pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jun 16, 2013 21:36:36 GMT -5
I agree with WBH that DFW did an excellent job, but it could have been even more accurate and persuasive without the bias displayed below (Edits are employed to clarify my comment) The logical fallacy of Mr. Blatty's premise is "affirming the consequent", to make the leap that since [some] liberals [sometimes] practice [ways that some might perceive as non-catholic] anti-Catholic ways [as do a great many conservatives] and Georgetown sometimes associates with liberals; therefore, Georgetown is not Catholic. please be so kind as to remind us of even one statement by Christ that was "diverse." "I come as a sword," perhaps, or "Love your enemy." His concern for humanity was love, true love, not statistical weighting.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jun 16, 2013 21:39:00 GMT -5
Guess "..he certainly seems to be on good terms with today's Georgetown" does not qualify as speaking for Pope Francis. I fully expected the good Pontiff to have punched them in the teeth. You've got that right, Easy Ed. While he was still Cardinal, it was Pope Francis who pushed hardest -- and successfully -- to strip The Pontifical University of Peru of its Catholic title. The days of gnashing of secular teeth on campus is coming as surely as the night must fall. Five consecutive unanswered posts in the past three days, out of a total of seven posts ever. You should probably take your incoherent ramblings elsewhere. I'm sorry, on edit, it's actually six consecutive posts. You managed to cram another one in there while I was typing this.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jun 17, 2013 8:48:19 GMT -5
In the same breath I am chided for failing to post and at the same time take my posts elsewhere. What logical fallacy might this be? "Contradicting the Consequent" perhaps?
|
|
nodak89
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Roy Roy Royyyyy!!!
Posts: 1,881
|
Post by nodak89 on Jun 17, 2013 11:56:53 GMT -5
I'm trying to understand DFWs assertion of affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/logic/logiglos.html"Like denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy. The fallacy lies solely in the form itself. It has the following pattern: if p then q, q, therefore p. Any argument that fits this pattern is invalid, that is, even if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows from these premises may not be true. Whereas, a valid form guarantees that, if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true. Indeed, if an argument has a valid form and true premises, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false." If P then Q. Q. Therefore, P. If I have a brain tumor(P), then I will have a headache(Q). I have a headache, Therefore I have a brain tumor. If Georgetown is non-Catholic, then it would provide a speaking platform for a non-Catholic, liberal agenda. Georgetown provides a speaking platform for a non-Catholic, liberal agenda, Therefore, Georgetown is non-Catholic.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jun 17, 2013 12:14:48 GMT -5
I deny both your major and minor premises. Ergo, "The problem remains."
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 17, 2013 12:51:29 GMT -5
I was going off a different approach to that fallacy and so will edit/withdraw the logical discussion.
That having been tabled, Blatty's arguments appeal to those who tend to see Georgetown at a distance (or in agitant web site articles) and those who see not only Georgetown as deficient, but almost every major Catholic university, save the likes of Franciscan, Christendom, Ave Maria, etc.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jun 17, 2013 13:00:44 GMT -5
First, I appreciate the honesty and intelligence of your reply. Did you see Blatty on EWTN? The emotion with which he attacked abortion on demand and the "Sebelius problem" seemed to indicate that is his major concern, not "gays and plays" of which there was no mention, or if there was, I missed it. Rather, he focussed on new findings re the foetus experiencing the pain of the procedure at no later than 20 weeks, and here I cannot imagine there is any major difference of opinion between us.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Jun 17, 2013 13:15:14 GMT -5
First, I appreciate the honesty and intelligence of your reply. Did you see Blatty on EWTN? The emotion with which he attacked abortion on demand and the "Sebelius problem" seemed to indicate that is his major concern, not "gays and plays" of which there was no mention, or if there was, I missed it. Rather, he focussed on new findings re the foetus experiencing the pain of the procedure at no later than 20 weeks, and here I cannot imagine there is any major difference of opinion between us. DFW is right that many of the issues raised by Blatty (e.g., the Vagina Monologues) appear in most major (and not so major) Catholic universities. And, yes, Blatty does raise the "gays and plays" issues: www.ibtimes.com/exorcist-author-william-peter-blatty-sues-georgetown-not-being-catholic-enough-cites-ex-corde#
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jun 17, 2013 13:30:00 GMT -5
Yes, but his EWTN appearance show -- or showed me at least -- that they are negligible "boilerplate" issues and have precious little to do with inclinations that gays are either born with or have resulted from environmental pressures, for the harm, as it is also for heterosexuals, in the act. To quote Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons,": "I trust I make myself obscure."
