Double-clutching the standard: how retaining fornicators leads to more abortion

January 25, 2013 § 74 Comments

The case of the unmarried woman who voluntarily disqualified herself from her job as a Catholic first grade teacher by fornicating and becoming pregnant has in my view become something of a litmus test for disordered views of justice and mercy.

Basically it has divided the world into those who care more about standards and those who care more about double-standards.

There is no question of this case being about mercy simpliciter.   If it were about mercy simpliciter the woman would not be suing the diocese.  She is suing the diocese because she feels she is entitled to the job she lost, even though she lost it because she voluntarily broke her contract.

Moreover, she feels entitled to the job precisely because she perceives a double standard.  She is not outraged that men are getting away with fornicating: she is outraged that some women are not.  The existence of a double-standard inherent in the nature of things is an outrage, and must be nullified by eliminating the standard altogether — even though she herself explicitly agreed to the standard when she signed the contract.  Eliminating double-standards – not even actual double-standards in principle, but in-practice double standards dictated by the nature of the differences between men and women – takes priority over standards.

It is precisely this liberal understanding of double-standards as the worst kind of injustice which drives the abortion holocaust.  Anyone who has read some of the canonical feminist works – say Backlash by Susan Faludi, for example – can see that the driving factor behind abortion is the double standard of nature herself: the fact that women can become pregnant but men cannot.  This is a basic violation of equality: a double standard.  So women must be allowed to abort.

If your goal is to add fuel to the fire of the abortion holocaust, one of the best ways to do so is to keep pretending that this case is about mercy.

About these ads

§ 74 Responses to Double-clutching the standard: how retaining fornicators leads to more abortion

  • Scott W. says:

    She is not outraged that men are getting away with fornicating: she is outraged that some women are not

    Isn’t this the old, “Gee officer, why are you pulling me over for doing 70 in a 55 zone, when I saw at least three cars whizz by at 90?” ?

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    It is far worse than that. Because some people can afford radar detectors they can speed and still avoid tickets. But some people being able to avoid tickets while others can’t is inherently unfair, so therefore all traffic law must be eliminated.

    Equality is a jealous god.

    The analogy would be better if men or white people or whatever were born with built-in radar detectors. We aren’t talking about an actual double-standard here, where the contract reads “men can fornicate, women must not”: we are talking about the given facts of nature making getting away with certain sins more difficult for some people than for others. Men in general can get away with robbery more easily than women, because men are generally stronger and faster than women: therefore women should be entitled to commit robbery.

    Even that has its weaknesses as an analogy, because “able to become pregnant” is a categorical distinction not a distinction of degree.

  • [...] The terrorists do worse things to our people when they capture them. Double-clutching the standard [...]

  • How do you know what she’s outraged about? You’re assuming a lot of things about this woman and this situation that you don’t know, and you’re accusing her of motivations based on your prejudiced assumptions.

    That’s wrong. That’s sinful.

  • Zippy says:

    Naveen:
    How do you know what she’s outraged about?

    By reading her published words and observing her public actions.

  • sad says:

    When I argued for mercy, I did not know that she had sued the diocese. That’s different. No school can help but employ teachers who are sinners. Sins of gluttony, wrath, envy, pride, etc. are not less obvious than sins of lust. But no student should be exposed to a teacher who does not admit that her sin is, in fact, a sin. Children should not be taught by obstinate heretics.

    I still disagree with Zippy over the proper way to react to a repentant sinner: the hostage-taker analogy can’t even limp; it’s crippled. But this is not that situation.

  • Zippy says:

    Sad:
    Where specifically have I made an objectionable suggestion about how one should respond to a repentant sinner?

  • Scott W. says:

    the hostage-taker analogy can’t even limp; it’s crippled

    Ok, how would you characterize the argument that goes, “If we don’t give her her job back, this sends the message to other women that it is better to secretly abort than to have the baby.”?

