The Catholic Church has their hands full
By Jason Caviness
Columnist
The Catholic Church is in a royal hubbub again. You have probably read about Bishop William Richardson, the Catholic priest who recently had his excommunication lifted by Joseph Ratzinger, now commonly referred to as Pope Benedict XVI. Richardson made headlines in late January when he went on Swedish television and had this to say – with a straight face – about the Holocaust, “I believe there were no gas chambers … I think that two to three hundred thousand Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps … but none of them by gas chambers.”
Richardson was excommunicated back in 1988 for reasons unrelated to his Holocaust denial by Pope John Paul II, who Richardson criticized for being too progressive and not nearly medieval enough in his condemnations. After John Paul II shuffled off his mortal coil and was replaced with a good old fashioned woman – and homosexual-hating pontiff – Richardson was welcomed back into the holy clubhouse. That is, until footage of him making idiotic statements about the Holocaust aired all over the world. Now all of a sudden the Vatican is feigning outrage and are trying to distance themselves from this public relations snafu.
People all over the world are expressing their surprise with Richardson’s faulty grasp on reality, but why are they shocked? This is not the first time that the church has done something shockingly ridiculous, nor will it be the last. The thing is, doing and saying outrageous things is their stock-in-trade. Without their callous disregard for evidence and reason, there wouldn’t even be a church. After all, what is Christianity without the immaculate conception? Without the resurrection? Without the worship of a trinity that is somehow not polytheism?
Richardson and the Vatican are only a part of the problem. The real villain here is irrationality itself. Without irrationality, religion would never have gained the foothold it currently has on the human condition. Irrationality leads to things like the Holocaust and 9/11 (Richardson also denies that planes struck the towers). Irrational thought makes a virtue of faith, which is belief without evidence to support it.
Once you believe virgins can get pregnant, anything goes. Many irrational beliefs are innocuous enough; virgin birth, walking on water, healing the sick with only a touch. But once logic has been devalued to the point of irrelevancy, the mind is open to infection by the worst ideas that man can devise, and there are always evil men eager to pollute the minds of others.
The bishop clearly has no regard for evidence (indeed, what “holy” man does?). We know the Holocaust occurred because of a convergence of evidence, not just because somebody told us so. Richardson’s mind is apparently so conditioned to accepting things on “authority” that he feels no pressure to provide evidence to support his stupid claims. Richardson and the Vatican will tell you irrevocably false nonsense like Communion wafers and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ, and that’s harmless enough. But they will also tell you horribly destructive things. They will tell you AIDS is not as bad as condom use. They will tell you you are a wretched creature who is guilty of a sin committed – inexplicably – prior to your birth, and that you should lead a guilt-ridden life because of it.
I will acknowledge religion has done some good and that it continues to do so. But this latest fiasco betrays the true tenets of all religion; deceit and hostility towards reason. Try as they may to separate themselves from Richardson and his cohorts in the uber-conservative Society of St. Pius X, the church will forever have PR issues like this one. By embracing superstition over logic, they have guaranteed as much.
Dear Anti-Catholic,
If religion were an ethnicity, you would be a flaming racist. Don’t go hating on more than one billion people in the world just because someone didn’t love you enough as a child. Your article is unoriginal, uninspiring, and your argument lacks ‘rationality’.
On the other hand, I do believe your title and your 4 sentences concerning the issue of Bishop Richardson are worth journalistic pursuit, but your efforts to prove yourself a rational member of society have failed with an unimpressive thud. Your hatred for a two thousand year old institution has ruined an objective article that could have sought to point out the church’s current PR problems.I am disappointed the DM allowed your pre-pubescent anti-catholic rant to be published.I bet you also get off to Dan Brown publications.
I hope the DM will set higher standards for future articles published by you. Otherwise, this rag really is only worth bathroom reading and a swift trip down the toilet.
Offensive and bigoted!
I would be upset, except that the author is clearly a moron. Incidentally, it’s Richard Williamson, not William Richardson.
I am embarrassed for him.
Someone, by the way, cared enough to comment extensively:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/
How can Cavin Jasoness so thoroughly screw up the name of the principle subject of his article?
Great job on the baseless bashing of Catholics and all religious people. First of all you got the bishop’s name wrong: it is Bishop Williamson. Second of all you apparently have never heard of Thomas Aquinas who synthesized faith and reason and you clearly haven’t studied philosophy or theology at all. Your lack of understanding of these topics is blatantly obvious. Lastly, you have revealed that you are intellectually sophomoric at best.
Your lack of rational thought on this topic is frankly astonishing. You sound petulant, ill-informed, and rather like most young and inexperienced firebrands who are of the opinion that they know “what’s what.” It is difficult to believe how anyone could find any credibility in an article that so clearly bears the marks of bigotry and ignorance. Its blatant bias is so well-defined that any hint of journalistic integrity is obscured by your obvious attempt to deride the Catholic Church, and her adherents, at the expense of offering any relevant insights or information on the matter.
Religious or not, which you clearly are not, you should at least have the sense to sound reasonable, intelligent, and responsible in published work. You, however, come off as intolerant, ignorant, and irrelevant. I am not supporting Bishop Williamson’s remarks, far from it, but you show a serious lack of analytical acumen by simply painting the entire Church with the same brush. It is lazy and subpar work. Now, please take this poor excuse for an article back to your Journalism professor and ask them, nay, beg them to teach you what you evidently did not learn the first time around.
I really don’t know what to say… I think you have a misguided view of Christianity. You have looked at one man’s actions and misunderstandings and then projected it on Jesus and others that follow JESUS. You should understand that if someone gets JESUS wrong, it doesn’t mean Jesus is any less credible. People do stupid things. What else is new? We (Christians, I mean) are meant to follow JESUS not pope what’s-his-name. Jesus himself said (read with discresion and common sense, of course):
“vs.8 But you are not to be called rabbi (teacher), for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers.
vs.9 And do not call anyone [in the church] on earth father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven.
vs.10 And you must not be called masters (leaders), for you have one Master (Leader), the Christ.
-Matthew 23 (Amplified version)
If peopole get that wrong, then that’s just it; a PERSON got it wrong. Should I then say that all white people are racists because of the existense of the KKK? Of course not! Plus, I have white friends that are obviously not racist. Don’t judge a whole sect of people based on what should be seen as ONE PERSON’S misguided view of reality or misunderstanding of the Christian faith and teachings of Christ. That’s all I’m saying.
Wait a minute. I thought Ole Miss was a university. This piece reads like it comes from a snarky seventh grader. Aside from the laughable substance of the column, the grammar is pitiful. This person is actually a “columnist??!” And (sorry, I can’t resist) what’s next from this latter day Mencken, a column singing the praises of Orack Barama and denouncing Beorge Gush? Maybe Lush Rimbaugh?
Stay Classy Cavin Jasoness.
This is untrue. The formal excommunication of a dissenting group had been lifted of which Richardson was a part of. The lift was extended to a group and not specifically Richardson. This was an effort to increase dialog as a move towards reconciliation with the group.
How about your callous disregard for evidence?
Hear, hear!
Like the kind of faith that creates Love. No evidence for that either. Perhaps we should do away with monogamous relationships. Also, without faith how would scientists ever follow a theory until scientifically proven?
What a mind numbing sweeping statement. Everything the Catholic Church takes, is taken on the basis of evidence and not some devalued point of irrelevancy. Sure, certain dogmas like the Resurrection and Immaculate Conception are not scientifically or logically explained. But we take it on the deaths of thousands upon thousands of witnesses who testify with their lives shortly after the death of Christ that these things happened.
