Responding to Andrew

From his blog

Amy Welborn is mightily ticked off that I dared to quote the Catechism about Terri Schiavo. Since I am now in her mind not a Catholic, how can I refer to such a text? One of her Catholic readers goes even further: "Reading Andrew Sullivan making arguments from the catechism is like hearing Adolf Hitler give an exegesis on a passage from the Talmud." Now that's the voice of Christian dialogue.

Mark Shea, a man who also claims to represent Catholicism in its orthodox form, emotes:
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.

That last quote is a wonderful insight into the minds of the Ratzingerites. The legal right of a husband to determine the future of his incapacitated wife, and the difficult balance between keeping someone alive who is in a vegetative state for decades and letting them die with dignity: this is all really about my penis. Puh-lease. Again, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to keeping Schiavo alive. But the extremism and absolutism of her advocates is unnerving. All I was trying to do by quoting the Catechism is to show that even under Ratzinger, there is an understanding of a balance here. It isn't life-at-all-costs, which is how some of these people are sounding. I also find it odd that Welborn seems to believe that someone who does not subscribe to Cardinal Ratzinger's sexual ethics (i.e. a huge majority of American Catholics) is thereby ruled inadmissable in any debate about Catholic ethics on life and death. Here's how she puts 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.
That's how Ratzinger sees it, of course. He is the sole guardian of truth; debate is pointless; all that is required is obedience; and those who are disobedient are barred from even speaking in the Catholic conversation. But to see this rigidity echoed among some lay-people shows the extent to which anti-intellectualism truly has taken hold. (For the record, I did not defend Schwarzenegger's alleged sexual gropings. I called them gross and wrong. I merely defended his consensual past sex life and opposed the campaign to use his sexual past to prevent his election.)

Where to start?

First, Andrew, where have I ever said that you are "no longer a Catholic?" Cite one sentence from anything I've written that says *I* don't consider you a Catholic. I may have discussed *your* declaration that you are no longer a Catholic, but I indeed spent a good deal of time, much to the consternation of my readers, in August, reflecting on your situation in what I hoped was the most generous light, trying to utilize your situation as a means for reflecting on the problems many of us have with various aspects of Church teaching, and guiding discussions here and at my old blog about what it means to be Catholic. And in addition, you will find nothing in my own words but hope that you would have found a way to stay, if your conscience in any way allowed you.

So, I think you should retract that statement. It's not true. It's a lie.

What I did say is that you've rejected the Church's teaching on sexuality. Is than untrue? Is that inaccurate?

And, one more thing before I take my kid to the sitters so I can work on my manuscript - what the HELL is a "Ratzingerite?" Define it. Cite any moment in anything I've written when I have even mentioned Ratzinger, except the time when he slapped that reporter on the wrist. What does that mean? You have a fine, incisive mind - use it on this issue, and tell us how the defense of life is, as you seem to imply, a quirk of the contemporary pontificate, and totally out of synch with the rest of Church tradition. That's what grouping a position like mine under the monikker of the head of the Congregation of the Defense of the Faith or whatever it is implies. How is that so? How is what the position in defense of life an anomoly?

And further, I am enraged that Andrew Sullivan in his widely read blog implies and characterizes me as a person closed to debate. If he even ever read this blog for five minutes, he would see that most of my job is not opining but hosting debates, and giving a place for people to disagree with me to sound off, much to the consternation of some readers. I have taken heat for my willingness to entertain debate and reflection on knotty questions of sexuality, including artificial contraception and homosexuality, as well as on the Iraq war. It is simply unfair.

Further, if he had read this blog he would know that the distinctions about end-of-life care that he seems to think he is the only person who discerns have been brought out and teased apart here, and repeatedly stated by me. The point is that in THIS CASE, there are questions. NO ONE who supports feeding Terri Schiavo adheres to physical life at all costs, least of all me. And if Andrew Sullivan had actually taken the time to read everything I've written on this situation for the past month, and followed the debates in the comments sections, he would know this.

But I guess that's just too hard.