  • Her words and actions make a very good point — if a clause in an employment contract targets one group of people specifically, it IS discriminatory.

    The burden is on the school to prove they’ve done their due diligence and can state that none of their other teachers are behaving immorally.

    And if the school is only penalizing openly immoral behavior, then they’re a pack of hypocrites — what they’re saying is that they only care about appearances. You can fornicate to your heart’s content until it becomes obvious, you can steal, lie, cheat, harbor hatred in your heart, you can gossip, malinger, amass a porn collection, etc., and that’s okay. It’s just when those things become public and embarrass the school that they’re wrong.

  • Zippy says:

    Naveen:
    The burden is on the school to prove they’ve done their due diligence and can state that none of their other teachers are behaving immorally.

    You express well the view that standards must not be enforced unless the very possibility of a double-standard — even an accidental one caused by nature — has been ruled out.

    Equality is a jealous god.

    And if the school is only penalizing openly immoral behavior, then they’re a pack of hypocrites –

    Right. It is wrong and hypocritical (which is super-duper wrong) to enforce standards against observed behavior unless those same standards are enforced against all unobserved behavior too. And it would be tyrannical imposition to try to do the additional observing, by the way.

    Equality is a jealous god.

  • Scott W. says:

    That’s not a reasonable standard because a). It’s not targeting one group of people specifically. If I rob a bank and the school fires me and refuses to rehire me after I get out of jail, I can’t reasonably appeal to the idea that the contract singles out bank robbers. B). People are entitled to a good faith assumption of good reputation unless that person gives serious, manifest reasons why they shouldn’t have it. As the Catechism puts it:

    2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

    - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

    - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them

    - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

    2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way

    So this idea of “prove that everyone in the staff isn’t a sinner before you fire anybody” isn’t reasonable.

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    So this idea of “prove that everyone in the staff isn’t a sinner before you fire anybody” isn’t reasonable.

    I have the impression that most folks who claim that observed behavior can warrant termination[*] only when due diligence has been done on all unobserved behavior aren’t really too keen on the idea of all the due diligence that would require. If the school actually attempted to do so the same people would be up in arms about the tyrannical privacy violation; and on that front I would likely even agree with them.

    The idea seems to be to create an insurmountable practical barrier to meeting the demands for nondiscrimination, such that (surprise, surprise) the end result is that there is an openly acknowledged license to fornicate without consequences.

    This of course leads to a requirement for an openly acknowledged license to have an abortion: people might object that it is “morally wrong” as a matter of private morality, but when it comes to public conduct abortion must be permitted and without material consequence.

    Equality is a jealous god, and he demands his human sacrifice.

    [*] Even calling this a case of ‘termination’ reframes the discussion in a question-begging way, painting the school as the bad guy. She voluntarily disqualified herself for the job she took.

  • I don’t think it’s useful to use examples of crime here — of course any teacher arrested for and convicted of a felony is going to be fired. Sin and crime overlap, but they are not one and the same — not to go all Les Miz on you, but if a man steals a loaf of bread in desperation because his children are starving, he’s guilty of the crime of theft, but the Church acknowledges that his behavior may not be sinful.

    Under the same circumstances, would this particular diocese allow a woman who becomes pregnant from rape to maintain her position as a first grade teacher? She has committed no immoral act. AAMOF, she is acting heroically — she is setting a totally appropriate, even saintly, example to her students. My guess, however, is that they would remove her from the classroom but offer her an administrative position and continue her benefits, even offer her counselling and other resources.

    This diocese slammed the door in this woman’s face — and you still have no idea how “repentant” she is — that’s not yours to know — that’s God’s business. Their response to her was “you’re fired, and we’re taking your bennies away, get lost.”. Not exactly the kind of pastoral care one would think they’d offer. I don’t blame her for suing. The hierarchy of the Church, at the higher levels, consists of pompous, privileged, prideful men who have proven time and time again that their gods are image, power, prestige and ego.

