US archbishop urges both sides to cool down at Vatican

[hrmjustin]

Josephine McKenna

VATICAN CITY (RNS) After two days of fighting between happy liberals and angry conservatives, the Vatican on Wednesday (Oct. 15) dispatched a leading moderate from the U.S. church to tell both sides to temper their expectations about impending changes in church doctrine.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stressed that a working document on family issues released on Monday (Oct. 13) is simply that — a draft document still subject to amendment by about 200 bishops and lay delegates meeting at Vatican City.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/15/us-archbishop-urges-sides-cool-vatican/

[okasha]

1. There are a couple,

Burke, for example, who would be greatly improved by a bucket of ice water.

[hrmjustin]

3. I would not be suprised if he becomes another Marcel Lefebvre.

[okasha]

7. I wouldn't, either.

[rug]

2. That's good advice.

[hrmjustin]

4. Of course i see some in the other room just want to pounce.

These things take time.

[rug]

5. They will never have a reasonable discussion about religion generally

or Catholicism specifically. The fatwa has been issued and obeyed.

[hrmjustin]

8. I understand the hesitation on their part but one has to admit this is exciting

and filled with possibility. But of course some won't.

For the record i stopped posting there because it brought out a part of me I did not like, I got sick of answering the same questions all the time, i got sick of the insultsand bullying, and the big reason is that the religious privilege on DU debate went places here that was infuriating, insulting, and dishonest.

Just for the record i say these things. I will come back but not anytime soon.

[rug]

10. "it brought out a part of me I did not like"

Indeed. And the worse part is that it was intentional. What healthy person does that?

[hrmjustin]

11. It felt like I was being tested.

[rug]

12. If that's what it was, you passed.

[hrmjustin]

13. Thanks. in the future when i go in there i must remind myself to always smile.

[okasha]

14. You passed, with honors.

[hrmjustin]

15. Thanks. i do feel burned by the room.

[okasha]

16. I understand.

I have only one person on ignore, but there are several I only skim or pass over entirely and a few to whom I simply won't respond. I added another to the "no response" list a couple nights ago. It makes the air in the room a shade less toxic.

[hrmjustin]

17. You are good at dealing with your detractors.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Can you be more specific about who, precisely, issued a 'fatwa', and who is obeying it?

[rug]

23. Sure I can.

So can you.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Except of course, there is none.

[rug]

25. Except, of course, history and evidence demonstrate there is.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. In post 23 you make a specific allegation about me/my knowledge.

Feel free to trot out your evidence. Otherwise, I'd ask you to retract that, as it amounts to a personal attack.

[rug]

28. Oh, take it Religion.

This is no place for stupid games.

If you're looking for personal attacks go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1230

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I agree it's no place for stupid games.

Which is why I am keeping my responses here material and clean. Different groups, different rules.

I await actual evidence of some sort of coordinated effort to which I am a party.

[rug]

31. Then stop playing them.

And read more carefully before popping off in offense. I take it you read A&A.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Yes I read A&A

Where is this coordinated fatwa you spoke of?

[rug]

33. Roght in front of your nose.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. We've gone back and forth for ten posts now.

You've yet to provide the requested data.

[rug]

35. I told you 6 posts ago I'm not playing your stupid games.

"requested data"

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I don't play games in this group.

Let alone stupid games.

So, you're going to pretend you didn't just make a very specific allegation, and then to cover the fact you can't point to an individual/core leadership issuing orders to a group to do XYZ (presumably coordinated disruption/attack), you're just going to point to another group full of bitter veterans, that are unarguably posting not-nice things about religion/people of faith in yet a different group, as if that were somehow the same thing. (Not even close)

Meanwhile, grossly misusing and trivializing a function of a major faith.

Being something of an angry, bitter internet debate/yelling vet myself, that's something I might do as well, to be perfectly honest. But I would do it in a different venue. One in which you could, at the very least, return fire.

[rug]

37. Bullshit.

In 23 you said a made a specific allegation about you.

Now you say I made a very specific allegation - - about an "individual/core leadership".

Of course you're playing games. Not to mention this crap has nothing to do with the OP or the SoP of this safe haven group.

Yes, you're playing games. Grow the fuck up and sling this hash elsewhere. In Religion, as usual, or go whine about it in A&A. I'm sure you'll get a sympathetic ear.

Oh, and, Mr. Sky Daddy, don't talk to me about "trivializing a function of a major faith", with or without Wikipedia. Mention that the next time there's a discussion of teapots or unicorns. You know where those discussions are held. Hypocrisy doesn't fly in any religion. Or in any community that has a semblance of integrity. I hope you find one.

You have your answer.

If you want to "return fire", you know where to find me.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Again, appropriate venue.

Yes, you did make an allegation about me in post 23. That was true.
You ALSO made an allegation about the group, with the fatwa 'line' in post 5 about leadership/marching orders. I am not confused, nor attempting sleight of hand.

You did BOTH. I am not casually substituting one for the other. Both posts exist.


"Grow the fuck up and sling this hash elsewhere"
Hash was slung in post 5. I was pointing it out when I asked you to elaborate/give specifics. I do not, and will not 'sling hash' in this venue.


"Oh, and, Mr. Sky Daddy, don't talk to me about "trivializing a function of a major faith", with or without Wikipedia."

