« Comments on last night | Main | On South Korean Indifference »
October 28, 2003
Andrew on Terri
Andrew Sullivan uses the Catechism to defend his position on Terri Schiavo's situation.
Um...okay.
Somebody wrote me in August with this observation, and I finally have an occasion to use it:
Picture this: You find yourself debating someone who does not consider himself or herself a Catholic, a Christian, or a religious traditionalist of any kind. They're arguing in favor of an idea, proposal, or concept that clashes with your Catholic/Christian/traditionalist views. Suddenly, your sparring partner cites A) the Pope B) the Bible C) the Torah or some other religious authority."If you really loved others and had compassion the way Jesus taught, you would support gay marriage."
It appears, from my limited view, that a lot of folks who usually have no use for religious authorities in the public square on social issues (you know, abortion, prayer in school, right to die) are suddenly turning
the tables and citing God/Jesus/the Pope all kinds of issues -- SUVs, higher tax rates in Alabama, gay marriage, gay ministers, the effectiveness of a pacifist foreign policy, the death penalty.Is there a word for this phenomenon? The use of religious arguments by the non-religious, or those who oppose/disagree with a religious worldview?
Am I right that this phenomenon is growing? And am I alone in getting rather torqued up about it? It seems like (no pun intended) theres an inherent bad-faith argument - "I think the Pope is a senile old fart, but Jim is on the same page with him most of the time, so I'll use his argument in this area where he and JPII disagree to shut him up."
Was it Shakespeare who said, "Even the devil can quote Scripture to suit his cause"?
Now just remember, the issue is not the suitability of using a traditional source to support an argument, but the use of it by people who reject those same sources as having any importance in regard to other issues.
And I have to say, Sullivan's entry this morning really ticked me off, in its shallow understanding of the argument and almost deliberate mischaracterization of the nature of the arguments involved. This is definitely a case of Pundititis here - a superficial, snappy retort on a complex issue. I'm not saying that if he were willing to engage the issue fully he'd agree with *me*, but this "Everybody reads me so I can opine on anything without doing research" attitude tiresome.
His characterization of those who support continuing to feed Terri Schiavo - as not understanding the fullness of the Church's teaching on end-of-life issues, of exhibiting a lack of faith in the promise of resurrection, of being mere "Wotilja-ites" who pervert the Church's real teaching in favor of their God JPII. (as if the Pope is an advocate for physical existence at any cost. Again, it just shows his failure to engage the issue) is just ridiculous.
But really, if you reject the whole of the Church's teaching on sexuality (and he does - remember his defenses of Arnold Schwarzenegger's past sexual outrages?) - don't, and I mean DON'T come at me quoting the Catechism. Just don't.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/228310
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Andrew on Terri:
» Never Wrestle With A Pig ... from Reverend Mike's House of Homiletic Hash
... you'll both get dirty, and only the pig will enjoy it. To this I would add that it soon becomes hard to tell the two of you apart. Amy Welborn and Andrew Sullivan are engaged in a bit of... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 29, 2003 2:50:38 PM
» Lucky Finds from Lead and Gold
This is dead-on [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 29, 2003 4:35:07 PM
Comments
Sullivan is a relativist. Seems to me, if one accepts such a person as a suitable debating partner, then one is not in a fair fight. Sullivan can change the rules of the debate anytime he likes. For him it is fair. You violate your own rules just once and you are a hyppocrite. This is a liberal strategy and it still wins the battles in the culture wars.
The subject of the debate, as Amy points out correctly, is his shallow, petulant, self-serving point arguments.
Posted by: John at Oct 28, 2003 8:57:26 AM
Hasn't Sullivan heard about the concept of annulments. Schiavo has a fiance and a child out of wedlock, I think that that would make this so called "marriage" a good candidate for annulment. I think what annoys me is how the media has made this a "Catholic" issue. This is a moral issue that effects people of all religious or non-religious beliefs. The husband wants to move on, the parents want to take care of their child. Err on the side of compassion and let the parents have the hope and their child. This is not about the right to die, this is about a control freak husband trying to maintain control.
Posted by: mary at Oct 28, 2003 9:13:25 AM
Sorry about the above post I had read Sullivan on his marriage point not the Catechism. On the Catholic Catechism John Paul himself clarified this point in a 1998 "Ad Limina" Address to the Bishops of California, Nevada, and Hawaii
"The statement of the United States Bishops' Pro-Life Committee, Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Considerations, rightly emphasizes that the omission of nutrition and hydration intended to cause a patient's death must be rejected and that, while giving careful consideration to all the factors involved, the presumption should be in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients who need them."
Has the question been asked-If Terri was born brain damaged, would anyone still favor allowing her to starve to death. (Many mentally disabled children need to be tube feed for a number of months until they learn to swallow on their own.)