    At the very least, they coldly and cavalierly failed her unborn children. So much for pro-life.

    As for the equality issues, the law is very clear. She cannot be fired for being pregnant, and that’s clearly why she’s being fired here — her pregnancy. Not her “fornication”, but the visible manifestation of her actions. From a legal standpoint, unless the diocese can prove that their other employees (in the words of the clause in question) “”comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church”, then they are clearly singling her out not for her actions, but for her pregnancy. That’s the law. It’s a civil suit. And had the diocese acted pastorally instead of pridefully, they would have a) set a shining example of Christ’s love, b) had an opportunity to soften this woman’s heart and encourage her conversion, and c) not handed more fodder to the pro-choice movement. Too late now. They blew it. And the only way to reach those ridiculous, pompous prigs is to hit ‘em where it hurts — their bank accounts and their public image. It’s the only language they understand.

    Equality is a jealous god… So what? God is a jealous God.

  • Scott W. says:

    I just had an image of the Super Bowl where every time the ref throws the flag it is sent for official review to make sure the other 21 players weren’t holding.

    “Welcome to the 7th hour of Super Bowl XLVII! If you are just joining us, the entire officiating team was walked out in frustration and the offensive line is now carrying baseball bats wrapped in barbed-wire.” :D

  • Zippy says:

    Naveen:
    Equality is a jealous god… So what? God is a jealous God

    You must choose which one you serve.

  • Scott W. says:

    Equality is a jealous god… So what?

    That’s easy. You are worshiping the wrong god.

  • Zippy says:

    Naveen:
    not to go all Les Miz on you, but if a man steals a loaf of bread in desperation because his children are starving, he’s guilty of the crime of theft, but the Church acknowledges that his behavior may not be sinful.

    I disagree.

    would this particular diocese allow a woman who becomes pregnant from rape to maintain her position as a first grade teacher? She has committed no immoral act. AAMOF, she is acting heroically — she is setting a totally appropriate, even saintly, example to her students. My guess, however, is that they would remove her from the classroom but offer her an administrative position and continue her benefits, even offer her counselling and other resources.

    In this hypothetical situation that didn’t actually happen, you and I would stand together in criticizing that hypothetical diocese.

  • Scott W. says:

    In this hypothetical situation that didn’t actually happen, you and I would stand together in criticizing that hypothetical diocese.

    And you have my bow.
    And my wife’s axe.
    Five more people and we can be the Fellowship of Hypothetical Outrage.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    not to go all Les Miz on you, but if a man steals a loaf of bread in desperation because his children are starving, he’s guilty of the crime of theft, but the Church acknowledges that his behavior may not be sinful.

    I disagree.

    I am glad to hear you say that. It seems pretty clear to me that the Church’s charism is not to demand starving thieves go free, but to visit them in prison.

  • Scott, I’m not the one worshiping the wrong God. I don’t worship laws and dogma and doctrine and pompous old men. God, through Christ, is crystal clear on how we’re to worship him. Hiding behind human institutions and legal technicalities in order to pridefully and mean-spiritedly weasel out of doing the right thing is not worshiping God.

    This diocese, this Worland, they showed everyone which god they serve, and it wasn’t Christ. Their actions don’t “”comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church”.

    There are no winners here — this woman’s heart has hardened, perhaps irreparably, the pro-choicers get to say “I told you so”, and the hierarchy of the Church, yet again, proves to the world that they’re essentially a bunch of misogynistic creeps. Good work. Satan must be beside himself with glee.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    You have to read the linked post to understand the nature of my disagreement.

  • Cane Caldo, it seems to me the Church’s “charism” is to fill their bellies with food other people paid for while others go hungry and then make a big show of visiting starving thieves in prison after those poor people are driven to desperate measures in order to save their children from starvation. Please. Cardinal Dolan alone could provide food for an entire third world nation if he’d give up a mere third of what he’s clearly shoveling into his face every day. And why is he allowed to continue to behave immorally, with the outward signs of his gluttony and sloth evident to all, while this woman gets fired?

