W
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I am not an atheist, and I do believe in authority. This alleged fallacy is not a fallacy for a Catholic, who accepts papal authority, or for anyone know more of their own mind his critics, or anyone who actually believes that a life of intellectual pursuits gives real intelligence beyond anyone who wants to take ignorant pot shots.
In other words, I simply do not accept your proposition. St. John Paul’s authority was not false., random wiki articles notwithstanding.
Finally, if you read my post, I never said that even an ignorant person has no right to criticism. However, humility should lead us to learn more than teach when we are the inferior intellect in a field.
I lack your cynicism and/or clairvoyance. Do you think it right if people made negative snap judgments about you? If not, then I would like to point to the Golden Rule.
W
weller2
Guest
The context here is:
You can say that you cannot recognize the criticism of Theology of Body, because you are bound to follow papal authority of the subject. But what you did is that you have said that opponents have no authority on the subject because they have not spent enough time thinking about it – this is a textbook example of Courtier’s reply.
NB one technique I use is that I read criticism of ideas more than I read what the proponents have to say. You will immediately see if the concept has any big holes, or people are just nitpicking. It also works wonders when buying something – go through the negative reviews and see if you can live with the shortcomings listed. Dismissing critics out of hand is never a good idea.
Again, my job involves organizing and attending international meetings – I can immediately see if someone is doing the organizational work correctly or not.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
The difference is that the second one did not respect my time. It spent the first minute and a half with a grandly produced introduction, after which a person who was reasonably attractive – IMO every bit as attractive as the blonde in the OP video – going into detail about how terrible it used to be for her to go to Latin Mass.
I listened to the video for abou two minutes and had yet to hear a single word in support of the Latin Mass – two minutes of my life I will never get back. And the only things she DID say were the beginning of a list of what she used to hate about the Mass, and frankly I really didn’t care any more what she had to say beyond that because she fell of that pedestal you’d think she was on, given that introduction. As fas as I could tell, she was just some annoying YouTuber.
The OP video, on the other hand, conveyed its entire message in a clear and articulate fashion, without a single negative word, and was OVER in just under two minutes.
Yes, men are also good at either respecting my time, as the OP video did, and wasting my time and building me up for some basically nobody’s opinion on something like the other less fortunate one did. So I listened to just blaring and annoying noise basically for over two minutes and that was quite enough, thank you. You don’t have to tell me all your possible childhood fears, in order to tell me what you like about the Mass. Was that an “official” video put out by the church? If it was they should get their money back. Who is this for anyway, other than the ego of the person making the video? Who is going to listen to two minutes of junk and then think "gee this makes me want to keeep listening to her for 6-7 more minutes so she can sell me whatever is her glorious point.
With the Trad section on CAF for example, and Google in general, I could read story after story, at my own pace and without minutes of BS preceding it, why people like the Latin Mass. Nobody who didn’t already love it would endure until she hopefully says something intelligent or at least positive, and nobody who does already love it, would need to because like I said there are no shortages of resources on positive testimony for going to Mass. I mean really…
P
pnewton
Guest
My first statement in response to,* “I think that it is fine to criticize JPII’s discussion of women as unrealistic and sort of condescending,”* was
If anyone cares to read the whole of the reply rather than my snippet, or yours, the back button is there.
If anyone cares to read the whole of the reply rather than my snippet, or yours, the back button is there.
Good idea. I do not accept your alleged fallacy, nor the rather strange path that make this thread about me. My posts are here. I do not need to defend them more. Let us try and return to the topic.
W
weller2
Guest
Meanwhile:
the Pontifical Council of Culture (who was behind the ad we are discussing) has put out a working document, and the cover artwork is… this:
http://www.cultura.va/content/cultu...image/image.img.jpg/1423742344194.jpg.xX16744
And it is accompanied by the following caption:
the Pontifical Council of Culture (who was behind the ad we are discussing) has put out a working document, and the cover artwork is… this:
http://www.cultura.va/content/cultu...image/image.img.jpg/1423742344194.jpg.xX16744
And it is accompanied by the following caption:
Uh maybe. All I see is Venus of Milo in shibari bondage.
P
pnewton
Guest
I seldom get art. I am too much of a literalist.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
I’m with you on this one. I get the point, I guess. Funny thing is it seems to sum up what some feminists say or do. First, they demonstrate by showing breasts in public, and second, they say they are tied down.