But the questions remain:

When did I declare Andrew Sullivan not a Catholic?
When did I declare myself a Ratzingerite?
What the hell is a Ratzingerite anyway?

Comments

[Donald R. Mcclarey]

A Ratzingerite is a Catholic who has the temerity to disagree with any of Mr. Sullivan's ex cathedra statements.

[mary]

In a court of law when one attorney introduces an issue he opens the door to the discussion of that issue. Mr. Sullivan opened the door to issues of sexual orientation by using Terri’s case to defend same sex marriage. Forget the Catechism Mr. Sullivan why don’t you review the contents of the marriage vows “In sickness and in health” and the requirement of fidelity-physical and emotional. What that means Mr. Sullivan, is that if my husband (God prevent) had a debilitating stroke tonight-never again to walk, never again to be able to communicate in any way- I would be required to care and be faithful to him and my vows until his or my dying day. That is what marriage is Mr. Sullivan. Faithfulness, and it is not just a Catholic concept. It is not having an affair while your spouse lies critically ill, it is not becoming engaged to another person while your spouse still lives, it is certainly not bringing children into this world outside of the sanctity of marriage. If Mr. Schiavo can be justly accused of one thing it is breaking and annihilating his marriage vows. He should not determine Terri’s fate because he has long since stop functioning as Terri’s husband. And if the courts are misinterpreting the law in his favor, then in a democracy the law should be changed by our elected representatives, because that is what we elect them to do-create laws!

[saint]

Amy,
I'm not a Catholic and never have been. But I am a regular reader of your blog, and occasional reader of Mr Sullivan's. I will have to say you are the most even-handed Catholic blogger/writer I know - whether commenting on Mr Sullivan's public confessions (and you have never once intomated Sullivan was no longer a Catholic - and I personally am not so generous)
or the complexities of Terri's case, you have extended grace and the benefit of the doubt in bigger measures than I could ever dish out. And you have been generous too in your willingness to allow debate, even encouraged it. You have integrity and guts that I admire, even if I don't agree with every last skerrick of Catholic theology. In you, I recognize a true woman of God.

In any case, I am not surprised Sullivan has chosen to lash out at you personally, and not at anything you wrote. Why, because we have all seen it a thousand times before. Mr Sullivan is not the first to have walked the road he is travelling on. And some of us have also walked that road before ourselves, which makes it easier to recognise. Sullivan is merely shaking his fist at Christ. And that means he will shake his fist at any who are Christ's ambassadors. Sorry Andrew, my opinion.

But whehter I am right or wrong on this is irrelevant; what is obviously true, even to ordinary half-brained individuals like me: Sullivan owes you a public apology for his false accusations, and yes, blatant lies.

And I probably owe you an apology Amy, for just sounding off on your blog.

[c matt]

A.S. makes typical ad hominem attacks against Amy. As one who frequents her blog, and frequently disagrees with some of the posts, she has been one of the more open to debate hosts around (much more so than A.S.). Intellectualism is not an end in itself. In fact, intellectualism is often the enemy of open ideas and debate. Intellectualism means dismissing arguments because the person propounding such does not possess the required (or desired) pedigree. I would be glad to be labeled and anti-intellectual.

Having said that, A.S. is perfectly within reason to cite to the CCC to prove a point to those who accept the CCC. However, in doing so, he needs to cite accurately and fully if he wishes to be persuasive, and more important, he must also accept as correct the "official" interpretations of the catechism as binding (i.e., Tradition as interpreted by those with authority to do so), not his own interpretations of it.

[c matt]

A.S. makes typical ad hominem attacks against Amy. As one who frequents her blog, and frequently disagrees with some of the posts, she has been one of the more open to debate hosts around (much more so than A.S.). Intellectualism is not an end in itself. In fact, intellectualism is often the enemy of open ideas and debate. Intellectualism means dismissing arguments because the person propounding such does not possess the required (or desired) pedigree. I would be glad to be labeled and anti-intellectual.