You seem to be one of them.
That’s disingenuous to the Catholic position. Sex is a beautiful thing in the Catholic Church. That’s why Weddings are a Sacrament. Of course that statement makes absolutely no sense to people who have sex outside of marriage. But if you are smart as you think you are I’m sure you’ll figure that out.
Also I’d refer you to the AIDS cases in the Philippines vs. Vietnam and how the lack of condoms play out in each country.
We are God’s creatures and therefore beautiful things. We are also creatures completely free from God’s will. In that comes concupiscence. Which basically means we have strong desires. And I think we can all agree that every strong desire within ourselves are not to be addressed.
That seems like your personal opinion, or something you’ve heard from someone who has heard it from someone else. That is not the life of any practicing Catholic I know of. How many practicing Catholics did you interview for this piece?
Perhaps next time you should get your facts straight because I’d like to believe that your information is taken from a convergence of evidence, and not just something that you’re just telling us because you certainly seem to have an agenda of hate going on here.
I’m not surprised that this wet behind the ears “journalist” took on the Catholic Church. It’s not as if thousands of Catholics around the world are going to burn this newspaper and march on the University. If he really wants to make his bones then he should write an article critical of the religion of peace Islam. But then that might would taking on a billion people who actually will cut off someone’s head because that individual offended them
“I stand by everything else in it. Instead of ad hominem attacks on me personally I’d like to see someone here refute my content”
fine why don’t you read what Father Z has written on his blog
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/boyish-bigotry-in-the-newspaper-of-ole-miss/
The typical rant of the pseudo-intellectual atheist.
Good sir, your criticisms of the Catholic Church for being a bigoted institution are quite amusing and hypocritical considering your entire article is nothing but a shameless anti-Catholic diatribe.
Now on to make you look like a jackass…
1. You got the name of the Bishop wrong (Bishop by the way, please call him by his correct title, though he was first ordained a priest). It’s Richard Williamson. My, you sure have a future in writing for a newspaper… “Today Obamck Barama signed into law the Stimulus Bill.”
2. “lifted by Joseph Ratzinger, now commonly referred to as Pope Benedict XVI”
It was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI. He has taken on this name, so commonly referred to is a pretty cheap statement. He IS Pope Benedict XVI, not merely referred to as such. But I guess this is your way of putting down the leader of my Church….
3. “After John Paul II shuffled off his mortal coil and was replaced with a good old fashioned woman – and homosexual-hating pontiff – Richardson was welcomed back into the holy clubhouse.”
Pope Benedict XVI is neither a misogynist nor anti-homosexual, get your facts straight. And way to go, you have to cheapen your argument by using labels to bring down a man. Real quality journalism there. He also was not welcomed back into any sort of holy clubhouse, unless this clubhouse you describe is the Catholic religion, rather than Vatican leadership. He has not been formally recognized as a Roman Catholic Bishop, so calm yourself already.
4. “That is, until footage of him making idiotic statements about the Holocaust aired all over the world.”
We all make mistakes. Just look at what you’re doing with your anti-Catholic article. How would you like it if people went crazy over what you wrote in this article, and it prevented you from getting a job in the future? Oh wait, too late.
5. “Now all of a sudden the Vatican is feigning outrage and are trying to distance themselves from this public relations snafu.”
Nothing will please you. If the Vatican were to recognize this man as a Bishop, you’d be angry, if they don’t, you’d be angry. By the way, he hasn’t been recognized as a Bishop I will say once more, so perhaps your anger is a bit premature. You should have saved your hate speech for if the Vatican actually recognizes the SSPX.
6. “Without irrationality, religion would never have gained the foothold it currently has on the human condition. Irrationality leads to things like the Holocaust and 9/11″
Irrationality? Like this article? You think your witting this article is going to bring peace and sunshine? An article attacking the Catholic Church? The largest Christian denomination in the United States? That’s not going to cause an uproar and negativity?
7. “This is not the first time that the church has done something shockingly ridiculous, nor will it be the last. “
It’s “Church” not “church”. The lowercase form is for an individual worship site, while uppercase is for the universal Catholic Church. Then again, you want to try and cheapen the institution you’re talking about. I’m surprised you didn’t throw in the name of the Lord and lowercase the “j” in Jesus. Show some respect for your subject. If you hate Bush, for example, you don’t write “george bush” or “bush george.” Pour journalism. What kind of garbage are you learning at Ole Miss? You bring down the reputation of this institution when you publish crap like this.
8. “Without the worship of a trinity that is somehow not polytheism?”
It’s not polytheism. Again, the job of the journalist is to study his topic before he writes about it. And again, the journalist doesn’t promote hatred and attack religions. I’ll be waiting for your racist article next. Let me know when you get done writing the article about how Arab’s are misogynist terrorists…. yea, can’t wait for another attack article.
9. “We know the Holocaust occurred because of a convergence of evidence, not just because somebody told us so.”
You know the Holocaust occurred because someone told you so, unless of course you were an eyewitness… which I doubt. You learned it in school, your teacher told you.
10. “the mind is open to infection by the worst ideas that man can devise, and there are always evil men eager to pollute the minds of others.”
A religion that stresses the importance of love of one’s neighbor is polluting the minds of its faithful?
11. “Richardson and the Vatican will tell you irrevocably false nonsense like Communion wafers and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ, and that’s harmless enough.”
At least you capitalized Communion…
12. “I will acknowledge religion has done some good and that it continues to do so. But this latest fiasco betrays the true tenets of all religion; deceit and hostility towards reason.”
Gee, I wouldn’t know there was any good to religion given the overall tone of your article and the trash you have thrown at us.
Well sir, you have made yourself look like an idiot, I guess I have little else to say. Well, I will say one more thing: I sure hope you don’t include this in your portfolio when it comes time to look for a job, because they’ll put your ass to the curb.
I will be forwarding this article to the Ole Miss leadership for their opinion.
~Rob Best
Jason, buddy, you can’t expect people to engage in thoughtful debate with you when you publish bigoted ignorance and group ad hominems. All of your bones to pick have long been addressed in rational dialectic that precedes you by many centuries and that puts what you have written here to shame.
The belief in miracles is the belief in a loving God.
Catholics believed in an ordered universe. It comes from the Bible (Wisdom 11:21). However, we believe in miracles because it is an acknowledgment that God created the universe and can intervene at will. And it is also an acknowledgment that God loves us.
To you this will sound irrational because you may not believe in God, you may not believe in a God that created the Universe, you may not believe that if there is a God that he loves us.
Is there a God? Does God love us? That is more for you to figure out and explain and understand in your own way. No amount of explaining is going to convince you of that unless you are open minded.
I believe in God. I hope I’m not irrational.
- Barack
@Jason
>”However, that does not invalidate the rest of the column”
The bishop’s name isn’t the only *factual* error.
>”I don’t see where I painted all Catholics with the same brush as the one I painted Williamson with”
How would you characterize calling the Pope a “homosexual-hating” woman?
>’Instead of ad hominem attacks on me personally I’d like to see someone here refute my content (DOOD CANT RITE GOOD HIS GRAMMAR SUX LOL isn’t what I’m talking about)”
That is truly sad. Critiquing your writing skills is not an ad hominem attack. You fail to see that the connection between your factual errors and poor communications skills are precisely why people *missed* what you claim to be your larger point. Didn’t your writing teacher tell you that if you want to be understood, you have to communicate well?