So yeah, I get the point. Whether it’s tasteful I’ll leave for others to judge. Whether it’s a “good strategy” I couldn’t tell you, but I suspect they didn’t research it much in the US.
W
weller2
Guest
I think that summarizes the whole thing really well:
questionsfromaewe.blogspot.com/2015/02/happy-irony-week.html
P
ProVobis
Guest
I was more interested in the videos from marketing perspective but I appreciate your answer. It was fair, IMO. Thanks.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
That’s what I meant. From a marketing perspective, I had no desire to watch the video at all after the first two minutes. Whatever her message was, she took too damn long getting around to saying it.
One thing I wanted to make sure was clear, was that it wasn’t about a different woman being “less sexy” rather about her wasting two minutes without having said anything salient to the topic. If that were an ad, I’d never listen to it. The only reason I listened as long as I did was that I actually wanted to hear what she had to say.
I don’t watch advertisements with a lot buildup and hype in general unless I can’t avoid it to get to something I want to see.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’ve noticed that what marketers tend to do is to present a long commercial with perhaps some clever or “sexy” lines first, and once the artistic part is firmly entrenched, then they get serious in followup commercials with a much briefer product description having cut off those clever lines. Perhaps the OP was a follow up, I don’t know?
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Yes. The problem with this one, was that I didn’t need to be “sold.” I actually wanted to hear the message but they took so much time and effort selling it they wore out their chance while I till wanted to. Plus it actually “cheapened” the product in my mind because after the first two minutes, I had no interest in her opinion anymore anyway because she came across by then as some dip who’s jazzing me up to hear this great opinion that I ostensibly wouldn’t have cared about had she not built me up first. Or she’s just a horrible communicator and she was compensating. Like they held out too long – I say “nah just keep it.”
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The person you quoted decribes herself thusly: “I question if any woman is capable of being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church due to clericalism, sexism, and the marginalization, and emotional abuse of women.”
She likewise argues against the Church’s basis for a male priesthood and argues that there are female apostles in the Bible, etc…etc…
Elsewhere, she states, “current women priests were ordained by valid bishops in the apostolic succession. Their ordinations are considered valid…” These and other of her assertions are just deranged.
She is quite wrong again and again, idolizing modern feminism, making sweeping accusations against males of bigotry, and really doesn’t have the awareness to be in a conversation about theology, regardless of any degree she’s earned. She can’t even get basic teaching correct, nor grasps the theology behind it.
If she understands the authority of the Church in earnest, then she has excommunicated herself latae sententiae for rejecting confirmed dogma. And if the Church is so wrong about women’s ordination as she claims, and so detached from the teaching of Jesus and the early Church as she claims, and if women have no chance in the Church because of all kinds of sweeping “abuse of women,” she should leave the Church and celebrate. What kind of person stays in an organization as evil as the one in which she claims to remain. I could answer, but the question is rhetorical…
W
weller2
Guest
Ad personam and without relation to the subject matter.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Not ad personum. I addressed specific errors she made. It was also relevant because it reveals the mindset behind her anti-male perception and clouded view of the Church and women. Her view is tarnished by theological errors.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Are you talking about this quote?
I don’t mean to complain or be fussy but let me just give a quick demographic run-down on the council’s members and you decide for yourself just how in-touch these guys are with women around the world… There are 13 Cardinals, 5 Archbishops, 8 Bishops, 1 Monsignor, 1 Rector (yes, he’s a priest; did you even need to ask…) and 3 Laymen.
Since these guys are…well guys…and they wanted to get together for four days and do nothing but talk non-stop about girls…they had a bright idea. No, it was not to invite women to join their council as members…what, are you drunk? No, they had some Italian actress make a video asking women to submit one minute or shorter videos about who they are…because evidently they believe nothing of importance about women requires more than a minute to explain. By the way, I sent them a link to my blog but I did not get an invitation to participate in their meeting.
The irony of the 31 all-male membership writing the following statement as the opening salvo of their working document about women just kind of says it all…“In our Plenary, the invaluable contribution of our Members and Consultors will allow us to gather some aspects of women’s cultures in four thematic stages, in order to identify possible pastoral paths which will allow Christian communities to listen and dialogue with the world today in this sphere.” You see, they’re going to “listen and dialogue” about women by not listening to or dialoging with them. This is clearly miracle fodder.
That’s really the high-point of the working document. It just goes downhill from there with sexist ideas and language.