Posted by: mary at Oct 28, 2003 9:25:58 AM
Amy,
I'm glad you noted that Sullivan doesn't even give his opponents the dignity of being "Pope-adherents"; instead we're just "Wojtila-adherents," as if Karol Wojtyla were just some crazy nut and not the Vicar of Christ.
Posted by: Cornelius at Oct 28, 2003 9:45:12 AM
Schopenhauer called it an argument ad hominem, meaning one crafted to appeal specifically to the one you're arguing with: "The truth from which I draw my proof ... may be valid only for the person to whom I wish to prove my proposition, and with whom I am disputing... If he is a Mohammedan, I may prove my point by reference to a passage in the Koran, and that is sufficient for him; but here it is only a proof ad hominem."
See http://www.coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist16.htm
Posted by: Tom at Oct 28, 2003 10:09:10 AM
Amy-Not sure what you call it--I rather liked Tom's characterization--but whatever you call it I agree entirely. Great stuff, Amy--the kind of thing you just would never find on TV or talk radio. Mike Benz
Posted by: Mike Benz at Oct 28, 2003 12:17:41 PM
Amy,
Sullivan doesn't need the Catechism to make his point that continuing to feed a brain-dead person through a tube for thirteen years and counting constitutes extraordinary care.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Oct 28, 2003 12:25:55 PM
Amy:
T'aint complicated. Everything--I mean *everything*--in Andrew's world is ordered toward the defense, protection and promotion of One Little Thing. This was just one more opportunity to take a swipe at the thing that poses the biggest threat to that. His task here is not to teach Catholic ethics, but to obfuscate, confuse, blur and denigrate. A day or two ago he was trying to somehow construe the defense of Terri's life in support of gay marriage. It's all about l'il willie for Andrew.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Oct 28, 2003 12:31:50 PM
I forgot: "the media" doesn't deserve all the blame for "making" this a Catholic issue. Some goes to Jeb Bush, and to Terri's parents. Would a brain-damaged infant be kept on a feeding tube for thirteen years if the likelihood of her learning to swallow was ruled out--or at least minimally likely--by doctors? Probably not.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Oct 28, 2003 12:48:32 PM
Grant:
What you don't seem to realize is that another issue in this whole matter is that for years the Schindlers have begged for rehabilitative therapy for Terri to at least see if she could be taught to swallow. Hubby won't allow it.
And, no I wouldn't be for starving a brain-damaged kid. No. Would you?
Posted by: jen at Oct 28, 2003 12:55:39 PM
I respectfully dissent.
The real problem is not that one who rejects the Catechism is attempting to use it against a "Catholic" position; the real problem is the person using the Catechism is using it incorrectly or insufficiently.
In the philosophical realm of moral argumentation, it seems perfectly legitimate for a "non-Catholic" to use the Catechism to point out inconsistencies in the "Catholic's" argument. It's like saying, "OK--I accept your premise that the Catechism controls; but here's why it doesn't support your argument." I don't find that offensive, even if my "opponent" is an atheist. At least we're starting from the same point.
As a Catholic, I'm appreciative of anyone who helps me understand the implications of the Catechism on my moral arguments. What I don't appreciate is someone, either through laziness or deliberate deceit, distorting the Catechism in attacking my arguments.
It has been a long time since I read Schopenhauer, but I thought ad hominem was calling the guy an idiot, which is completely irrelevant to whether his argument is valid.
In short, I think the problem with Sullivan is that he distorts the Catechism. The fact that he is trying to use Catechism is a little encouraging.
Posted by: Gene Humphreys at Oct 28, 2003 1:11:48 PM
Am I reading most of you correctly:
the only people who are allowed to quote Catholic sources ... either in the fullness of understanding or in partial understanding ... be they in support or contradition of a certain position espoused by some Catholics, are those people who adhere to the church's teachings on sexuality?
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Oct 28, 2003 1:18:11 PM
In classical rhetoric--and general use--ad hominem means "to the man," or like Gene said, "calling someone an idiot." Citing Schopenhauer's specialized use of the phrase is legitimate. I too find it a bit confusing though.
The proper phrase for Andrew Sullivan's bogus citation is sanctimonious crapweaseling, from the Latin for "to shed a self-righteous stench while biting into a text or context one is pathologically unable to appreciate." But then I am pedantic and overly fond of technical terms.
Posted by: BA at Oct 28, 2003 1:23:15 PM
Reading Andrew Sullivan making arguments from the catechism is like hearing Adolf Hitler give an exegesis on a passage from the Talmud.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Oct 28, 2003 1:42:20 PM
OK Grant, I am not sure I am reading you correctly. But with your approach, and at this point, would you be OK if Michael S. hired someone to fire a shotgun on his wife? If not, what makes you hesitate?
