Fr. Z comments on BLM

[Maximian]

Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

 

[gracepoole]

Fr. Z needs many prayers.

 

[Victoria33]

I think saying Father Z “needs many prayers” is offensive and the kinds of things that one might say if they thought their values or knowledge are morally superior to others and condescending in tone. Let’s know, we have seen this before and never successfully defended in my view, perhaps one might hear more condescending and possibly patronizing talk.

Per the blog, BLM really is veering into the realm of hate with some of what they are saying.

It sounds like BLM should be called NOLM for “No one’s lives matter”.

 

[stpurl]

I couldn’t agree more.

What hurts me as a rational human being (or at least I try to be) is how swiftly people polarize any disagreement, any questioning, any attempt at clarification anywhere in a world of ambiguity and “it means what I say it means”.

Father Z is not saying that black lives do not matter; he is talking about a GROUP who use the phrase ‘black lives matter’ as their identifying ‘name of group’.

A group called Black Lives Matter may indeed have as its mantra the understanding that Black Lives Matter, and again, we can all agree Black lives matter, while not necessarily subscribing to some of the OTHER platforms espoused by that particular group.

Let’s compare the NOW (National Organization of Women). Most women, and plenty of men, agree on a very important part of the platform of the NOW regarding equal pay for equal work, but a lot of women, and men, do NOT agree on some of the other platforms. Because we disagree on those others, would it be fair for people to tell us, “well if you don’t support the other things, it’s obvious you don’t support equal pay for equal work’ and tell us that UNLESS we support the whole platform we are not ALLOWED to say “there should be equal pay for equal work?”

Well then, surely a group called Black Lives Matter cannot tell us that unless we follow their entire laid out platform that we are not, then, truly saying Black lives matter. And if some of their platform is actually antithetical to Christian doctrine, we should be allowed to say where it is antithetical without ‘sacrificing’ our support that Black lives matter.

 

[TMC]

I find “Father Z’s” take on BLM disturbing on so many levels that I don’t think I can say much about it within the forum rules. I echo the call for prayers.

 

[gracepoole]

You find a call for prayers for a priest offensive? How odd. If you have a problem with what I post, report it. The lecture in moral superiority is wasted.

 

[Victoria33]

I’ve certainly heard proclamations against religious art now by Black Lives Matter, it reminds me of what Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Vandalizing holocaust memorials, churches, monuments to black union soldiers this is what we’ve seen in the BLM/ANTFA protests. Yet, prayers for Father Z are being offered up and yet, not one exact quote of what he said? Alrighty.

And now, quite clearly, some BLM activists are calling Catholic statues, symbols of white supremacy.

The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing.

 

[gracepoole]

The overwhelming majority of protestors have been peaceful. Using a slash mark to join BLM and Antifa is inappropriate. The majority of protestors who sympathize with BLM are not formal members but rather agree with the central message of the slogan. This is, in part, why Fr.’s take here is so askew. While he deserves respect as an ordained priest, his argument in this piece does not. Nor do his rather unfortunate claims about those whom he thinks of as intellectual inferiors, nor his conspiratorial statements about people being brainwashed by “the left.”

 

[KMC]

The majority of protestors who sympathize with BLM are not formal members but rather agree with the central message of the slogan.

The slogan has been co-opted. The idea that Fr. Z is wrong or askew, is in itself, an askew take. The reason is this: It seems whether its Fr Z, or the many posters on CAF who won’t say “black lives matter,” the reason is that they associate the phrase with the socialist political party, and not the concept. It appears that all who are hesitant to be coerced into parroting the slogan, value the lives of ALL black Americans, they just don’t want to give credence to the socialist political party of the same name. Yet, for some odd reason, truly valuing the lives of all black Americans is not enough…all must repeat the slogan. Only conforming to the slogan is seen as virtuous.

 

[Nepperhan]

Per the blog, BLM really is veering into the realm of hate with some of what they are saying.

It sounds like BLM should be called NOLM for “No one’s lives matter”.

I had a DeLaSalle brother tell me in the sixties that “Black is beautiful” means that white is ugly. You know, the religious can be fallible as to politics.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Fr. Z is from Minneapolis. I can understand his emotional response to something going on in a place he knows well and holds dear.

He is pretty much stating the obvious about the BLM “Organization” in that it doesn’t have one and attracts all kinds of groups that are way afield from Catholic teaching. Many of us on this forum have expressed similar sentiments about BLM website.

His response is also what you’d expect him to say given his “base”, his emphasis on tradition, and his dissatisfaction with how US bishops currently handle things.

In the end, it’s one priest’s opinion, probably shared by many of his readers. I see no reason to concern myself with it one way or another. Many priests have many opinions.

 

[puer.dei]

I find “Father Z’s” take on BLM disturbing on so many levels that I don’t think I can say much about it within the forum rules. I echo the call for prayers.

Well. Now I remember why I don’t read his blog anymore.

 

[StudentMI]

I find it curious so many are commenting without linking the actual article. The OP just links to the front page.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

You find a call for prayers for a priest offensive? How odd.

Yes that’s clearly all you meant by it.

I actually was quite clear in what I meant in this post:

Fr. Z comments on BLM Catholic News

The overwhelming majority of protestors have been peaceful. Using a slash mark to join BLM and Antifa is inappropriate. The majority of protestors who sympathize with BLM are not formal members but rather agree with the central message of the slogan. This is, in part, why Fr.’s take here is so askew. While he deserves respect as an ordained priest, his argument in this piece does not. Nor do his rather unfortunate claims about those whom he thinks of as intellectual inferiors, nor his consp…

You’ll note that I’ve referred to specific claims from Fr. Z’s article. I explained “what is so upsetting in that article.” And I will note that when I clicked on the OP’s link, I was taken to the specific article.

 

[StudentMI]

Actually there is no mention of Antifa in the article I posted. Could you point me towards the article you’re talking about?

 

[gracepoole]

The Antifa reference comes from @Victoria33’s earlier post. The mods wisely removed this reference from that post.

 

[gracepoole]

So in other words you didn’t read the actual article by Fr Z. You just felt compelled to offer him prayers for his views?

What? In my earlier post I made specific references to his comments. Not sure how that would be possible if I hadn’t actually read his blog post. I have no idea why you believe otherwise.

 

[StudentMI]

What? In my earlier post I made specific references to his comments. Not sure how that would be possible if I hadn’t actually read his blog post. I have no idea why you believe otherwise.

Because you offered generic observations without linking to the actual post. You didn’t even call out the OP for linking to a homepage.

 

[gracepoole]

So confused.

1. As I said earlier, when I clicked on the OP’s link this morning, I was taken to Fr. Z’s blog and read the top article that appeared that. I assumed the link was to the specific blog post. But even if it weren’t, so what? Why is it our responsibility to “call out the OP”?
2. You’re arguing with me because I referenced Fr. Z’s blog post without linking to it or quoting it? Please identify the forum rule that requires these measures.
3. Would you care to respond to the specific criticisms and concerns I offered?

I know you’ve come to view my posts with disdain – but feigning charity would be nice.

 

[gracepoole]

So confused.

1. As I said earlier, when I clicked on the OP’s link this morning, I was taken to Fr. Z’s blog and read the top article that appeared there. I assumed the link was to the specific blog post. But even if it weren’t, so what? Why is it our responsibility to “call out the OP”?
2. You’re arguing with me because I referenced Fr. Z’s blog post without linking to it or quoting it? Please identify the forum rule that requires these measures.
3. Would you care to respond to the specific criticisms and concerns I offered?

I know you’ve come to view my posts with disdain – but feigning charity would be nice.