>”My point was not that all religious folks are Holocaust deniers (of course not) but that we should not be surprised when someone makes such an outrageous statement when we embrace religion which is inherently irrational.”
That is absurd. Do you really want to assert that Aristotle and Aquinas were irrational? I think we need to add vocabulary to the list of your weaknesses, because you clearly don’t understand the meanings of the words you use.
William Richardson? hahehuehuahue
I can’t believe I screwed up the bishop’s name. I made a regrettable mistake there.
Yes, a quite serious one young man, and one that cost you any credibility that you might otherwise have had.
However, that does not invalidate the rest of the column and I stand by everything else in it.
If you can not even get the name right of the subject with whom you have taken issue, how can you honestly expect any self-respecting reader to take the rest of your article seriously?
Instead of ad hominem attacks on me personally I’d like to see someone here refute my content (DOOD CANT RITE GOOD HIS GRAMMAR SUX LOL isn’t what I’m talking about).
I believe St. Polycarp (†154) said it best, “If you wish to learn the doctrine of Christianity, fix the date and we shall talk.” I would personally be glad to have a discussion with you, but do not expect me or anyone else to put on kid gloves and treat you lightly after such a bigoted and very un-informed column. I certainly will not even in this short response.
I don’t see where I painted all Catholics with the same brush as the one I painted Williamson with.
That was not my comment so I will pass remarking upon this point.
My point was not that all religious folks are Holocaust deniers (of course not) but that we should not be surprised when someone makes such an outrageous statement when we embrace religion which is inherently irrational.
See, now we have a very serious problem. You are unschooled in philosophy or theology, Mr. Caviness, as was rightly pointed out above in another comment. You have proven absolutely nothing in your article that proves religion is inherently irrational. In fact, your own moral logic can be turned right back on your own head.
If you understood your intellectual history, you would clearly see that the dichotomy you place between Faith and Reason is not even your own unique argument. You are the intellectual brainchild of forebears who sought to rend asunder the relationship between Faith and Reason in order to place man at the center of all things. That, Jason, is idolatry, self-worship, to say nothing of mixed intentions. I’ll bet you probably do not even know half of what you should and yet you parade your forebears’ party line as a banner of war.
If you wish to learn why there are so many physical evils in the world today, try taking a look at the numerous moral evils prevalent in our society. If you think that preventing AIDS through artificial contraception is not evil, then I truly pity you. You can not do evil (withhold your full self and love from your spouse in the conjugal act) in order that good may come about (prevention of AIDS).
By your own moral logic, shooting you in order to rid the world of one less bigot from society would be morally permissible.
So perhaps you should sit down and evaluate your moral positions before writing such horrid columns against Catholicism.
If someone can tell me why believing in miracles is not irrational I’ll admit I’m wrong.
If someone can tell me why shooting Jason Caviness to remove one less bigot from society is not irrational….
Jason, so mistakes happen in journalism. Your editors are also at fault for not catching the name error.
As for refuting your claim that religion is rooted in irrationality, I propose that given the criteria you propose implicitly in the article for what is rational, such a discussion will be quite difficult. I may be incorrect, but it seems that you view reason as being a solely empirical action. This is one method, one set of tools, of reason, used quite effectively in science. Would empirical reasoning be useful in say, literature? Yet it would be wrong to contest that the analysis of literature does not require some use of reason.
I suggest that it is irrational to believe that the only truth which exists is that which can be determined via empirical methods. If you only accept physical evidence as a criterion for truth, than your system will sustain itself, but it will sustain itself in the same manner as one who believes only the only method of determining truth is via revelation.
It is unfortunate that so much of what you will see in the comments will be angry responses. Minds much much greater than mine have probably commented and the chance for a real discussion on religion and reason has been lost (that is what you want, right?). Write charitably if you wish to engage in charitable discourse with others. Even religious people are human and are prone to fits of rage, especially if you attack their beliefs without substantial logic to backup such an attack.
My life called, it wants a refund for the two minutes it took to read your worthless article.
Anti-Catholicism and anti-religion in the name of ‘rationality’ are very much in vogue these days, aren’t they? “Anything goes”, indeed. There was a time when the Church had much worthier opponents than this, though. The writer demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between faith and reason — among many other misunderstandings.
And the adjuration to “Be nice” when leaving a comment is rather ironic in this context, don’t you think?
So basically what you are asking for is a clear, non ad-hominem, intelligent response to a murky, ad hominem, ignorant piece.
Fair enough.
First though, I would like to express my anger at calling the pope a “woman – and homosexual-hating pontiff.” That is completely untrue, and is vicious calumny. Anyone who is familiar with his teachings knows that this is nothing but slander. I am deeply offended by the injustice of that remark. Why do you say those things?
As for the name error, the Iranian news got Bp. Williamson mixed up with Rowan Williams. Your error could be worse.
The question you posed is why is believing in miracles not irrational. In return, I would like to ask you how not believing in miracles is rational, when they are demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Which is a greater denial of reality: to say that what thousands have seen and examined, and have died horrible deaths defending is not true, or to say that since God is all-powerful, he can enter into the normal events of this world and give people a sign? If one believes in God, there is absolutely nothing irrational about believing in miracles. Hence, while you may criticize or challenge the assertion that there is a God, if one accepts God exists there is absolutely no basis for attacking miracles.
The interesting thing about Catholicism is that, aside from Divine Revelation, which is contained the Scriptures and Divine Tradition, no one is obliged to believe in any miracle, though often rationality itself upholds the credibility of certain miraculous events. People can die skeptical of all private revelation, and be excellent Catholics and very holy.
Some Catholics (myself included) remark that one of the easiest miracles to demonstrate is that despite the many evil or stupid Catholics that have lived and died, the Church has survived for two thousand years, longer than any other institution. Surely this is clearly a miracle.
When do you attack my religion: Judaism? The second you do, my foot will meet your ass.
Keep your hate speech to your underground Internet message boards, don’t publish it in what should be a reputable University newsletter.
Shame on you, shame on whoever allowed this to be printed, and shame on Ole Miss.
“Instead of ad hominem attacks on me personally I’d like to see someone here refute my content (DOOD CANT RITE GOOD HIS GRAMMAR SUX LOL isn’t what I’m talking about).”
Alright.
“The Catholic Church is in a royal hubbub again.”
Most of the members of the Catholic Church don’t know or care about the SSPX and Bishop Williamson. Trust me on this. It’s a lot like the number of international Obama supporters who know about Michael Steele. Very, very small, unless one happens to be very interested in this sort of thing and/or responsible for it.
“You have probably read about Bishop William Richardson, the Catholic priest who recently had his excommunication lifted by Joseph Ratzinger, now commonly referred to as Pope Benedict XVI.”
If you would refer to the Dalai Llama as “Tenzyn Gyatso, commonly referred to as the (14th) Dalai Llama,” then your grammar is almost all that I can take issue with in this part, though I will known that the common and respectful manner of handling the situation regarding the Pope’s name change is, “Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Alois Ratzinger” etc. As a matter almost of semantics, Bp. Williamson did not have his excommunication removed by Pope Benedict, it simply was removed by Pope Benedict (albeit as a result of the actions of Bp. Bernard de Fellay, Bp. Williamson’s superior in the SSPX).
“After John Paul II shuffled off his mortal coil and was replaced with a good old fashioned woman – and homosexual-hating pontiff – Richardson was welcomed back into the holy clubhouse.”