Posted by: Yann The Frenchman at Oct 28, 2003 1:58:01 PM
The two examples given of ad hominem argument are really the same -- only the target of persuasion is different. In both cases, one is arguing that person X's professed philosophy requires a position opposite from the one he currently holds. ( So he's an idiot, Q.E.D. :-) ).
Posted by: Craig at Oct 28, 2003 2:05:46 PM
Gene Humphreys has it exactly right. Whether Sullivan himself believes in the Catechism is irrelevant to his criticism that those who do claim to believe in it are not following it.
It's like a criticism of people who claim to believe that abortion is murder but who would make an exception for rape cases. The validity of this criticism does not depend on whether the person making it himself believes that abortion is murder.
Posted by: J.B. at Oct 28, 2003 2:09:22 PM
I agree with Gene. It is legitimate in an argument to use an opponent's own premises against him. If one says that homosexual conduct is wrong and relies on an appeal to authority by citing Scripture, it is perfectly valid for his opponent to refer to Scripture to counter that argument even if that opponent does not accept Scripture as authority. Admittedly, this technique does not serve to prove that the opponent's counter-claim (that homosexual behavior is not wrong) is true, but it does serve to prove that the truth of the inital claim cannot be based on Scripture.
Gene is also right that all too often the Scriptural arguments advanced by non-believers are more clever than valid. But they nonetheless must be assessed on their own merits. Too dismiss the argument because of its source would be a variant of ad hominem.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Oct 28, 2003 2:49:09 PM
(from www.mathworld.com)
Reductio ad absurdum:
A method of proof which proceeds by stating a proposition and then showing that it results in a contradiction, thus demonstrating the proposition to be false. In the words of G. H. Hardy , "Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game" (Coxeter and Greitzer 1967, p. 16; Hardy 1993, p. 34).
Posted by: Don't call me 'Francis.' at Oct 28, 2003 2:55:50 PM
I agree with Mike. I would, however, clarify that ad hominem, as it is classically and generally understood, does not mean using someone's premises against him. It means saying, "Of course, you think that, you're a bigot" (liberal) or "Of course you think that, you're a lowlife" (conservative). Bill Clinton is a master of the ad hominem, because, if you disagree with him, it is, of course, because you hate ***** group that he's been trying to serve, lo, these many years.
I don't think what Sullivan did was ad hominem. I do think that, given the tenor of his arguments having anything to do with Catholicism, you can call it sanctimonious crapweaseling. Sullivan is putting himself above the Church and therefore above Catholics and therefore his citation of the Catechism is like Catholics quoting the Augsburg Confession and saying, "I don't believe in this weak, perfidious thing, but even if I did..." It's unctious to say the least. It's crapweaseling because he regularly misrepresents the Church and engages in ad hominems against devout Catholics that are only slightly more elevated and restrained--but finally less intelligent--than those of Christopher Hitchens, that great hectorer of all things religious.
Posted by: BA at Oct 28, 2003 3:01:27 PM
Wow. Look at all those ad hominem posts. But I have a couple to respond to. Jen writes,
"Grant: What you don't seem to realize is that another issue in this whole matter is that for years the Schindlers have begged for rehabilitative therapy for Terri to at least see if she could be taught to swallow. Hubby won't allow it. And, no I wouldn't be for starving a brain-damaged kid. No. Would you?"
Way to put words in my, uh, keyboard. I said nothing about "starving a brain-damaged kid." Teaching Terri to swallow has been ruled out by numerous physicians. Or so I read.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Oct 28, 2003 3:45:35 PM
Yann wrote,
"OK Grant, I am not sure I am reading you correctly. But with your approach, and at this point, would you be OK if Michael S. hired someone to fire a shotgun on his wife? If not, what makes you hesitate?"
No. Intent, mainly.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Oct 28, 2003 3:46:40 PM
"Sullivan doesn't need the Catechism to make his point that continuing to feed a brain-dead person through a tube for thirteen years and counting constitutes extraordinary care."
She's not "brain-dead," Mr. Gallicho. Mr. Schiavo and his legal team admit as much.
Posted by: Dale Price at Oct 28, 2003 4:05:47 PM
I'm sorry, I regretted using it after I posted it, but since I have sent too many corrected posts today, I let it slide. Mr. Price. (You can call me Grant.) I know Terri's parents aren't pleased with the term, but "persistent vegetative state" should have replaced "brain dead" in my earlier posts. Not that it changes my argument.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Oct 28, 2003 4:23:51 PM
Amy,
I reflected on your pique over Sully's opportunistically selective employment of the CCC.
