it has never been used before, as far as I know, in the history of the world, I think makes no sense.'

"When probed further on the question of civil unions, which came up because the wording of the constitutional amendment did not seem to eliminate them, I returned to the ideal - that everybody should be 'able to enter a union with a man and a woman and that would bring children into the world and have the wonderful relationship of man and wife that is so mutually supportive and is really so much part of our society and what keeps society together.'

"I added, 'If you fool around with the whole nature of marriage, then you are doing something which affects the whole culture and denigrates what is so important for us. Marriage is the basic foundation of our family structure and if we lose that, then I think we become a society that is in real trouble.'

"In trying to reply to a question, I mentioned people who may need the right to take care of each other when they are grievously ill and hospitalized, but it was always in the context of the proposed legislation and in no way in favor of a lifestyle that is contrary to the teaching of the Church and Scripture. I realized that my words could have given the wrong impression to someone who did not take my remarks in context.

"I regret any confusion my words may have caused because I did not make myself sufficiently clear."

Clarification to Remarks Made on CNN's The Situation Room

And I shall repeat my admonition to you, New Perspective, which is that the Pope Benedict XVI Fanclub forum is not the place for unsupported, unjustified, uncharitable personal attacks on others, whether they be cardinals or contributors to the forum.