  • Zippy says:

    Haters gotta hate.

  • Scott W. says:

    I see. Venom for Jesus.

  • So…pointing out that the pastoral, Christ-like response to this woman would have been to, at the very least, make sure she had access to prenatal care for her unborn child is “hate”? That’s Catholic teaching?

    Wow. I think we can all see who the real haters are here. You would rather be technically right than do what Christ would do. That’s pure pride. And we know who pride belongs to.

  • Scott W. says:

    Naveen. You coughed the usual politically-correct platitudes, they disintegrated on first scrutiny, and then you went into a torrent of anti-Catholic bigotry like a helicopter with its rear-rotor shot off. Given that, I think all our responses were quite measured.

  • Nonsense, Scott. I don’t give a rat’s ass about political correctness. It’s the Christian thing to go beyond the mere letter of some contract and help this woman, and that does not “disintegrate on scrutiny” at all.

    I hardly went into a torrent of anti-Catholic bigotry. I am Catholic. I pointed out that the hierarchy has a long history of succumbing to the sin of pride over doing the pastorally correct thing to do in situations like this.

    Who did their actions serve? This woman and her unborn children? Nope. God? Nope. The PR department at their diocese? Worland’s ego? Yep. In short, their actions served Satan, not God. That’s all that matters. Anything else is a bunch of ridiculous, unemployed men paying stupid rhetorical games on teh internets.

  • Zippy says:

    Naveen:
    Who did their actions serve?

    God. Truth. The “fired” teacher herself. And, as I show in the OP, unborn children in the crosshairs of the abortion regime.

  • Theoretical unborn children who haven’t even been conceived yet have no place in this discussion, remember?

    Refusing a simple act of kindness to a person in need, regardless of how fallen they are, does not serve God. It serves Satan. Period.

    You can “show” whatever you want if that’s what cranks your tractor. Christ showed us something else. And that’s the only thing that counts.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @ZC

    True, but at the moment I don’t want to. When you get into–or, rather–when I get into your more particular theory/moral theologies I get, ah…I’ll call the amalgamation of sensations: frustrated.

    You’re in good company: I have to read St. Augustine out-loud to keep track of where he’s going.

    Nevertheless, I still think that what I said was right. There may be more to say, and various tribunal distinctions and whatnot, but I’m a Protestant. You get what you pay for.

  • Zippy says:

    Naveen:
    Theoretical unborn children who haven’t even been conceived yet have no place in this discussion, remember?

    You mean the hostages we are assured will be aborted because of this incident?

  • I’ve never asserted that this incident will cause other women to abort.

    The situation does, however, fuel the fires of the pro-choice crowd because it IS hypocritical and callous.

  • Scott W. says:

    men paying stupid rhetorical games on teh internets.

    Physician, heal thyself.

  • Oh, I”m serious. You’re just playing games.

  • Scott W. says:

    Ok, look. Believe it or not, I am actually interested in the Truth. I’ll give anything you say its due attention and respond patiently as long as it isn’t accusing people who disagree as being minions of Satan. Deal?

  • Zippy says:

    Naveen:
    You had me at “Look how fat Cardinal Dolan is.”

    If your … arguments … represent the best the counterpoint has to offer, my work here is done.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    Ok, look. Believe it or not, I am actually interested in the Truth. I’ll give anything you say its due attention and respond patiently as long as it isn’t accusing people who disagree as being minions of Satan. Deal?

    No, no, no! You’re execution is all wrong. Naveen doesn’t give a crap if you’re interested in “the Truth”. For goodness sake: Naveen isn’t interested in the little “t” truth. She’s interested in telling men off. And:–she’ll have you know–she’s very serious about it.

    If you want to win her over: Try spanking her….verbally, of course; not physically. Who knows where a girl that speaks like that has been?

