Monday, December 14, 2009

What Devout Catholics Aren't.

Diogenes' most recent post is only 35 words long:
"If you can read this
NSW Premier Kristina Keneally is in ‘utter agreement’ with the teachings of the Catholic Church but wants female priests, the vow of celibacy relaxed and supports abortion.
thank a catechist."

To which I would would add:
"A devout Catholic, Nickoloff is also a self-affirming gay man who is legally married in the state of Massachusetts."

Does "devout Catholic" in "utter agreement" with the Church mean anything anymore? Or is it just a linguistic cue for "we think heretics are just as Catholic as Catholics"? GetReligion argues that it's just a journalistic filler word that needs to be disposed of. I'd be fine (pleased, even) with its use, if it wasn't used in such a NewSpeak way by "progressives" to signal that the person in question is a non-devout Catholic in anything but "utter agreement" with his or her Church.

Assuming that these uses are simply accidental (which I don't think that they are), speakers and writers need to learn how to use the terminology correctly, or stop using it. Assuming that they're intentional (to subtly persuade the reader that one can be a "good Catholic" while opposing Catholicism in all its forms), readers should be aware that they're being lied to.

2 comments:

  1. I get the impression that Catholics would be less swayed by these deviants if they were well informed to begin with. One who knows the truth will not be deceived when the lie is presented.

    As for the promotion of those giving heresy, it seems to break down into two problems:

    1) No time was spent in my formal education on what a heretic is or what constitutes a heresy. Perhaps it is different for others, but I get the impression it is a lesson glossed over because of the terrible and cruel things done during the Inquisition. Here is a good place to start for anyone curious for a definition. (check out the Bible definition at the bottom of the page, it is very interesting) Likewise, our culture in the US almost encourages some forms of heresy (see Americanism)

    2) People (at least in the US) are not taught to think of religion as true or false anymore, but as a collection of opinions. The attraction to this view is because opinions can be held while allowing for other, opposing opinions of equal validity. However, faith (and especially for Catholics) teaches truth. We can't change it when it becomes inconvenient, any more than we can declare 2+2=19. Over the last century, the world has watched many of the protestant denominations modify their beliefs and they naturally assume that Catholics can and should do likewise. We (culturally) have become so accustomed to being able to change whatever we come across that when we meet something that cannot be changed, it cannot be understood. It is like a young child that enjoys opening doors and suddenly encounters a locked one. There is anger, screaming, crying, pounding, kicking and perhaps even cursing. Either the door opens (unlikely in this case) or the child exhausts him/herself with the effort.

    Truly, those that have fallen victim to these lies and drawn into heresy are to be pitied and prayed for. They can almost be excused for their heresy, because virtually everything else in their experience has told them it is acceptable. If possible, put to them this question: What is true? (please excuse the shameless plug).

    ReplyDelete
  2. The "Shameless" plug was your second link, Kerath.

    Seriously, though, great comment, and I look forward to reading your post.

    ReplyDelete