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,248
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 30, 2013 5:20:46 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 30, 2013 11:56:51 GMT -5
One person found her Catholic identity while attending Georgetown University, therefore Georgetown has not lost its Catholic identity. Boy, what Father L.C. McHugh would have made of that logic.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jun 30, 2013 12:15:03 GMT -5
And Father Tooey as well!
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Jul 1, 2013 16:21:18 GMT -5
As usual, I come to the party late, so maybe no one will read this. I am disheartened at what Georgetown has become. And I am distressed that I must disagree with 3 of the all time greats: DFW, DanMcQ, and Wilson Blvd Hoya. I do agree that what is going on is political. That is our complaint. The Georgetown whose loss we lament was not aligned with any political party. That has changed. Our University is being used as a tool to advance the agenda of the Left - P.C. instead of R.C.. An article I wrote cites chapter and verse. www.gupetition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/What-Happened-to-a-Catholic-Georgetown.pdfAnd more of the same has occurred since the article, e.g, the canonization of Sandra Fluke, the condemnation of Paul Ryan, the honor accorded Sebelius. We understand the Left has won and controls Georgetown. What we seek is truth in advertising. Do not claim that GU is “true to its Jesuit and Catholic traditions”, when the evidence demonstrates it is not. While I think the N.D./Obama controversy received far more press than the Blatty suit, 1200 signators still is a disappointing number. But right and wrong are not determined by majority vote. And it takes commitment and courage to speak out. Thank you, Easy Ed and Pertinax. As St. Ambrose had it: "Not only for every idle word must man give an account, but for every idle silence." Another point: contrary to what has been expressed here, Georgetown is NOT interested in diversity and freedom of expression. Quite the contrary is true. Here is a letter I sent to one of the Georgetown Deans.http://www.gupetition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Letter-of-R.-Coleman-to-Dean-Gilles.pdfv Needless to say, my article was not published in the Alumni magazine and my offer to debate any University spokesperson on the subject was not accepted. More recently, comments were sought to an email from the school touting GU’s fidelity to its “Jesuit traditions.” I posted a comment contesting that contention. Within minutes, my comment was removed. I sympathize with those who do not want to believe what has happened. I went through that denial myself some years ago. I did not want to believe the thousands of hours I worked for Georgetown were in vain. In happier days, I was teased by my friends that I had no item of casual wear that did not bear some Hoya logo. Now I am ashamed of my Alma Mater. I am Dick Coleman [full handle in the links]. This is too important a subject to cloak with a user name. I welcome your analysis of the content of the links set forth.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Jul 1, 2013 18:55:29 GMT -5
As usual, I come to the party late, so maybe no one will read this. I am disheartened at what Georgetown has become. And I am distressed that I must disagree with 3 of the all time greats: DFW, DanMcQ, and Wilson Blvd Hoya. I do agree that what is going on is political. That is our complaint. The Georgetown whose loss we lament was not aligned with any political party. That has changed. Our University is being used as a tool to advance the agenda of the Left - P.C. instead of R.C.. An article I wrote cites chapter and verse. www.gupetition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/What-Happened-to-a-Catholic-Georgetown.pdfAnd more of the same has occurred since the article, e.g, the canonization of Sandra Fluke, the condemnation of Paul Ryan, the honor accorded Sebelius. We understand the Left has won and controls Georgetown. What we seek is truth in advertising. Do not claim that GU is “true to its Jesuit and Catholic traditions”, when the evidence demonstrates it is not. While I think the N.D./Obama controversy received far more press than the Blatty suit, 1200 signators still is a disappointing number. But right and wrong are not determined by majority vote. And it takes commitment and courage to speak out. Thank you, Easy Ed and Pertinax. As St. Ambrose had it: "Not only for every idle word must man give an account, but for every idle silence." Another point: contrary to what has been expressed here, Georgetown is NOT interested in diversity and freedom of expression. Quite the contrary is true. Here is a letter I sent to one of the Georgetown Deans.http://www.gupetition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Letter-of-R.