  • Scott W. says:

    Naveen is female?

  • Scott W. says:

    As an aside, I read in the article on her lawsuit: “Quinlan’s attorney argued that, ‘as a non-ministerial employee, (she) was not subject to a ‘morality clause.’”

    Someone at Mark’s blog mention that this will be a test of the Supreme Court’s Hosanna-Tabor ruling. The upshot of which is that the government has officially declared that it is not in the business of saying who is and isn’t a minister in a church.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    Naveen is female?

    I address folks in the gender they present themselves without worrying about what may or may not be under the girdle.

  • Scott W. says:

    I address folks in the gender they present themselves without worrying about what may or may not be under the girdle.

    Fair enough. I wasn’t paying close enough attention I guess and got it in my head that I was talking to a guy. Now that I re-read, I should have figured that out. Oh well.

    Anyway, you gave me a brain wave related to Game. I take a pretty dim view of it, but this whole episode here and elsewhere screams Dalrok’s White Knight theory. There are two narratives possible: One is a poor women looking for mercy and forgiveness and not getting it from a bunch of meanies in the Church. The other is a woman who was never really interested in mercy and forgiveness, thumbing her nose at the Church’s teaching from the get-go (which the lawsuit claiming the church’s silly morality rules don’t apply to her really drives home) and wanting to keep their booty in the process. Everyone has automatically assumed the former even in face of the fact that much in the public record that suggests the latter. That she volunteered for a behind-the-scenes job is just negotiating what you think you are entitled to. Now, I’m actually a pretty merciful and forgiving guy, but it is all predicated on the presence of contrition, and so far, no one has presented a scintilla of evidence for it as far as I can tell.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    Anyway, you gave me a brain wave related to Game.

    My mind-rays do that.

    Yes, she is demanding the courtesies of chivalry without bending the knee and accepting her judgment. She has made mercy impossible.

    I take a dim view of Game because I’m good at it. That’s not quite right, but it is going in the general direction.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Naveen – {There are no winners here — this woman’s heart has hardened, perhaps irreparably, the pro-choicers get to say “I told you so”, and the hierarchy of the Church, yet again, proves to the world that they’re essentially a bunch of misogynistic creeps. Good work. Satan must be beside himself with glee}

    So not so much about honouring your word, vis-a-vie a signed contract, more about how the “others” can use this for a “gotcha” moment?

    Why is the West sinking below the waves? Because it is all about freedom, and no longer about responsibility.

  • DeNihilist says:

    And one other thing, as I posted in the one below this one, the double standard gobbley-gook is a huge strawman. This woman could have easily kept on having her cake and eating it too. With all of the different methods to prevent pregnancy nowadays, there is no reason for her to get pregnant, except that she wanted too. And she wants to be able to break her word/contract, because that should be her right.

    Almost sounds like this is a set-up to attack the Church and its’ way!

  • DeNihilist says:

    Naveen – {Nonsense, Scott. I don’t give a rat’s ass about political correctness. It’s the Christian thing to go beyond the mere letter of some contract and help this woman, and that does not “disintegrate on scrutiny” at all. }

    Naveen, has the thought ever passed through your mind, that maybe, actually making someone accept their word, i.e. agreeing to a moral standard conduct, then accepting the consquences of breaking such word, might be the best kind of help?

    I don’t know if you have kids, but if you raised them with the atitude that their word is worthless and means nothing to break it, then you are not helping said children to grow into mature persons.

  • I have five children and four grandchildren (so far). I raised them just fine, thank you very much.

    Frankly, given the latest post on this blog, I think the author is quite deeply mentally ill. I think the lot of you posting here are very sad, disturbed men who have some kind of axe to grind with women. I don’t know what your mommies did or didn’t do to you, but I feel sorry for you. You’ll never know fatherhood or grandfatherhood. You’ll never know what it is to be a husband. You’ll never see the face of Christ as you extend mercy or receive mercy. You’re cold, cold, dead men, failed men, and there is nothing decent or honorable about any of you.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Yes you are right Naveem, going back on your word is honourable and decent.