As I already mentioned, I play that game. You bet. I make no apologies for it. And I've gotten as good as I give. But I do it where the rules allow for it. It is expressly forbidden by the rules of this group. (A rule I have abided by, whenever posting here.)

(I have, to my knowledge and to the best of google's search function, never used that particular phrase, but I have certainly used other language along those lines, so I won't deny the sentiment, even though I never apparently said that.)

"teapots or unicorns"

A useful rhetorical tool in analyzing any unsupported claim. Where I imagine it comes across as vicious, would be in the recent abrasive delivery in the A&A or Religion venues, not the actual comparison. Bertrand Russell was no petty/crude cynic or comedian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

[rug]

39. It's not here. Come on over where it is. It will be my pleasure.

I'm not going to respond to your past bullshit, or the present bullshit, in here.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. I am not baiting you.

I have been fully open, frank, and honest with you in this venue. I am genuinely concerned about the content of post five, and, while I didn't state it at the time, also concerned that the content of that post was not only not rebuked by any of the hosts, it was commiserated with by a host.

At the very least, the misuse/trivialization of "fatwa" should have warranted a friendly caution by fair and objective hosts, per the rules of this venue.

I strongly suspect that were I to misuse that or a similar term, in the same way, it would not go unnoticed.


I have no doubt that we will tangle or 'sling hash' in Religion again. Fine. However, it will not be about *this* thread, because to engage in meta on this thread in another venue would make me a liar. I came here for a specific, legitimate purpose.

[rug]

41. If you want to complain about hosts, I suggest you start at A&A.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I raised a couple threads about tone and meta in that venue.

They did not go as I had planned. (and, I myself have succumbed, at times.)
Consider it a work in progress.

Changing tone of an ongoing conversation, when tensions/negativity have been as strong (on both sides) as they have been for so long, means an uphill battle getting everyone to reset diplomatic ties.

[okasha]

6. Certain posters seem not to understand--

or maybe they do understand but won't acknowledge-- that what we've seen is only the bare beginning of a process involving at least a year of deliberations and a following implementation that may take equally long. And either or both stages may take longer.Maybe not, though. Look how equal marriage is snowballing in secular law.

In the meantime it's been A WHOLE WEEK and NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!!! POPE FRRRRAAAANNNKKK!

Some folks could use a Valium.

[hrmjustin]

9. Well said!

You put it exactly as it is.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. We understand and acknowledge.

That's not the problem.

Some of us were not quiet, were not patient, voiced frustration, and will not forget or forgive the effort and the journey required just to bring around a political party on this issue (among others). Government wields enormous power over the recognition, or protection of our civil liberties. Any entity with such power can reasonably expect backlash when it is not wielding that power in a humane or effective manner.

Some of us were met with political backlash here on this site, for pushing too hard, expecting too much, demanding change too quickly. Nihil sub sole novum.

This is hardly the first issue I have, in my personal life, had to expend effort and politically fight this particular church over. The fact that I'm an atheist is actually irrelevant. Keep that in mind, this isn't just about religion, this is politics. This church is a major player in the political realm, on many issues. Reproductive freedom. Marriage. End of life decisions. Millions of dollars in lobbying efforts. Lobbying for things that have negatively impacted my life, and I am not a catholic. Lawsuits that have stalled and delayed aspects of the ACA.

So, while you lament other posters not 'seeming to understand', please consider some of us take a much bigger picture, and longer term view of the church in question's political positions. Their policy on 'The Family' is just one issue, but it has enormous political implications for the civil rights of not just American citizens, but people worldwide.

Every day, people live, and they die. People with civil rights curtailed. People who will never know redress for things our government hasn't changed, that were lobbied for by members and elements of this church, based on church doctrine.

I don't have it in me to be patient. I believe it is unreasonable for you to expect me to. If that church existed in a bubble, separate from US and even world politics, that would be one thing. But that's not the world we live in. It has made itself a political entity in the US and elsewhere in the world. This is a politics site, predicated upon a political platform that is at odds with this church on many political issues.

That must needs give rise to friction between some of us, and the policies/doctrine/lobbying of said church.

Every minute a civil right is curtailed is a minute too long, and I, and others will not become inured to current conditions in hope of maybe sorta some change down the line someday based on nebulous hints and indicators today.

You can ask me to be patient, but I can say 'no', and I doubt there's a jury on DU that would take issue with me for it.

[hrmjustin]

20. Well i understand your being hesitant but i think this new thing is rather exciting.

Yes it will be painfully slow but it will happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. And on the other issues?

Reproductive freedom, running the gamut from abortion, to legal challenges to the ACA on contraception? End of life freedom?

I don't mean to minimize the marriage issue (Which also has implications for divorced couples today), but it's not the only political problem on the table, that is inimical to the Democratic Platform or progressivism.

[hrmjustin]

22. We will continue to oppose them on those issue.

We will continue to stand up for what we think is right. And Catholics on the left will fight for their church to changes in thise issues.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Will we continue to castigate agitators for change?

Because on every civil rights issue in recent memory, the agitators in the end, turned out to be completely right.

[hrmjustin]

30. I don't see castigation here in this thread.

I do think people should speak up.