This is when your rhetoric gets factually inaccurate. Pope Benedict XVI does not hate women in the slightest. If you were familiar with his writings and those of his mentor and close friend the late Pope John Paul II (born Karol Wojtyla), you would know this. (I suggest Pope John Paul’s book Love and Responsiblity, a work of philosophy that touches upon biology, psychology, and a bit of theology. It was written before he became Pope, and republished shortly after. It can be found in most university libraries, to the best of my knowledge.)
Pope Benedict XVI also does not hate homosexuals. His views may differ greatly with yours, but there is no hatred there. (Again, if you were familiar with his writings…) Pope Benedict has remarked as follows:
“Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people.”
You see here that he does not believe that homosexual marriage is a bad thing - not because homosexuals are evil or somesuch, but because he does not believe that it helps them. Whether or not he is horribly misguided, he does not hate homosexuals. He does not even look down upon them: he says that “we [Catholics] must have great respect for these people.” I wish that you had that attitude toward Catholics.
Also, I will note that Bp. Williamson is not even (yet) fully reconciled with the Catholic Church. The priests of the SSPX (Priestly Society of St. Pius X) have all be suspended “a divinis.” that means that they are not allowed, among other things, to celebrate Mass or hear Confessions except in life threatening circumstances. The removal of the excommunications of the four bishops of the SSPX merely means that the bishops can receive the sacraments in danger of death.
“Now all of a sudden the Vatican is feigning outrage and are trying to distance themselves from this public relations snafu.”
Again, if you had done your research… the Vatican is hardly feigning outrage. If you looked beyond a few secular news reports, you would realize that Pope Benedict is very upset about Bp. Williamson’s remarks and the views behind them. You would also know about the Pope’s recent visit the Auschwitz, which should really have ended this controversy before it started. (Look into it on your own time.)
“People all over the world are expressing their surprise with Richardson’s faulty grasp on reality, but why are they shocked? This is not the first time that the church has done something shockingly ridiculous, nor will it be the last.”
Bp. Williamson is not the Catholic Church; he is not even in full communion with the Catholic Church. Please, get your facts straight. When the Pope makes a statement teaching the faithful, that’s a mvoe by the Church. When someone does this on behalf of the Pope, same. (I would advise you not to trust the average news outlet on news about Catholicism… many are no better than you at reporting on it, which is why I’m doing my best to be polite in this post. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your intentions.)
“After all, what is Christianity without the immaculate conception? Without the resurrection? Without the worship of a trinity that is somehow not polytheism?”
A reading of the Nicene Creed with an accompanying explanation will explain how the Trinity (capitalize it, please) is not polytheism.
“Irrational thought makes a virtue of faith, which is belief without evidence to support it. ”
For many Protestants, yes. For Catholics and other Christians, EMPHATICALLY NO. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say: “[A]n act of Divine supernatural faith [is] “the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God” (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2).” I refer you to the encyclical letter “Fides et Ratio” (Faith and Reason) promulgated by Pope John Paul II and accessible here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html It starts with the following words: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”
You must learn to realize, Jason, that someone’s philosophy or religion that you disagree with - indeed, even one that is empirically wrong - is not necessarily devoid of reason. (I argue that belief in Catholicism is perfectly reasonable, for it is true, but that is for another discussion.)
“But once logic has been devalued to the point of irrelevancy, the mind is open to infection by the worst ideas that man can devise, and there are always evil men eager to pollute the minds of others.”
Agreed. Have you been paying attention to the media lately? Early in the last century, the now almsot forgotten literary giant Gilbert Keith Chesterton remarked, “Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers.” It is even truer of today’s media.
“Richardson and the Vatican will tell you irrevocably false nonsense like Communion wafers and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ, and that’s harmless enough.”
Given that transubstantiation (do you know what that is?) cannot be empirically proven or disproven, I would, if I were you, hesitate to call it “irrevocably false nonsense”. Nonsense, perhaps, but “irrevocably false” is another instance of rhetoric gone factually wrong.
“They will tell you AIDS is not as bad as condom use.”
Your reductionist approach to the issues at hand is striking, if normal. If you wish to actually know and understand the Catholic position on AIDS (and other STIs) and condoms, please read the aforementioned book Love and Responsibility cover-to-cover.
“They will tell you you are a wretched creature who is guilty of a sin committed – inexplicably – prior to your birth, and that you should lead a guilt-ridden life because of it.”
The explanation is very simple and found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which ought to be your first or second resource when writing about the Church. If you do not wish to read it, I suggest a visit to catholic.com, which even has a forum where you can ask Catholics who are actually paid to know the answers to and respond to questions from people like you and I. And, as has been pointed out above, by no means is a Catholic supposed to live a guilt-ridden life. By no means! Rather the opposite, actually.
“By embracing superstition over logic, they have guaranteed as much.”
Actually, this PR disaster was a result of a stifling bureaucracy that is slowly being reformed under Pope Benedict XVI. Evidently not fast enough, as anyone knowledgeable about these things has been able to tell you for a long time.
Well, there’s your rebuttal. Enjoy; may it benefit you in your future endeavours.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One
Your article, fisked to the limit:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/boyish-bigotry-in-the-newspaper-of-ole-miss/#comments
The Catholic Church is in a royal hubbub again. You have probably read about Bishop William Richardson,
[Yes…. "William Richardson" and not "Richard Williamson". He is off to a splendid start, this budding young columnist.]
the Catholic priest who recently had his excommunication lifted by Joseph Ratzinger, now commonly referred to as Pope Benedict XVI. Richardson made headlines in late January when he went on Swedish television and had this to say – with a straight face – about the Holocaust, “I believe there were no gas chambers … I think that two to three hundred thousand Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps … but none of them by gas chambers.”
Richardson was excommunicated back in 1988 for reasons unrelated to his Holocaust denial by Pope John Paul II, who Richardson criticized for being too progressive and not nearly medieval enough in his condemnations. After John Paul II shuffled off his mortal coil and was replaced with a good old fashioned woman – and homosexual-hating pontiff – Richardson was welcomed back into the holy clubhouse. That is, until footage of him making idiotic statements about the Holocaust aired all over the world. Now all of a sudden the Vatican is feigning outrage and are trying to distance themselves from this public relations snafu.
People all over the world are expressing their surprise with Richardson’s faulty grasp on reality, but why are they shocked? This is not the first time that the church has done something shockingly ridiculous, nor will it be the last. The thing is, doing and saying outrageous things is their stock-in-trade. Without their callous disregard for evidence and reason, there wouldn’t even be a church. After all, what is Christianity without the immaculate conception? Without the resurrection? Without the worship of a trinity that is somehow not polytheism?
[Also well-schooled in metaphysics, I see.]
[Up to this point, the puppy has merely shown some coarse bigotry. Now he reveals his lack of understanding of understanding about the relationship of fides and ratio, auctoritas and intellectus.]
Richardson and the Vatican are only a part of the problem. The real villain here is irrationality itself. Without irrationality, religion would never have gained the foothold it currently has on the human condition. Irrationality leads to things [the depth!] like the Holocaust and 9/11 (Richardson also denies that planes struck the towers). Irrational thought makes a virtue of faith, which is belief without evidence to support it.
[sigh… ]
Once you believe virgins can get pregnant, anything goes.
[back to the bigotry]
Many irrational beliefs are innocuous enough; virgin birth, walking on water, healing the sick with only a touch. But once logic has been devalued to the point of irrelevancy, the mind is open to infection by the worst ideas that man can devise, and there are always evil men eager to pollute the minds of others.
The bishop clearly has no regard for evidence (indeed, what “holy” man does?).