In fairness, I must mention that 7 of the 35 Consultors are women – 2 religious and 5 laywomen. So the members are 31 men and then there are 28 more male consultors bringing the male attendee count to 59 as compared to 7 women consultors. I just have this sneaking suspicion that those 7 women have been carefully vetted and chosen based upon their parrot-like ability to repeat what the hierarchy says about women. I am not expecting them to contribute in a way that represents me or women like me or pretty much the majority of women in the world.
If so, I agree this is just all innuendo. This person seems to be more interested in bashing the people asking for opinions and their way of doing it, than doing anything that might actually get through to them. I don’t think I’d ask anybody to come speak to me about “women’s issues” if they come in presupposing they are their just for window decoration or something and aren’t going to be listened to anyway. Who knows but there may be at least ONE GUY in there who really wants to know and is pushing the effort to accept any (name removed by moderator)ut at all? Isn’t that even a possibility, and mightn’t it be prudent to assume that as a possible situation?
Now it’s easy to see how pride and group identification and even feuds between factions of a house divided, can so easily be fueled. Frankly, if the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” was the way to get through to the Vatican, then the Church would be just another government. It used to drive me crazy, when I worked at an aerospace company in the 80’s and all the desks were just butted together without dividers, people would sit there for hours discussing the stupidest things that could have been answered even without “OK Google” with a simple phone call. Example: I listened to several engineers being paid on a government project, spend at least 45 minutes discussing the ins and outs of why the city seemed to have a problem with people coming into town and painting house numbers on curbs. One of them heard a 30 second blurb on last night’s news and it seemed this was something they really had to hash out – you know engineers we think we have explanations for everything. Really. Back then we had “phone books” and “telephones” as resources I got tired of hearing it because I was actually trying to work at the time. I picked up the book, looked up the city engineering office, called, asked, and delivered the answer to the rest in a total of about three minutes – so then we could all go back to work.
When they ask for (name removed by moderator)ut, give them (name removed by moderator)ut. Complain all you want, but at least do what is available or you’re just noise. If even 5% of complaints ever made it to their targets, a whole lot of people would be a whole lot more informed about their problems.
S
sttcatherinefan
Guest
Actually, weren’t you complaining about women not sending in videos? This woman sent something in to the Vatican; she also sent a letter criticizing the use of the Man-Ray artwork. Or as I suspect, is it because you don’t like her ultimate message and goals? The only videos allowed are those that are in line with Catholic orthodoxy.
And this is what I am talking about when I mention respectfully discussing things with people who disagree with you. They might even provide you with useful suggestions and insights, like maybe allowing women on your committee and inviting them to actually provide recommendations and sit in closed door discussions.
And this is what I am talking about when I mention respectfully discussing things with people who disagree with you. They might even provide you with useful suggestions and insights, like maybe allowing women on your committee and inviting them to actually provide recommendations and sit in closed door discussions.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
I think there are issues important to “pretty much all” women, and some that are important to “certain groups.” And we each have individual mix. Having women in there at all, IMO, is a Good Thing. Because then we start subdividing women into groups and that pits them against each other, rather than agreeing on common issues where we might make some progress.
Or maybe I misunderstood.
S
StSentry83
Guest
I’m glad that they are willing to listen to a handful of carefully selected women, in video form only, for 1 minute at a time. I’m glad because that is an improvement. On the other hand, the only problem with that is that… it’s an improvement. So basically, before this, Rome had been somewhere on the level of Tarzan or Tim the Tool Man Taylor when it comes to ability/willingness to dialogue with women.
In all seriousness, better this than nothing, it’s just tough to look at it as some kind of major breakthrough.
While we’re on the subject, can we please agree that believing that women deserve to be heard within the Church, that they deserve recognition and respect for the many roles they play inside and outside the Church, and that they deserve to be spoken to as equals (not condescendingly, not as if they’re the whip cream to your lemon meringue or the sprinkles to your ice cream) is NOT the same as advocating for female ordination or claiming that men and women are “the same”? Can we? Please?
In all seriousness, better this than nothing, it’s just tough to look at it as some kind of major breakthrough.
While we’re on the subject, can we please agree that believing that women deserve to be heard within the Church, that they deserve recognition and respect for the many roles they play inside and outside the Church, and that they deserve to be spoken to as equals (not condescendingly, not as if they’re the whip cream to your lemon meringue or the sprinkles to your ice cream) is NOT the same as advocating for female ordination or claiming that men and women are “the same”? Can we? Please?
- Status