    PS – every time I look into a mirror I see the face of Christ.

  • Other than the inherently discriminatory (in practice, at least) nature of the employment clause this woman signed, my issue isn’t with the school removing her from her position.

    My problem is that they are refusing her any help whatsover in regards to her health insurance, or in perhaps helping her to find work elsewhere. They are exhibiting a level of cold cruelty towards her and her children that is not in keeping with Christ’s message.

    That face you see isn’t Christ. It’s Satan.

    You are clearly incapable of the tiniest shred of genuine compassion. You are as cruel and cold and uncaring as the author of this blog and the other buffoons who are oh-so-gleefully delighting in this woman’s predicament.

    You are enjoying her suffering. That much is clear. The author of this blog is clearly furious that it’s no longer possible to publicly shame her. He clearly would like to see the reinstatement of the Magdalen Laundries, or the Catholic adoption agencies who took children away from their mothers illegally. He’s a sick, sick person, and it’s probably inadvisable for him to be around women and children. There’s something gone terribly wrong with hin. He won’t be happy until he can personally do something to this woman that will satisfy his sick need to see her destroyed.

  • Zippy says:

    Naveen:
    My problem is that they are refusing her any help whatsover in regards to her health insurance, or in perhaps helping her to find work elsewhere.

    How do you know that? It certainly seems counter to the facts we do know. Most dioceses have crisis pregnancy centers and all sorts of other resources to help unwed mothers.

    Someone earlier in the thread said this:

    You’re assuming a lot of things about [these people] and this situation that you don’t know, and you’re accusing [them] of motivations based on your prejudiced assumptions.

    That’s wrong. That’s sinful.

    Who might that have been?

  • The fact the diocese cancelled her insurance is on record. So is Worland’s response to her. Didn’t you read them? I did. I’m not assuming anything. I’m going on the facts of the case. You’re going on YOUR assumptions about another person’s motivations. Totally different thing.

    You’re a very sad, sick little man, “Zippy”. Very sad and, I suspect, very lonely. Enjoy the circle-jerk you’ve got going here with your boyfriends. We have dinner reservations with old friends and I really can’t be bothered with your ugly-minded, cold-hearted, mentally-ill blatherings anymore. Bye.

  • katmandutu says:

    Naveen…. PUT… DOWN…..YOUR… KNIFE..

    (Commenters back slowly away..)

    It’s okay.. Nobody is out to get you(or any other woman) here..

    You are becoming abusive and irrational..

    These guys are a bunch of concerned and decent Christian men discussing a blog post, in a calm and rational manner.

    A cup of tea perhaps? Maybe a lie down?

    There, there.. It will be alright.

    Truly..

    Give your therapist a call and make another appointment, ‘kay

  • Cane Caldo says:

    That was pretty spectacular.

  • ybm says:

    *sad trombone*

  • Gabriella says:

    Two words for Naveen

    Pregnancy Medicaid.

  • Scott W. says:

    Other than the inherently discriminatory (in practice, at least) nature of the employment clause this woman signed, my issue isn’t with the school removing her from her position.

    In other words, this entire combox rhetorical meltdown could have been avoided if we all agreed what the topic of discussion was?

    In any case, correct me if I’m wrong, but insurance would have come out of her wage. No wage, no premium paid, no insurance. Naturally, someone can stay insured if they pick up the premiums out of their own pocket, but it is standard operating procedure that when you quit just about any job with benefits, those benefits lapse. Now, I am entirely amenable to the school keeping up the insurance (assuming that is possible with all the fraud regulations that I won’t even pretend to know about), but it’s not like Worland rubbed his hands together and went “Muahahaha! I’ll show her by cancelling her insurance. Frankly, for all I know she was on the horn to a lawyer who told her not to take any charity from the school for the sake of the case.