[Prepare yourselves for the irony of the following… savor the irony…]
We know the Holocaust occurred because of a convergence of evidence, not just because somebody told us so. Richardson’s mind is apparently so conditioned to accepting things on “authority” that he feels no pressure to provide evidence to support his stupid claims. Richardson and the Vatican will tell you irrevocably false nonsense like Communion wafers and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ, and that’s harmless enough.
[back to bigotry]
But they will also tell you horribly destructive things. They will tell you AIDS is not as bad as condom use. They will tell you you are a wretched creature who is guilty of a sin committed – inexplicably – prior to your birth, and that you should lead a guilt-ridden life because of it.
[young fool]
I will acknowledge religion has done some good and that it continues to do so. But this latest fiasco betrays the true tenets of all religion; [as if he knew any of them that well… but let that pass] deceit and hostility towards reason. Try as they may to separate themselves from Richardson and his cohorts in the uber-conservative Society of St. Pius X,
[Consider the writer’s ability to get Williamson’s name right, ... ]
the church will forever have PR issues like this one. By embracing superstition over logic, they have guaranteed as much.
Jason,
You sure touched a nerve, eh?!
May I offer one suggestion? Find a Catholic church (or an Adoration chapel), go sit down anywhere inside, and tell God anything you would like. If all you say is “I can’t believe I’m doing this,” that’s fine. Sit there a few minutes in silence and listen. That’s all.
Maybe you don’t believe in God. Again, that’s fine. Do it anyway — say someone in your combox put you up to it
Give Him a chance; you never know what good might come of it…
Peace,
~MB
I appreciate the writer’s call for skeptical thinking. It’s indeed reasonable to assert that once we given to believing impossible things, we make it easier to believe other impossible things. Religion damages our ability to think critically. This is a shortcoming of all religions, not just Catholicism.
I do think he could have done a better job of understanding his audience. We live in an area with a vocal Christian majority. They are going to be defensive with regard to their faith. On the Mississippi Atheists website, I write about my visits to local churches and interview pastors about matters of faith. It is possible to be critical of religion and still be constructive. We need more critical thinkers in our community, so I commend Jason for his efforts.
He still could have gotten the name right.
Please forgive me, I made a small mistake. Allow me to clarify. in English, the full name of the SSPX is the Society of St. Pius X. In Latin, it is the Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X (Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X) and therefore may also be known as the FSSPX, not to be confused with the FSSP (Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri - Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter).
Jason,
I was more disturbed then offended by your article for all of the reasons so aggressively mentioned in previous comments. Clearly, a troubling piece like this destroys any journalistic credibility you may have built and calls into question your integrity. And I might add, rightfully so!
Being a fellow undergraduate college student and Roman Catholic, I would like to humbly offer my unsolicited advice instead of pursuing a personal attack that does little to amend this situation moving forward. In your next column, you must offer a direct and sincere apology recanting the ignorant assertions made without proper research or concern for truth. And let me be unmistakable, you were objectively wrong on a number of theological and factual points besides creating an offensive tone. Please remember you disparaged Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, The Blessed Virgin Mother, and Our Holy Father for seemingly no other reason than vitriol and shock value. Please keep that in mind when you may want to resort to defending your unacceptable mistakes. In situations like these Jason, the importance of humility cannot be understated. I imagine that when you honestly critique your journalistic approach to writing this article, you have many regrets that are impossible to take back now. I urge you to recognize them, and by them I do not just mean getting Bishop Williamson’s name wrong, and seek forgiveness from those affected by your derision with the firm commitment to never fall into the same trappings if given another chance. This is a very catholic understanding of repentance and redemption. By taking this course of action in a genuine manner, you would also put the burden back on us Catholics to display our Christian charity through forgiveness.
I hope I did not come off ass too sanctimonious as that was not my intention. I am only trying to help you realize that as humans by acknowledging our personal failing and resolving to correct them we can hope in a more prosperous tomorrow. God works in mysterious ways.
God Bless,
Thomas
Well Done Jason! Ha, Ha, Ha, Ole Miss Ha, Ha, Ha. You are giant timber in the forest of fools. You can’t even get the Bishop’s name right. I guess were all a bunch of irrational idiots and you, what a 20-22 year old an enlightened genius. Samuel Johnson once said “it is better to keep one’s mouth shut and be considered an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt” And you call yerself an Ole Miss Rebel!
I’m sorry, Jason - I see the point you’re getting at, but I have to say that this article screams “HACK JOB!”. Yeah, some of the comments you’re getting are silly ad hominem attacks, but you kinda asked for it when you published your own silly ad hominem attacks.
Jason:
Believing in miracles is not irrational because they actually happen and have been seen by objective observers without a priori assumptions about their impossibility. You might try reading Alexis Carrell’s “The Voyage to Lourdes” as an example of this.
So since my correction of my mistake makes no sense given that my original post was long enough to be made invisible pending moderation at an unknown point in time, here it is reposted in segments for the general public’s viewing pleasure.
“”Instead of ad hominem attacks on me personally I’d like to see someone here refute my content (DOOD CANT RITE GOOD HIS GRAMMAR SUX LOL isn’t what I’m talking about).”
Alright.
“The Catholic Church is in a royal hubbub again.”
Most of the members of the Catholic Church don’t know or care about the SSPX and Bishop Williamson. Trust me on this. It’s a lot like the number of international Obama supporters who know about Michael Steele. Very, very small, unless one happens to be very interested in this sort of thing and/or responsible for it.
“You have probably read about Bishop William Richardson, the Catholic priest who recently had his excommunication lifted by Joseph Ratzinger, now commonly referred to as Pope Benedict XVI.”
If you would refer to the Dalai Llama as “Tenzyn Gyatso, commonly referred to as the (14th) Dalai Llama,” then your grammar is almost all that I can take issue with in this part, though I will known that the common and respectful manner of handling the situation regarding the Pope’s name change is, “Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Alois Ratzinger” etc. As a matter almost of semantics, Bp. Williamson did not have his excommunication removed by Pope Benedict, it simply was removed by Pope Benedict (albeit as a result of the actions of Bp. Bernard de Fellay, Bp. Williamson’s superior in the SSPX).
“After John Paul II shuffled off his mortal coil and was replaced with a good old fashioned woman – and homosexual-hating pontiff – Richardson was welcomed back into the holy clubhouse.”
This is when your rhetoric gets factually inaccurate. Pope Benedict XVI does not hate women in the slightest. If you were familiar with his writings and those of his mentor and close friend the late Pope John Paul II (born Karol Wojtyla), you would know this. (I suggest Pope John Paul’s book Love and Responsiblity, a work of philosophy that touches upon biology, psychology, and a bit of theology. It was written before he became Pope, and republished shortly after. It can be found in most university libraries, to the best of my knowledge.)
Pope Benedict XVI also does not hate homosexuals. His views may differ greatly with yours, but there is no hatred there. (Again, if you were familiar with his writings…) Pope Benedict has remarked as follows:
“Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people.”
You see here that he does not believe that homosexual marriage is a bad thing - not because homosexuals are evil or somesuch, but because he does not believe that it helps them. Whether or not he is horribly misguided, he does not hate homosexuals. He does not even look down upon them: he says that “we [Catholics] must have great respect for these people.” I wish that you had that attitude toward Catholics.
Also, I will note that Bp. Williamson is not even (yet) fully reconciled with the Catholic Church. The priests of the SSPX (Priestly Society of St. Pius X) have all be suspended “a divinis.” that means that they are not allowed, among other things, to celebrate Mass or hear Confessions except in life threatening circumstances. The removal of the excommunications of the four bishops of the SSPX merely means that the bishops can receive the sacraments in danger of death.