Having said that, A.S. is perfectly within reason to cite to the CCC to prove a point to those who accept the CCC. However, in doing so, he needs to cite accurately and fully if he wishes to be persuasive, and more important, he must also accept as correct the "official" interpretations of the catechism as binding (i.e., Tradition as interpreted by those with authority to do so), not his own interpretations of it.

[Patrick Rothwell]

I agree that there was nothing wrong in itself with Andrew Sullivan quoting the CCC to prove a point to accept the CCC as authoritative.

The problem with Andrew Sullivan's post was that the CCC passage which discussed the distinction between the use of medical treatment that is overly burdensome and those that are not, does not in itself address or resolve the problem of Terri Schiavo's condition at all. There are other issues involved including (a) the end Mr. Schiavo is seeking, i.e., he is withdrawing nutrition and hydration for the purpose of killing her and (b) the issue of whether nutrition and hydration is "overly burdensome treatment" or "ordinary care," (c) whether Terri is in PVS or even if that matters, and (d) the allegations that Michael Schiavo only sought to withdraw nutrition after receiving a pile of money to be used in part for her maintenance. After reading his quote of the CCC, one reasonably asks, "And? So?"

Andrew then follows by making the non-sensical statement that because Christianity believes in the glory of the afterlife, that he finds it somewhat illegitimate that Christians should be concerned about the protection of life in this world. That argument was a non-sequitur and Sully should know better.

All of that considered along with the gratuitous "Ratzingerite," (as if Amy and Mark were adherents of some peculiar heretical sect like the "Hussites",) Andrew's post was nothing more than a temper tantrum directed at "religious conservatives" in general.

I have been critical of religious conservatives who gratuitously dump on Sully. Yet it seems to me that the more he engages in nonsensical diatribes against Catholic conservatives that completely miss the mark despite his sharp analytical skills in almost every other respect, the more likely it is that Mark Shea may be on to something: when the little head goes up, the big head goes out the window. Sully is a smart man and can and has critiqued religious conservatives better.

[Steve]

A Ratzingerite is anyone who is a faithful Catholic. I'm a cradle Protestant (LOL), but I'd rather be a Ratzingerite than just about anything else.

Is it not the case that Andrew Sullivan is self-excommunicated? Is that not canon law?

The Hussites weren't heretics. They were VII Catholics (letter, not 'spirit of') a few centuries too early, and didn't get the promised hearing at Constance.

[The Barrister]

I don't disagree with Patrick Rothwell, but wanted to point out one minor discrepancy regarding Andy's citation to the CCC.

I also don't have a huge problem with Andy turning to the CCC, but the part he cited has nothing to do with Terri's situation at all. Patrick is correct: Food and water is NEITHER "burdensome" NOR "ordinary" medical care. I go one further: more specifically, food and water is simply NOT medical care. Period. Food and water are the staples of life, and no one has the right to deny those things to another.

So although Andy has the general right to cite to the CCC, the section he cited has nothing to do with this case, and he shouldn't cite it in a skewed argument to support his chosen degenerate lifestyle.

[Registered Independent Joel]

I gave up on Sully a long time ago. He is indeed brilliant, but his political and social commentary is so shallow and inconsistent that he is painful to read. A wasted intellect.

Don't let it bother you that he has decided to attack you. He's a pygmie in comparison, never mind the sitemeter stats.

[Rosemarie]

+J.M.J+

A few years back, my husband was debating with a bitter ex-Catholic who mockingly called him a "Hahnite" (ie. follower of Scott Hahn). Which was absurd, since Jim studied the works of many Catholic apologists, and had no particular attachment to Scott Hahn over any other apologist. But no matter how much we tried to say "We're Catholics, not Hahnites!", he just called us that all the more!

I think that some people enjoy calling their opponents names like that. It makes it easier to dismiss an opponent if you can tag a lable on him which makes it seem like he belongs to some fanatical sect centered around one man. Ever hear the saying, "I'd rather be listened to than labled"? Once you lable someone it gives you an excuse to stop listening to them, I think.