On reflection, while I think it is good to be truthful about the opportunistic selectivity here, I do worry about other people (not you) who seem eager to force Sully to abandon any agreement with the CCC. Catholics of an apologetical bent have temptation to force stark choices along these lines, choices that are not quite of the same dimension of the start choices Jesus preached about (though we like to think they are, of course). Rather, this is an opportunity to say to Andrew, "I am glad you thought to reflect on what the Catechism has to say, as it offers much for reflection. Do you realize the full import of what it is summarizing, as it is only a summary?" Et cetera.
When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, both he and the woman persisted in conversation well each knowing that the one was misunderstanding and talking past the other. (The disciples, by contrast, clammed up when Jesus spoke and they did not understand, even though they knew him and baptized in his name already.) Jesus' approach is truthful yet engaging, even alluring. And the woman does not let her sense of her own ignorance and possibly shame get in the way of persisting in her request for indoor plumbing (as it were). Now, Sully may lack her spirit, but that does not mean we ought not try Jesus' approach....
Posted by: Liam at Oct 28, 2003 4:46:52 PM
Grant wrote:
"Yann wrote,
'OK Grant, I am not sure I am reading you correctly. But with your approach, and at this point, would you be OK if Michael S. hired someone to fire a shotgun on his wife? If not, what makes you hesitate?'
No. Intent, mainly."
Well, isn't removing the tube part of the same intent (except for a longer agony)? The result would be the same as for the shotgun: the killing of Terri Schiavo...
Posted by: Yann The Frenchman at Oct 28, 2003 5:24:24 PM
(sigh) I better not, but I'm gonna: could somebody explain for me the moral foundation for the various distinctions here?
Folks keep saying: 'Well, why not just shoot her? It's just the same as taking away a feeding tube.' I don't think it is, but I understand the argument, at least. But I'm not so sure folks who make the analogy actually DO understand it.
What I DON'T understand is why there is such a moral divide between taking away a feeding tube (which Catholic hospitals won't do, I think) and removing a breathing tube (which they will, on the appropriately authorized legal say-so: such as the husband's in this case). In the former case, a person cannot eat on their own, in the latter, a person cannot breathe independently.
What's the diff?
Likewise, I'm not clear why there is such a moral distinction between what folks insist is the deliberate killing of a person through denying 'em food, and the debilitating palliative of a morphine drip, between the unchallenged consensus that the husband in this case is such a bad guy (except he has the law on his side), while every Catholic hospital in the country makes similar DNR decisions every day, on the authority of folks who are no different.
Could somebody parse all this?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Oct 28, 2003 6:03:10 PM
Stopping food/water = shooting her. Both acts are known, with certainty and no doubt, to cause death, and the intended result is death.
vs. taking off breathing tube - while death may be highly likely/probable, it may not be certain (may begin breathing on own, may not). But if you stop feeding, sustenance is not going to happen on their own.
Of course, all this presumes that patient is brain-dead vs. severely disabled (still able to interact with environment, however limited) a whole different issue. The prob with Mike is that, based upon the publicly available evidence, it looks like she is not brain dead, but severely disabled.
Posted by: c matt at Oct 28, 2003 7:25:19 PM
as for Sully using CCC, of course you can use as part of your argument any document your opponent takes as authority, whether you agree with that authority or not. Its called an admission. Whether he uses that authority accurately or not is another issue. Ad hominem normally refers to attacking the speaker/opponent personally, rather than the speaker's argument. (He's a Philistine, so what does he know).
Posted by: c matt at Oct 28, 2003 7:27:11 PM
c matt:
vs. taking off breathing tube - while death may be highly likely/probable, it may not be certain (may begin breathing on own, may not). But if you stop feeding, sustenance is not going to happen on their own.
Huh? This is not a meaningful distinction. A person on a ventilator may be so brain-damaged that his chances of recovering the ability to breathe on his own are as low as or lower than the chances of someone on ANH recovering their ability to feed themselves.
As for the "Why not just shoot them?" question, that question confronts anyone who advocates the removal of life-sustaining measures for anyone at all. As long as you can conceive of some situation in which you would approve the withdrawal or withholding of treatment or care that is necessary to sustain a person's life, you are faced with the question.
Posted by: J.B. at Oct 28, 2003 8:14:42 PM
C matt, you don't understand the facts you're arguing.
I've SEEN a situation like this. Evidently, you have not. Opinions are like armpits -- everybody's got a couple, and I recommend hygiene.
Is there anybody posting on this who DOES know what they're talking about?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Oct 28, 2003 9:14:09 PM
Btw, most people don't realize that the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem runs both ways: it is as logically fallacious to assert that the *goodness* of someone proves the truth of that person's argument as to argue that the badness of someone proves the falsity of that person's argument.