“Now all of a sudden the Vatican is feigning outrage and are trying to distance themselves from this public relations snafu.”
Again, if you had done your research… the Vatican is hardly feigning outrage. If you looked beyond a few secular news reports, you would realize that Pope Benedict is very upset about Bp. Williamson’s remarks and the views behind them. You would also know about the Pope’s recent visit the Auschwitz, which should really have ended this controversy before it started. (Look into it on your own time.)
“People all over the world are expressing their surprise with Richardson’s faulty grasp on reality, but why are they shocked? This is not the first time that the church has done something shockingly ridiculous, nor will it be the last.”
Bp. Williamson is not the Catholic Church; he is not even in full communion with the Catholic Church. Please, get your facts straight. When the Pope makes a statement teaching the faithful, that’s a mvoe by the Church. When someone does this on behalf of the Pope, same. (I would advise you not to trust the average news outlet on news about Catholicism… many are no better than you at reporting on it, which is why I’m doing my best to be polite in this post. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your intentions.)
“After all, what is Christianity without the immaculate conception? Without the resurrection? Without the worship of a trinity that is somehow not polytheism?”
A reading of the Nicene Creed with an accompanying explanation will explain how the Trinity (capitalize it, please) is not polytheism.
“They will tell you AIDS is not as bad as condom use.”
Your reductionist approach to the issues at hand is striking, if normal. If you wish to actually know and understand the Catholic position on AIDS (and other STIs) and condoms, please read the aforementioned book Love and Responsibility cover-to-cover.
“They will tell you you are a wretched creature who is guilty of a sin committed – inexplicably – prior to your birth, and that you should lead a guilt-ridden life because of it.”
The explanation is very simple and found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which ought to be your first or second resource when writing about the Church. If you do not wish to read it, I suggest a visit to catholic.com, which even has a forum where you can ask Catholics who are actually paid to know the answers to and respond to questions from people like you and I. And, as has been pointed out above, by no means is a Catholic supposed to live a guilt-ridden life. By no means! Rather the opposite, actually.
“By embracing superstition over logic, they have guaranteed as much.”
Actually, this PR disaster was a result of a stifling bureaucracy that is slowly being reformed under Pope Benedict XVI. Evidently not fast enough, as anyone knowledgeable about these things has been able to tell you for a long time.
Well, there’s your rebuttal. Enjoy; may it benefit you in your future endeavours.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One
Wow. Maybe next time you should try doing some research before you write an article.
Ok, so this comment moderation stuff with the invisible rules has managed to cut a section out of my response and stop me from fixing that. Jason, if you get my first comment published, feel free to delete my attempts to make it publicly viewable. And I apologize for the mess.
What an embarrassment for Ole Miss to have this article printed in their student paper. Aside from the lack of proper facts and the terribly shoddy writing, you show yourself to be a Catholic-hating bigot. And I thought hate speech was a huge crime on campuses across the country….
How do you all keep getting away with it?
Oh—and I’ll be nice, per your instructions: God bless you!
When I said that you painted all Catholics with the same brush, I meant that you implied that Bishop Williamson’s remarks were indicative of a broader “irrationality” in religion, specifically in the Catholic Church. I did not think you were saying that we are all Holocaust deniers, but I do think you are saying that we are all of the same stock.
You refute the basic tenets of the Catholic, and broader Christian, faith with absolutely no proof other than that you claim it is irrational. You’ve created this paradigm in which rationality is what you say it is. You spout these pronouncements as if they were based in fact and you summarily reject anything that fails to meet your standards. My initial critique was far from ad hominem. Your article is clearly poorly researched and blatantly biased. One does not have to be Catholic to see how offensive it is. I did not attack your character, I attacked the tone and content of your writing. Its tone was negative to a fault and any worthwhile content was rendered useless in the face of your seemingly ardent desire to insult a billion people in one fell swoop.
I applaud those who disagree with me on neutral ground. However, you seem incapable of entering into legitimate and productive discourse with those who refuse to accept your theory of rationality (which, given its genesis, is impossible to refute in your eyes). I would love to focus this debate on the merits of the article alone, but there are none to be found. Do you honestly think this type of work would have any chance in a professional publication?
More open minded tolerance from the leftist higher education machine in the United States. How surprising.
Next…
I like it. Not as funny as the Valentine’s Day article, but I like it.
Sincerely in Christ,
Coleman
If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism — the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence — it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred.
All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say “a peasant saw a ghost,” I am told, “But peasants are so credulous.” If I ask, “Why credulous?” the only answer is — that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland.
Jason, you write, “If someone can tell me why believing in miracles is not irrational I’ll admit I’m wrong.”
I’d like to hold you to that. To demonstrate positively that something is not irrational, one must demonstrate that it is rational.
The primary way to do so is by syllogism. A major premise is presented first, a minor premise is presented second, followed by a conclusion.
I. Major (All cats are animals)
II. Minor (Some cats are orange)
III. Conclusion (Therefore, Some animals are orange)
If the major premise is found to be true, and the minor premise is true, the conclusion logically follows as true.
I. If God exists, miracles are possible.
II. One can not prove definitively that God does not exist.
III. Ergo, one can not definitively prove that miracles are impossible.
Since the statement “God exists” can not be proven, and its opposite “God does not exist” can not be proven, the major premise can not be demonstrated as false. Since it can not be demonstrated as false, it is rational to presume it as true or false.
Q.E.D
This is an air-tight logical refutation. You may disagree about God’s existence, you may think it improbable, unlikely, or even absurd. But none of those things disprove God’s existence. Even if it is 99.9% unlikely that God does not exist, that is not proof– it is probability. Therefore, belief in some infinite eternal metaphysical being (which men call God), remains rational. The statement “God does not exist” is an equal statement of faith to the one “God exists.”
I expect you, as a man of what I presume to be honor and integrity, to admit that you are wrong in the face of irrefutable rational evidence.
Instead of ad hominem attacks on me personally I’d like to see someone here refute my content (DOOD CANT RITE GOOD HIS GRAMMAR SUX LOL isn’t what I’m talking about). I don’t see where I painted all Catholics with the same brush as the one I painted Williamson with. My point was … that we should not be surprised when someone makes such an outrageous statement when we embrace religion which is inherently irrational.
First problem is that you think that you’ve provided any content.
Second problem is that you think that you made any rational point from what you wrote. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange once said of the young Fr. Karol Wojtyla (later Pope John Paul II), “Writes much, says little.” You and the late Pope are in the same boat here. Any point you sought to make was lost as soon as you started unleashing your own personal issues without tempering them with some charity and common decency, let alone common sense.
Third problem, when you fire off bigoted ad hominums you expect rational discourse. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Fourth problem, an op-ed column is not sufficient space to try to prove to anyone that the Fides and Ratio are incompatible. That’s a treatise best saved for a graduate thesis which could survey the men, far more intelligent than your or I, who had this discussion thousands of years ago.
Such exercises in intellectual masturbation as this are either your “preaching to the converted” who share your irrational views, or a complete waste your time.
I. Nothing should be believed that can not be proven through the scientific method.
II. The statement, “Nothing should be believed that can not be proven through the scientific method.” Can not be proven through the scientific method.
III. Ergo, the statement “Nothing should be believed that can not be proven through the scientific method.” should not be believed because it can not be proven through the scientific method.
I. All claims about a reality existing outside the physical realm are false.
II. The claim, “All claims about a reality existing outside the physical realm are false.” is a claim about reality existing outside the physical realm.