In Jesu et Maria,

[Mark Cameron]

A great irony here is that what touched this off was Sullivan's pointing out that the Catechism was more nuanced on when life saving treatment could be withdrawn then some American Catholic pro-lifers seem to be. And who is the main co-author of the Catechism? Cardinal Ratzinger (along with Cardinal Schonboern of Vienna). So a Ratzingerite is somebody who disagrees with what Ratzinger wrote in the Catechism?

[Nicole]

Amy, this is a huge bummer. I agree with others who have said that you are one of the most civil, even-handed bloggers around. I don't blame you for being upset.

HUGS,
Nicole

[SJ]

Sullivan acknowledged the irony today: "All I was trying to do by quoting the Catechism is to show that even under Ratzinger, there is an understanding of a balance here."

I'm also not sure that it's accurate to characterize Sullivan's statement that "The extreme defense of keeping people on earth at all costs seems an odd priority for a Christian church" as equivalent to "[since] Christianity believes in the glory of the afterlife ... he finds it somewhat illegitimate that Christians should be concerned about the protection of life in this world." I have been struck by some who have posted who state that Terri could not have ever stated that she would prefer not to be kept on life support, as everyone would prefer to be alive, even if in PVS. I'm fairly certain that's not true, and I think the promise of an afterlife certainly tempers the urge to cling to this life.

Now it is clear that this bog has contained diverse views on this issue.

[test]

test

[bryan]

go rape some altar boy.

[Sage]

I agree with Registered Independent, above, though I still read Sully almost daily. His considerable intellect becomes conspicuously hobbled when dealing with any issue about which he has the slightest personal stake.

He regularly demonizes his opponents as the the intellectual and political heirs of Herr Hitler, refers incessantly to the "theocratic right" as a way of discrediting anybody to the right of, well, himself, and never seems to find a single praiseworthy thing to say about his precious Church, ever, ever, ever.

He's hypersensistive, melodramatic, and irrational where questions of Catholicism are concerned. It must be asked: why remain Catholic? Is the Church right about the True Presence and wrong about nearly everything else? At any rate, his use of a document he does not find authoritative to bolster a point not even supported by that same document is telling indeed.

Remember, Andrew, that it is YOU who finds the CCC superfluous--you agree with it only where it agrees with you. Which is to say, you believe it's either unnecessary or wrong, in every instance. So don't be surprised if people who take it seriously are miffed by your hypocrisy, and don't be surprised when they give as well as they get.

[S.F.]

I simply don't understand why Andrew Sullivan is taken seriously. He's a second-rate intellectual. He generally mischaracterizes religious conservatives and their opinions. It's one thing to disagree. Another to consistently get the facts wrong.

There are only two possiblilities with Sullivan. The first is that he lies about Catholicism. The second is that he so damn ignorant about Catholicism, that he can't get it right. Either way, he's wrong.

[Matthew]

Keep it all in perspective, Amy. As faithful Catholics, we have all had the unpleasant experience of being attacked by CINO's ('Catholics-In-Name-Only' - who are generally people who haven't seen the inside of a church since their mom stopped making them go to CCD in 6th grade). They love to regale how they've become enlightened to the Church's flaws, and how they decided they would never support the Chruch as a result of some self-righteous epiphany they had. I realize I paint with a broad brush here, but this has been my experience with CINO's.

I think most CINO's believe that calling themselves 'Catholic' lends their swipes and barbed comments toward the Church an air of legitimacy. Personally, I've had CINO's rail on me over abortion, women priests, celibate priests, birth control, and just about any other tenet of the Church that doesn't jive with their TV-driven view of the world. Even if you won't say it, I believe Andrew Sullivan is just another flavor of your garden variety CINO.

What has always been clear to me in watching Sullivan's tedious (and very public) struggle between his sex life and his Church is that Sullivan's gay-agenda has ALWAYS been stronger than his support of the Catholic Church.

The man has a clear agenda when it comes to homosexuality. Everything he says should be viewed through that lens. And you should not take any of his attacks personally.