Posted by: Liam at Oct 28, 2003 10:29:18 PM
Withholding or supplying the means necessary to maintain biological existence, whether respiration or hydration, depend on the particular circumstances. Christopher Reed could not breathe on his own, but is clearly conscious and deserving of a device that helps him breathe and live. Karen Quinlan could breathe on her own after her respirator was removed, and continued to breathe on her own although she required hydration, and yet it was not burdensome for her family to continue such support, perhaps in hope of a miracle. Based on the catechism, I think, it would have been licit if this hydration had been withdrawn from Karen if providing such had become a real burden to her family since she was brain dead. In Terri's case, the empirical evidence (including the testimony of 13 doctors) points to a conscious, albeit brain damaged person. In such a case, withdrawing hydration I believe can't be an option since Terri must be given the benefit of the doubt that she can still love and receive love. What else are we here for? Don't know absolutely what is right here, but I think if there is a reasonable doubt we should err on the side of life.
Posted by: flounder at Oct 29, 2003 12:27:05 AM
Hey, Amy, I don't know if you've noticed yet, but Andrew just blasted you on his blog, as well as one of your more, um, uninhibited commenters, not to mention Mark "Lesbian Brownshirts! Gay Mafia!" Shea. In fact, he suggested that you're a bunch of fanatics.
Whatever could have given him that idea.
Posted by: J.B. at Oct 29, 2003 1:11:31 AM
Amy, Mark, I am honored to be singled out with you for special mention by Mr. Sullivan. Ratzingerites, how clever! No wonder our churches are all deserted now that Mr. Sullivan has left. Someone had better call Rome and tell the Pope that the jig is up.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Oct 29, 2003 6:53:33 AM
FINALLY, somebody makes the moral distinction: "it depends."
Reeve can speak for himself -- and he is still fighting to be healed. That's a difference.
Quinlan could not speak for herself -- and the family chose to put her fate in God's hands. She lived for awhile.
The Schiavo case is like the Quinlan case, not the Reeve case, as a matter of fact. As I understand 'em, they are morally similar, as well -- if she had been unable to breathe on her own, she would have died sooner, but they chose to continue to nourish her until God took her.
So we're left with a moral distinction between removing one sort of tube (a breathing tube) without which some folks (Reeve, Quinlan) could not live, but not another -- the feeding tube, without which Quinlan and Schiavo cannot survive.
I dunno as that moral distinction is as clear as folks insist, as the actual Quinlan case shows. If when they removed the breathing tube she had begun to die because she could not breathe on her own, and her family -- with no more and no less legal authority than the husband in this case -- had refused to put it back in to sustain her life: how is that morally distinct from removing a feeding tube?
It keeps coming back to who decides -- and by the mob rule resorted to in this case, folks are doing something genuinely alarming.
If you want to change the law, change it so NOBODY -- not Reeve, not Quinlan's family, much less Schiavo and let's not forget you're precluding the rights of the Shindlers, too -- gets to decide for themselves or anybody they love, so long as enough talk show folks and blogs can find a politician who sees temporary advantage.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Oct 29, 2003 7:02:14 AM
FINALLY, somebody makes the moral distinction: "it depends."
Reeve can speak for himself -- and he is still fighting to be healed. That's a difference.
Quinlan could not speak for herself -- and the family chose to put her fate in God's hands. She lived for awhile.
The Schiavo case is like the Quinlan case, not the Reeve case, as a matter of fact. As I understand 'em, they are morally similar, as well -- if she had been unable to breathe on her own, she would have died sooner, but they chose to continue to nourish her until God took her.
So we're left with a moral distinction between removing one sort of tube (a breathing tube) without which some folks (Reeve, Quinlan) could not live, but not another -- the feeding tube, without which Quinlan and Schiavo cannot survive.
I dunno as that moral distinction is as clear as folks insist, as the actual Quinlan case shows. If when they removed the breathing tube she had begun to die because she could not breathe on her own, and her family -- with no more and no less legal authority than the husband in this case -- had refused to put it back in to sustain her life: how is that morally distinct from removing a feeding tube?
It keeps coming back to who decides -- and by the mob rule resorted to in this case, folks are doing something genuinely alarming.