III. Ergo, the statement, “All claims about a reality existing outside the physical realm are false.” is false because it is a claim about a reality existing outside the physical realm.
Jason,
I believe that the positions you hold are self-refuting, and are therefore false. Logic demands that you admit as much, and that you are wrong. Reason demands that at least SOME claims about reality outside the physical realm are true (it is a debate about WHICH ones are true). Reason demands acknowledgment that there are SOME truths that the scientific method can not reveal (it is a debate about WHICH ones are true).
So please, if you can, demonstrate to me how the scientific method proves itself. Demonstrate how reason proves itself.
Sir, the one adhering to an anti-reason dogma is you, by insisting that things you can not prove as true are true. Your premise is flawed, which forces errors in your conclusions.
All you did was regurgitate Bill Maher’s talking points in Religulous. Which was comical, but did nothing to definitively refute religion as a whole. Your comments are more anti Christian than anti Catholic. Unfortunately, anti-Christian rhetoric is in vogue, but I bet a thousand dollars you wouldn’t write a similar piece about Islam, Buddhism, etc.
The Daily Mississippian constantly publishes garbage. This article appropriately follows suit.
Mr Caviness is certainly a bigot but he’s also skating on very thin ice by maligning a dead English Catholic Martyr (Blessed William Richardson), or a Professor of Philosophy at Boston College and noted commenter on Heidegger(Rev Prof William Richardson SJ), or a Priest and canon lawyer of the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, Ireland (Rev William Richardson). The bishop he was trying to take potshots at is Richard Williamson; given that Caviness couldn’t even get that right, what chance is there that ANYTHING else in his rant is accurate?
Jason,
You ruined any attempt at intelligent conversation with your insults and bigotry. Your points were made by intelligent Philosophers such as Galen of Pergamum(AD 129 – 200), Celsus(2nd century AD) and Porphyry of Tyre (A.D. 233- 309) over 1800 years ago. They were refuted by Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, etc.etc. If you don’t make an honest attempt to understand, read, and research Catholicism and use only your limited knowledge with ad hominem attacks and insults then you should not be surprised at the response. Intelligent and will informed Catholic are always willing to engage in debate, however if you come to the table with nothing but your unenlightened bigotry then you have already forfeited your position.
Men without chests:
C.S.Lewis criticizes modern attempts to debunk natural values (such as those that would deny objective value to the waterfall) on rational grounds. He says that there is a set of objective values that have been shared, with minor differences, by every culture “… the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christan, the Pagan, and the Jew…”. Lewis calls this the Tao (which closely resembles Confucian and Taoist usage). Without the Tao, no value judgements can be made at all, and modern attempts to do away with some parts of traditional morality for some “rational” reason always proceed by arbitrarily selecting one part of the Tao and using it as grounds to debunk the others.
The final chapter describes the ultimate consequences of this debunking: a distant future in which the values and morals of the majority are controlled by a small group who rule by a perfect understanding of psychology, and who in turn, being able to “see through” any system of morality that might induce them to act in a certain way, are ruled only by their own unreflected whims. The controllers will no longer be recognizably human, the controlled will be robot-like, and the Abolition of Man will have been completed.
“The Catholic Church has their hands full”
Catholic Church, singular or plural? If in doubt, use both, eh?
It’s singular.
While in university, I would suggest you avail yourself of a logic course.
While you are at it, you can thank the Catholic Church for the creation of the occidental university.
Can I please get the ten minutes of my life back that has been wasted…
Admittedly, it was me who wasted it by thinking the author had something insightful to say. And the DM *helped* me waste it by publishing Jason’s slightly glorified version of a seventh grader’s diatribe against why Daddy makes him go to church on Sundays.
Having been in publishing before, I know it’s amusing to see all of our reactions as you sit atop your morally-superior perch, but I’m not even Catholic and I feel that you’ve wasted my time.
Wow! Is this what “A Great Public University” means? This journalistic masterpiece sounds like something we would have concocted thirty years ago while drinking beer around the coffee table at the Sigma Nu house. Is there any end to the bigotry coming out of Oxford that will allow me to - someday - proudly proclaim myself as an alumnus?
I tried to catch up with Jason to discuss this article but to no avail.
First, I like the guy. He’s usually congenial, affable and makes a decent “Virgin Mary” (with or without superstition).
However, I don’t think the premise of the article (rehabilitation of SSPX Bishops) was the reason for the article. What I read was a hurried account of the rehabilitation of Williamson followed by a good old fashioned Christopher Hitchens chaser with a hint of Bill Maher.
I suppose I could be hurt that this normally friendly man secretly thinks I’m an idiot and the church I serve either a ship of fools or a militia-in-waiting. But I’ve heard this sort of thing before. I actually was a cartoonist for my own college paper and tried to provoke the status quo every once in a while.
Most of the comments made above clarify the Church’s teaching and also define the situtation with the SSPX. If I knew we had so many brilliant Catholics, I’d let you write my homilies. I’m proud of the knowledge out there.
And Jason, we cool. Whether you think I’m a medieval minded simpleton who believes in Yetis and angels or not, I still like you. And your Virgin Marys.
The problem with the internet is that it makes it just far too easy to publish utter nonsense. Thankfully, in this case it is so bad it is just too funny. Thanks for providing us with a chuckle Jason. And let’s see if you’re man enough to challenge your prejudices honestly!
Filthy little anti-Catholic,inbred,babbling,weak-jawed Hillbilly.
I think Ole Miss is showing where their opinions are when they keep an article like this online on their UNIVERSITY WEB SERVER! This article would have been removed on the 3rd if it were about Islam or Judaism.
Shame on Ole Miss, a University of hatred. I will never allow my children to attend a University of bigotry and intolerance.
And Jason, I hope this destroys any hope for a career you may have had. Journalist integrity and fairness has been flushed down the toilet here today folks.
Laura Dennis
Someone needs to immediately refund any monies received for tuition and to submit an abject apology for wasting other people’s hard earned money. If the tuition is self paid I suggest a better investment of your funds, such as buying lottery tickets.
I whould hope that the author would have the intellectual integrity to at least try to understand something (like Catholicism, like Christian faith) before trashing it, solely out of prejuidice.
Paul
There is much to complain about in the article.
First, it is improper to use “their” as referring to the Catholic Church. If he had said “Catholic bishops . . . their”, that would be OK.
Although it is proper to use plural possessives with collective nouns (the family brought their luggage), the Catholic Church is not a collective noun.
Second, the author seems to think that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus. It does not–it refers to His Mother.
Third, if he’s interested in criticizing what seems to be irrational, I would suggest he think of writing a column on Quantum Mechanics.
Dude, put down the bong at least two hours before you write you next screed. Also, you might want to check on a tuition refund; you’ve been gypped.
Oh, someone please tell me we tax-payers are not footing the bill for this kid’s “education” at this second-rate “university.”
A lot of responses here…Will the author respond to them, or is he busy with his english tutor?
Great informed comments by Catholics and others devoted to rational thought. I didn’t waste the two minutes actually reading the article, but I did enjoy the comments.
Jason,
As a Catholic, who believes that faith and reason can never be opposed to each other, I must always be open to the possibility that I am wrong.
Many Catholics have presented fine calm, pointed, reasonable responses to your irrational anti-reason diatribe. Is it possible that your presumption that those adhering to the faith that produced luminaries like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are not as irrational as your prejudice would have you believe?
Is it possible that Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are… wrong?
I retract any uncharitableness in my previous post.