-Coleman-to-Dean-Gilles.pdfv Needless to say, my article was not published in the Alumni magazine and my offer to debate any University spokesperson on the subject was not accepted. More recently, comments were sought to an email from the school touting GU’s fidelity to its “Jesuit traditions.” I posted a comment contesting that contention. Within minutes, my comment was removed. I sympathize with those who do not want to believe what has happened. I went through that denial myself some years ago. I did not want to believe the thousands of hours I worked for Georgetown were in vain. In happier days, I was teased by my friends that I had no item of casual wear that did not bear some Hoya logo. Now I am ashamed of my Alma Mater. I am Dick Coleman [full handle in the links]. This is too important a subject to cloak with a user name. I welcome your analysis of the content of the links set forth. I probably should let this go, but I think there are a number of errors and misleading statements in this. Just to list one, in the hopes that it may suffice for some readers, look at #12: Cardinal Arinze's statement here was NOT in keeping with Catholic teaching, a fact which he himself later recognized and caused him to regret what he said. "Homosexuality" is not a moral act (unlike the other items listed: adultery, contraception, divorce, pornography, etc.... one of these things is not like the other). As the Church's Catechism makes clear, homosexuality is not the result, typically, of a personal, moral choice. By associating the fact of being homosexual with an attack on marriage, he is in fact condemning even celibate homosexuals. If he had said instead, same-sex relations, it would have been in keeping with Church teaching, but that's not what he said. I've been told that once Cardinal Arinze realized his mistake, he asked that the statement be corrected on the university website or be removed and he himself apologized for the pain he caused.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 1, 2013 19:09:23 GMT -5
Your response to Dick Coleman is a sad example of what's currently wrong with a Georgetown education. Arinze never -- NEVER -- stated or even implied that merely BEING a homosexual is immoral, and if he had I would be agreeing with you. But he didn't! It isn't the "tendency" but the "act" that is the problem, which is also true, I might add, for heterosexuals. THAT is Catholic teaching, which is apparently not available on your campus.
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Jul 1, 2013 20:11:17 GMT -5
CWS states "I think there are a number of errors and misleading statements in this. Just to list one,..." CWS then details one which is not an error. [See above] I would be interested in reading what are the other alleged "errors and misleading statements." Thank you.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Jul 2, 2013 5:31:28 GMT -5
Your response to Dick Coleman is a sad example of what's currently wrong with a Georgetown education. Arinze never -- NEVER -- stated or even implied that merely BEING a homosexual is immoral, and if he had I would be agreeing with you. But he didn't! It isn't the "tendency" but the "act" that is the problem, which is also true, I might add, for heterosexuals. THAT is Catholic teaching, which is apparently not available on your campus. Cardinal Arinze himself admitted that he was wrong in what he said; I should think that would be proof enough. But, again, to try and explain this better than I did before: "homosexuality" is not an act; it's not something that involves a free choice. It is the condition (i.e., "homosexuality") which is shared by both sinful homosexuals and virtuous homosexuals (and, yes, the Church is clear: one can be a homosexual and be virtuous). So when Arinze said "mocked by homosexuality", he made a wrong word choice. It's not "homosexuality" per se that represents something counter to marriage, but sinful homosexual and heterosexual choices. Again, Arinze himself recognized what he had said was wrong and unfair.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 2, 2013 10:21:40 GMT -5