If you want to change the law, change it so NOBODY -- not Reeve, not Quinlan's family, much less Schiavo and let's not forget you're precluding the rights of the Shindlers, too -- gets to decide for themselves or anybody they love, so long as enough talk show folks and blogs can find a politician who sees temporary advantage.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Oct 29, 2003 7:02:41 AM
For Jeebus' sake.... this whole hair-splitting of the fine moral distinctions of the breathing tube vs. feeding tube vs. shotgun and the what-if-it-was-your-kid bs is so stupid. You Kill-Terri-Now advocates are still avoiding the big gaping issue of the fact that there are people who are willing to take the burden of Terri's care off Michael Schiavo's hands, and despite the fact that he has another woman and two illegitimate offspring who would certainly benefit from the ending of this non-marriage of his he has refused to 1) reliquish care of his bride to her parents, and 2) get the marriage between himself and Terri dissolved by (as someone pointed out) annulment if divorce won't satisfy his "Catholic" sensibilities. (I put Catholic in quotation marks because he seems to be about as Catholic in his other actions as Ho Chi Minh, but he won't divorce Terri. What. Ever.) I don't care about moral fine points; there is something weird about that, and it sets this whole argument of "what's good for Terri is to starve her to death" on its ear.
But oh, do go back to arguing about court rulings. So sorry to interrupt.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Oct 29, 2003 7:22:56 AM
"Ho Chi Minh"...beautiful, and all too apt a description of how all of us christians live our lives; shallow, pale, hypocritical shadows of what we are called to be.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at Oct 29, 2003 7:56:25 AM
"His characterization of those who support continuing to feed Terri Schiavo - as not understanding the fullness of the Church's teaching on end-of-life issues,..."
This is disingenous. He actually agrees with you to a point, but also seeks a deeper understanding of the painful situation this family finds itself in. I would call that love. He believes it is a complex issue in which he has said himself he would err to keeping her alive, BUT, using the Church's teaching to clarify SOME of the superficial arguments being used is legitimate and fair. Someone refers to him as a "moral relavist", but at least he's attempting to seek the truth instead of simply pontificating about it.
"But really, if you reject the whole of the Church's teaching on sexuality (and he does - remember his defenses of Arnold Schwarzenegger's past sexual outrages?) - don't, and I mean DON'T come at me quoting the Catechism. Just don't."
He did not defend Schwarzenegger. Frankly, this is ad hominem attack. He simply pointed out the differences in him and Clinton, a private citizen versus a public official. He was quite specific in his disgust with the governor-elect. Also, it is dishonest to say he rejects the Church's teaching on sexuality as a whole. He has written extensively and openly about this very subject and he leans heavily on Vatican II. Disagreeing with those that interpret or understand differently is one thing, and I happen to disagree with him as well, but to spew vile judgments upon such a person, dismiss him with disrespect and treat him as if he is not a member of the Body of Christ, as many of the posts here do, is not Christian and it is not Catholic. Now that Vatican II is out of favor in Rome, and apparently in this forum (therefore the term "Wojtila-adherents" is fair, even if disagreeable), it is easy to fall into such a trap. Frankly, I don't recognize much that I would charactrize as Catholic in this forum. You don't defend the faith through personal attacks and judgments. The tenor here is quite disturbing. All these points are meaningless, regardless of their possible legitimacy from a dogma perspective, if you don't have love. I don't see the love. Something to ponder I would hope. A little less sanctimony and a lot more love please.
Posted by: Barry at Oct 29, 2003 10:01:21 AM
Sullivan makes a reasonble point--that the Catechism, and therefore the moral theology and tradition of the Church, is not quite the slam dunk in support of the Schiavo's case. However, it is very clear that the Church, in the U.S. and worldwide, strongly favors the presumption in favor of providing feeding to PVS patients.
Speaking as a liberal Anglican who most people here would characterize as pro-choice (I am not really, but that is a another matter), I think this is an issue that the Catholic AND conservative folks are generally right about. The presumption of saving a human life must trump false compassion and mere convienence. Otherwise, we revert to our savage past, where unwanted infants were treated as waste and old people were left to the elements.
Posted by: George at Oct 29, 2003 10:30:39 AM
You are a little unfair to Sullivan. Forgive me if I don't know your position on many catholic issues; this is my first visit to your website. However, you strike me as one of those so-called "conservative catholics" who have more in common with American protestant fundamentalism than historic christianity as embodied in the catholic church. What really irks me about this group is that they are always pouncing on people who question the sexual ethics, even to the point of denying that they are true catholics, while at the same time ignoring equally important teachings in other areas, most notably on social justice. If I mischaracterize you, I apologize.
Just look at the examples you bring up. The Alabama tax increase was designed to fund education of poor children in a state in desperate need of improvement. Supported by the church, and prodoundly christian. Opposed for selfish reasons. Similarly, SUVs. People who drive them show no sense of respect towards fellow drivers and pedestrians, given that you are 7 times more likely to die if you are hit by an SUV than a regular car (see Gregg Easterbrook's writings in the New Republic). The environmental impact violates the principle of good stewardship. Again, pure selfishness.