-Kevin J. Symonds
Jason, your diatribe is reminiscent of the flat earthers who stuck to their guns in the face of evidence that they didn’t understand.
Before you do the next article regarding the Catholic Church, do a little research and get your facts straight.
But the one good thing is that the atheist schtick will continue to get you invited to the wine and brie parties I’m sure you love to attend, and will go a long way toward earning you the leather elbow patches for your tweed sport jacket.
Cavin Jasoness is an idiot. Really, what a stupid piece of crap this was. This guy is a bigot and completely ignorant. I’m surprised he figured out how to use the spell check. This is why I don’t send my children to public school.
Speaking as a former editor, had one of my staff handed in this editorial I would have sent it back immediately for failing to meet basic journalistic standards.
Now a teacher, if one of my students handed this in as an essay, I’d give it a low grade for lack of accuracy, poor reasoning, ignorance and bigotry.
I suspect the Catholic League will take note - if they haven’t already.
This author is a cancer for Ole Miss.
Jason,
I think you should just give this one up. Yeah, I just ended a sentence with a preposition, but at least I read the works of those whom I would disparage.
I’m noticing that you are choosing not to reply to those who have commented about your actual content. Yes, you did insult the Catholic Church, which consists of—-people. Those of us who are Catholics find your comments insulting. I hate to say this, but I must–didn’t your Mom teach you any manners! Hey, I’m not Southern, but my mom was from the Appalachians, a hillbilly to be short, and she taught me to have manners. You may not like what Pope Benedict XVI has to say, but you should treat him with respect. Oh, BTW, you might at least read what he has said in his two encyclicals, or many books before you call the man names. Just a suggestion.
Think differently from the Catholic Church or the current Pope, but please try to at least THINK! Fr Joe has responded to you with great charity–my mother (and I) would say that you owe him a response. A PUBLIC RESPONSE, as you have disparaged him and his beliefs in a public forum.
Just suck it up and admit that you were, at the very least, rude. There is no excuse for behaving badly. Believe what you do, but treat others respectfully.
Three words : What. A. Dolt.
Don’t give him too much attention, though. This is obviously as famous as he’ll ever be for the rest of his life.
Even I found this offensive…
Time to man-up and address some of the responses.
I’m a few days late seeing this article, but I think everybody needs to take a deep breath. It’s an opinion piece. Nobody should be ashamed or outraged that it got published (besides, this has probably attracted more web hits than any content in a long time), and I think the comments on the article are proof enough that there’s no sort of leftist or secular or whatever conspiracy afoot here at Ole Miss. Has anybody ever actually read the DM’s opinion writers? It’s like an additional comics section most of the time. At least Mr. Caviness can’t be accused of standing on a silent platform.
I’m not the slightest bit interested in debating the factual content of the article. It’s probably clear that I agree with the author on at least some of his points regarding the validity of religion, but that doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church faces a lot of much more severe threats than this article or my opinion. It’ll be fine. Christianity has been one of the worst moral actors in the world, but also one of the best, so I’m not sure how important it is to fight this battle in the first place, but just relax, guys. He has just as much right to express his views as you do to rebut them.
Chris,
An atheistic defender of the Christian legacy
Just like any other atheist; taking things out of context to disprove God.
“this has probably attracted more web hits than any content in a long time”
Probably the reason this hate monger published this piece: publicity.
Too bad this publicity is going to hurt him when he goes to look for a job, unless of course he applies for the secretary position of the local Skinhead chapter.
This author is a jackass mcgee.
Did the Pope run over your pet gerbil or something? Tone down the hate and spread the love.
You can’t spell DOUCHEBAG without “Jason Caviness is a big DOUCHEBAG”
What a load of anti-Catholic bigotry. Do you write to your grandmother with that hand?
God isn’t real.
“God isn’t real.”
Looks like Jason finally made a post. Bravo, jerk.
“Catholics and others devoted to rational thought”
Oxymoron much? Say hi to spacegod for me.
I will agree that this article is poorly articulated.
“Say hi to spacegod for me.”
I will. But when our time comes, your eternal existence will be over, at least that’s what the atheist believes. If there’s no afterlife, and no God (and if you believe there is an afterlife yet no God, I’d like to see proof that you know one exists without the other) then why not live it up? Have wild sex with any person you can find, lie, cheat, steal, do what you want. If the only rules and order are in place by man, then do what you feel like. You won’t have to pay for anything in the afterlife if you don’t believe in one. Make your own rules, be your own king, right?
Well, of course you would assume I’m an atheist and I think it’s all a “big nothing.” There are only two choices, right?
Please don’t try to tell me that morality requires religion. It’s patronizing. The nastiest people I’ve met or heard of all tend to be quite overtly religious.
Then again, if morality for you boils down to “don’t use contraception” because your imaginary friend whose central message is “eternal suffering awaits those who question my infinite love” says so, be my guest. I just hope you aren’t terribly disappointed down the road. Try living in the present for a change. This life is much more than preparation for the next one.
“This life is much more than preparation for the next one.”
Not in your little fantasy world. In your Godless world, this life is all there is.
So go fornicate a monkey.
How Christ-like of you.
First of all, shame on the author. This is not only a faulty(name of main argument) article, but a poorly constructed one. I could find better in one of my third graders journals!
Secondly, Thank you Bob for setting a great hypocritical point of christianity to Pink Taco. Let us yet again speak highly of Jesus, and then tell someone to go and fornicate a monkey. Cute, now you and several other self proclaimed “hypocritical” christians, have just given a bad rep to other christians. Great Job, I believe if you go back and actually read that bible you so seemingly preached about, then you will discover that JESUS was very accepting of others, and I can promise you that he never told anyone to fornicate a monkey!
As for Pink Taco, I respect whatever you believe, but would like you to know that there is a very loving God who does wait for us after death, and it sadens me to think you do not agree.
Bob is right, other Haylee. You seem more critical of him than of the guy who called the Almighty God “spacegod” and “imaginary friend.”
In other news, the author is pathetic. Such quality journalism…
THe bible says it is Body and Blood Flesh.
Definition: Sola Scriptura A Latin term meaning “scripture alone.” It is one of several Protestant beliefs to come out of the reformation. This Protestant doctrine says that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear.
I thought non-Catholics knew their bible
John Ch 6 51 to 56
51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’
52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’
53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person.
Pick TAco I know alot of priest who have met alot of non believers as your self, nearly all of the non believers were asking for LASt Rites now Known as Scarament of the Sick. Not believing alows you to do what ever you want. Convientant! wink! wink! Hell of a dice roll but its your life er soul.
An article like this could come under the heading “signs of the Times” Read revalations.
My son must have ate too much lead paint as a child. I apologize for this article. It is shameful.
What bothered me most about this unfortunate article is that the DM chose to publish it. It is one thing for someone to hold an opinion; quite another for a paper to print it. With no meaningful hint of honest intellectual value in the article, one wonders why those in charge at the DM provided Mr. Caviness with a forum to spew his venom against the Catholic Church. Too many commentors went after Mr. Caviness for his opinions. I believe the real shame lies with the DM.
Wow- what low editorial standards this paper must have to print the illogical ramblings of a bartender!
Nice try - Bashing Catholics and elevating your own personal belief system to that of truth.
You might go here
http://www.catholicbible101.com/whatistruth.htm
and learn about what Truth really is, and why moral relativism is the bane of the modern world….
Darren…
…
“signs of the times?” “Every generation thinks its the end of the world”
Leave your response!
The DM in PDF
Links
archives
Most Commented
Most Viewed