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    In other words, this entire combox rhetorical meltdown could have been avoided if we all agreed what the topic of discussion was?

    I’ve allowed Naveen’s rants to proceed, despite the personal attacks on commenters (not just on myself — as if I would find the opinions of random strangers on the Internet, about me personally, in any way significant), because I think they may be edifying as an example. Hopefully other commenters who were subjected to personal vitriol don’t mind.

  • Scott W. says:

    Hopefully other commenters who were subjected to personal vitriol don’t mind.

    Obviously rash judgment and calumny are wrong and ought to be repented of, but years of net discussion have taught me not to take it personally. I try to keep this and this in mind.

  • Dalrock says:

    He’s a sick, sick person, and it’s probably inadvisable for him to be around women and children. There’s something gone terribly wrong with hin.

    I think there must be a web page that generates this stuff (www.ilostanargument.com?), because the similarity is uncanny.

    At any rate, this is why we can’t leave slut island.

  • Svar says:

    “You’re a very sad, sick little man, “Zippy”. Very sad and, I suspect, very lonely. Enjoy the circle-jerk you’ve got going here with your boyfriends.”

    This is from a mother and a grandmother? How low have we stooped.

  • Zippy says:

    I am tempted to make some of Naveen’s statements into my masthead. But I’m really fond of the Pauli quote.

  • Svar says:

    Here is the irony: Naveen cares more about how the pro-lifers look to the pro-choice crowd more than they do to God or the Church.

    On the same note, she accuses the Church hierarchy of being pompous and concerned only with public image than with the standards and rules as laid out by God.

    It’s funny how in these times people so advanced in years could still think like this.

  • Svar says:

    Another thing that’s ironic: Naveen accusations of hatred offset with her accusations of homosexuality and “circle-jerks” just because some men calmy disagree with her.

  • Svar says:

    Also, why do these people always claim to know what Christ would do? Why do they expect that Christ would go against His Father?

    Did Christ not condemn sinners or something? Is that the deal?

  • DeNihilist says:

    Naveen – {That face you see isn’t Christ. It’s Satan. }

    I guess I better check the latest updates to the Bible. I must have missed the redaction of “we are created in God’s image”

    Ah, hold on, does anyone know if the Arch Angels were also created in God’s image? If so, then maybe Naveem you have a point.

    Grrr, usually Sundays are for rest and contemplation of the Sacred Mysteries of our Holy Mother. Now it will be about the image in the mirror!
    :)

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    “Sundays are for rest and contemplation of the Sacred Mysteries of our Holy Mother.”

    I realize you did not say this, but is this an accurate statement of RC doctrine?

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    Not without lots of explanation and qualification — enough to leave the original statement pretty unrecognizable.

    Why, who said it and what is its significance to the discussion?

  • Cane Caldo says:

    DeNihilist just above me. It is off-topic, but–as I respect your opinion–I was going to email you if you had answered “yes”.

  • Zippy says:

    Ah. My OT mental comment reading filter must have blanked it.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Cane, some of us Catholics dedicate some time to trying to understand the mysteries of Our Mother.

    Embarrasing eh?

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @DeNihilist

    I’m a Catholic-friendly Protestant; not a Martian.

    I don’t want to derail Zippy’s blog too much more, but I just now read most of the first link until I got to this sentence:

    “When God really needed help, the Bible teaches, he went to a woman, not to a man.”

    We’re done here.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Head = explosion

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    This isn’t a thread about the Blessed Mother, but I can recommend Mark Shea’s trilogy Mary, Mother of the Son as a very readable mythbusting account of the Church’s understanding of Mary.

  • [...] the fact that no insult with equivalent social sting applies to men, which, as a double-standard, is just not fair.  The unfairness of it all has become so acute that, taking their cue from militant homosexuals, [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Double-clutching the standard: how retaining fornicators leads to more abortion at Zippy Catholic.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 124 other followers