Let's get onto deeper matters. If you want a consistent ethic of life, as propounded by the great Cardinal Bernardin, you have to oppose the death penalty as much as abortion, and you should be willing to pay for decent healthcare for all children. Sadly, this doesn't sit well with the American conservatives. Remember that these tenets are accepted by catholics all over the world, and those catholics in the US that ignore them are guilty of American exceptionalism. I could make the same point about a "pacifist foreign policy". The pope opposed the war in Iraq. How easily dissent came to the conservatives here?
It's quite simple really. The conservatives would like to hijack the church by making a litmus test of only sexual issues. For my part, I oppose abortion and the death penalty. I oppose war unless there is no doubt whatsoever that the just war theory applies. I believe in a social policy that amply funds health and education and takes care of the poor. That is true christianity. For the false version, I look no further than President Bush who makes fun of women he executes and uses his office to enrich his friends and contributors. No wonder the conservatives irk me so much..
Tony.
Posted by: Tony at Oct 29, 2003 11:14:14 AM
i.e. we become france
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at Oct 29, 2003 11:14:53 AM
"i.e. we become france" was in response to george, fwiw...
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at Oct 29, 2003 11:37:48 AM
Sweetie, you do sound like one of those "Charismatic Catholics".....
Posted by: max at Oct 29, 2003 11:43:24 AM
The statement "if you reject the whole of the Church's teaching on sexuality (and he does - remember his defenses of Arnold Schwarzenegger's past sexual outrages?) - don't, and I mean DON'T come at me quoting the Catechism", along with the further statement that "Andrew Sullivan making arguments from the catechism is like hearing Adolf Hitler give an exegesis on a passage from the Talmud" reminds me of an old joke:
Josef Goebbels, a reluctant admirer of Jewish tenacity and learning, decided that it would be prudent to learn some of the principles of Talmudic exegesis in order to see if they could be incorporated into Nazi education, thereby fighting fire with fire as it were. He called a prominent Rabbi into his office and ordered him to instruct him, even if it took years.
The Rabbi sighed. "Herr Goebbels, I can teach you. It will not take years... The finer points, yes, take a lifetime...more than a lifetime. We will know today, though, if you are truly willing to learn or not."
Goebbels smirked. "Proceed, Jew."
The Rabbi began. "Two men fall down the same chimney. Once emerges completely clean, the other covered in soot. Which one washes?"
Goebbels laughed. "Is that all? Ha! The dirty one, obviously!"
"No Herr Goebbels, you are quite wrong. The clean one washes."
Goebbels was amazed. "Why?" he demanded.
"The man covered in soot sees his clean friend and is astounded...how lucky that they managed to fall through the chimney and emerge clean! He assumes that he is also clean. His friend, though, sees how sooty his friend is and assumes that he, too, is filthy and needs a bath. So, he washes."
Goebbels laughed. "Very clever, Jew...ask me another."
The Rabbi sighed. "Very well. Two men fall down the same chimney. Once emerges completely clean, the other covered in soot. Which one washes?"
"That is the same question, Jew." growled Goebbels.
"No, Herr Goebbels, it is an entirely different question."
"OK, I know the answer...I won't be tricked this time! The clean one washes!"
"No, Herr Goebbels, the dirty one washes. The clean one emerges and sees his sooty friend. He laments that he, too, must be filthy. However, he looks at his hands and discovers they are quite clean...as is the rest of him. His sooty friend emerges and sees that the other is spotless. He is astounded...how is this possible? He looks at his hands and sees that he is indeed covered in soot. So, he washes."
"Very clever again, Jew. Ask me another question!"
"As you wish, Herr Goebbels. Two men fall down the same chimney. Once emerges completely clean, the other covered in soot. Which one washes?"
"Damn you Jew, that is the same question!"
"No, Herr Goebbels, I assure you it is entirely different."
"OK, the clean one washes!"
"No."
"Then the dirty one washes!" the Minister shrieked.
"No. The answer is...how is it possible for two men to fall down the same chimney and one emerge covered in soot and the other emerge completely clean? What a ridiculous, impossible question to ask! If you don't understand that, Herr Goebbels, you will never understand Talmud."
No one has a corner on religious truth. That's not some 'new-age' relativistic crap...that's a fundamental tenet of one of the oldest religions on earth and the religion which Catholicism claims to be the heir of...Orthodox Judaism. There are no "right" answers, though there are paths that lead astray. Like in a Zen koan, it's through our lack of understanding that understanding emerges. Our path can only proceed when we reach the end of the road and is only as clear as our ability to fearlessly tread it. "Truth" like Talmud, is a process discovered only through discourse. Discourse can, and should, be guided by principle and circumscribed by ethics...but those principles and ethics should never be used as a cudgel to close discussion and end debate.