Your clarification is noted, but to believe that by the word "homosexuality" Arinze was referring to that state rather than action upon that inclination is difficult for me to believe, especially when it came from the man who stated in that same commencement address: "True happiness does not consist in the accumulation of goods: money, cars, houses. Nor is it to be found in pleasure seeking: eating, drinking, sex. And humans do not attain lasting joy by power grabbing, dominating others, or heaping up public acclaim. These three things, good in themselves when properly sought, were not able to confer on Solomon, perfect happiness. And they will not be able to confer it on anyone else! (cf Eccles 1:2-3; II King 11:1-8; Mt 20:24-28; I Jn 2:15-16). Happiness is attained by achieving the purpose of our earthly existence. God made me to know Him, to love Him, to serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him forever in the next. Saint Augustine found this out in his later age after making many mistakes in his youth. He then cried out to God: "You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you." That aside, my second point is that I have diligently searched the internet using the words "Arinze apologizes," and have turned up nada. Zilch. Zero. I do not deny either your integrity or power of memory, but would you be kind enough to give me the source?And that you may trust me on the matter, I have a child, now an adult, who is gay and whom I adore, and it might interest, and perhaps inform you, that when I told her she could be in full communion with the Catholic church if she would simply stop have gay or any other kind of sex, her eyebrows rose a mile as she said incredulously,"You mean that's all."
I am now off to another topic that has just stupefied, for in searching for the Arinze apology I stumbled across the fact that Georgetown once invited Michael Moore on campus, who remarked, almost predictably, “You know those 12 men Jesus was always hanging out with? Mhmm." And the GU audience laughed. This is Georgetown? This is the oldest Catholic college in the country?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 2, 2013 10:29:33 GMT -5
I'm confused exactly what people want from Georgetown? It sounds like no one who isn't a perfect catholic should be allowed to step on to the campus much less be accepted to the school. Sheesh.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jul 2, 2013 10:42:40 GMT -5
Oh look, yet another thread with old white guys throwing out standard politically conservative complaints wrapped in One True Way Catholicism™ lamenting.
What you're going through, it's natural. As you get older, the younger generations' morals seem looser, once-proud institutions seem to be filled with decay and move further away from what you thought the ideals were. I understand that you don't have to like it, but I don't want you to feel too bad. It's just that stage of life. The Church that your parents knew was different than the Church you knew. Same with your parents. Same with me. Will be the same with my children.
The fact that there are serious arguments going on over being gay vs. acting gay just shows how impossibly out of touch you are. Oh but the Church!! Yes, the Church is out of touch on that too. It's a changing world - but bigotry is still bigotry, and hiding behind outdated dogma doesn't make it any less so. This is an issue that has been decided in this country - obviously not unanimously, but if you think it's going to be turned back, you're out of your mind. It happened for black Americans. It happened for female Americans. It is now happening for gay Americans.
Paul Ryan is the exact kind of snake oil salesman that I would think Catholics reject. The fact that some are disappointed in his 'treatment' is laughable and demonstrates where a lot of these views actually come from. Old, out of touch, whining people who want the world to be like it once was. Or how they think they remember it was.
YOU are not the gatekeepers of the one true way of Catholicism. I am not either. But that's the point. The Church is changing. What will it look like in 50 years? Who knows. But if it wants to survive, let alone grow, it's going to need people speaking for it that are the opposite of you guys. I'm just so sick of people that claim to speak for REAL Catholicism when all they do is throw out the outdated bigotry and patriarchal 'morals' that are holding the Church back.
Tell me that you live your life 100% by every word of the Church and I'll cut you some slack. But you don't. Nobody does. So when YOU pick and choose what makes someone or some institution truly Catholic, it's just really not that convincing. Especially when it's all so predictable.
The Georgetown University you know has changed. For the better. It's not 1953.
MOD NOTE: Keep pejorative terms like "old white guys" out of your postings. It's disrepectful and serves only to undermine your argument.
|
|