Posted by: Luis David Albright at Oct 29, 2003 12:41:33 PM
Wondrous. Andrew posts a hatchet job on Amy designed to completely shut down discussion by defaming her with falsehoods about what she has said. He has no comments boxes himself but completely dominates the monologue on his blog. So what happens? Sullivan readers come here for the first time, knowing absolutely nothing about Amy (one of the most open-minded and balanced thinkers in the blogosphere and, if they but knew it, a sympathetic defender of Sullivan in the past) and proceed to lecture her on not using cudgels to end debates, blah blah etc. My Irony Meter is burning out.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Oct 29, 2003 1:04:52 PM
Amy, you have gotten about Sullivan and his superficial intellectualism what we got a long time ago, what motivated us to start our blog.
We linked to this ... hope you appreciate it.
Posted by: SullyWatch at Oct 29, 2003 2:52:28 PM
Excuse me, but that's exactly what she did say. Look above.
Posted by: Luis David Albright at Oct 29, 2003 3:21:38 PM
Just a drop-in from sullivan.com with a quick correction to Tony above on the Alabama tax deal. I live in AL and followed the matter fairly closely. To say that the tax was "opposed for selfish reasons" is at best an extreme over-simplification and over-generalization. Many people agreed with the basic premise (state perpetually going broke, tax system unjust, need to revamp the whole thing including raising a lot property taxes) but thought Riley's plan had fatal flaws and ended up opposing it. Many people supported it for selfish reasons (the teachers' union). Not fair to assume bad faith on those who voted against. (For the record, I voted for it, although with serious misgivings.)
Didn't know you were blogging again, Amy. Good.
Posted by: jmac at Oct 29, 2003 3:32:08 PM
I'll ask it yet again:
Am I reading most of you correctly:
the only people who are allowed to quote Catholic sources ... either in the fullness of understanding or in partial understanding ... be they in support or contradition of a certain position espoused by some Catholics, are those people who adhere to the church's teachings on sexuality?
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at October 28, 2003 01:18 PM
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Oct 29, 2003 6:33:17 PM
Once a dissenter is labeled as "non-religious" or one of "those who oppose/disagree with a religious worldview," there's no point in further discussion.
Posted by: Allan Beatty at Oct 29, 2003 7:06:30 PM
Mr. Shea,
How exactly was Sullivan's response to some of the vitriol in this forum a "hatchet job"? How exactly, sir, was his appropriatedly put-off response and his fair questions "designed to shut down discussion"? And clearly you miss the point that the ugliest judgments here, including yours, are in the forum and not in her essay. Oh, and he clearly identifies the specific people and instances. As for me, I don't know anything about Amy and could only respond the the specific and erroneous things she said. Was I "defaming" her in doing so?
Many of the regular readers of Sullivan's blog are, judging by the content of the letters he posts (he does post thoughtful letters of dissent, sir, even the occasional rant), are Catholic and are moved by his struggle. I know I am. Don't you struggle? Aren't you torn at times?
I think that while your "irony meter" is burning out, your hypocrisy and denial meter is fully charged. Please stop throwing accusations and aspersions. It isn't Catholic, although I would never presume to suggest your anti-Christian attitude means you aren't Catholic. That's not for me to say. And it's not for Amy to say. And it sure as heck isn't for you to say.
Lastly, I admit I haven't been on this site before, but like many other Sullivan readers I'm sure, I visit many Catholic sites regularly. I think you should ask yourself if Sullivan didn't mean to point this site out to his tens of thousands of readers for more reasons that simply defending himself. I know I'll come back to do a more thorough review, particularly since I see she's a fan of Flannery O'Connor.
Posted by: Barry at Oct 29, 2003 8:31:51 PM
Tony:
Don't bore me with pronouncements on what you think I believe when you have no clue (as you admit) about what I believe.
Posted by: amy at Oct 29, 2003 9:17:50 PM
Barry:
For you, too. If you want to pronounce on my views on Andrew Sullivan, go back to my old blog (it's linked on the left. It's called In Between Naps) and read the posts from August. Then come back and lecture me about my tone.
Posted by: amy at Oct 29, 2003 9:27:50 PM
I have a couple hypotheticals for the posters who believe that non-believers should not make arguments based on religions doctrines.
1) A christian believes that a certain policy stance is moral for religions reasons, but the same policy is opposed by an atheist. Should the christian use secular arguments to attempt to convince the atheist to change his mind, even though the christian considers the secular arguments irrelevant since the religious rationale supercedes them?
2) A person does not absolutely believe in a set of religious doctrines, but thinks that they may be true. May this person use religious arguments in a debate with a devout believer with the justification that there is a probability that the doctrines are correct, and thus are in his opinion worth considering, although he still believes they may not be?
Posted by: Matt at Oct 29, 2003 9:43:32 PM
