|
Post by Frank Black on Jan 30, 2007 12:16:43 GMT -5
I wish him peace in the afterlife, but Fr. Drinan has an enormous amount to answer for. First and foremost would be his unconscionable abortion stance which will live in infamy as one of the most wrongheaded, invidious political decisions in the history of the Republic and the Church. The idea that an act Drinan himself described as "infanticide" can be countenanced by any civil society stands contrary to all that the Catholic Church teaches. To miss that is to in fact miss everything. It speaks of a blindness so all-encompassing as to defy explanation. If a Catholic priest will not speak for those that cannot, what hope is there? Drinan's tired leftism on issues such as trade and the Cold War are demonstrably misguided, but they represent footnotes compared with his complicity in mass death. I realize that this obloquy may seem out of place given his recent passing, but if not now when? Well, while Father Drinan ostensibly burns in the eternal damnation of hell, I turn to you for guidance. It seems, from your post, that you have everything figured out. Please show me the path to heaven, O Holy(er than thou) One... Thank you for your contributions, Father Drinan. Some of us recognize you left this world a far better place... I make no judgment on his eternal destination, that's between him and God. I feel free to judge (as you have, with the opposite conclusion) his political views, most of which were wrong. Particularly on whether killing the unborn should be legal.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Black on Jan 30, 2007 12:19:33 GMT -5
Indeed. I didn't mean to imply that I was morally superior to Fr. Drinan, I was rather highlighting the unambiguous deficiencies of his views on the primary moral question of our time. His influence on the issue makes his stance that much more debased. He gave the Kennedy clan the moral cover they needed to do an about face on abortion while simultaneously professing the Catholic faith. I characterize the stand as evil. And by making that characterization, you are judging someone based on your own definitions of morality and implying moral superiority. I think eating Germans is the most sublime example of moral courage and virtue. Who are you to disagree without implying moral superiority?
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jan 30, 2007 12:25:08 GMT -5
I thought some on the Board might appreciate this essay from today's Post. Father Drinan, Model Of Moral Tenacity After my Tuesday afternoon class, I would often go by Bob Drinan's fourth-floor office to get energized. I saw him as a towering moral giant, a man of faith whose practice of Christianity put him in the company of all my Jesuit heroes--Daniel Berrigan, Horace McKenna, Teilhard de Chardin, John Dear, Francis Xavier, the martyred Jesuits of El Salvador and the priests who taught me in college. In his office, ferociously unkempt and as tight as a monk's cell, our conversation ranged from politics to law to the morning's front pages. He was as knowledgeable about the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 as he was about the many allegations of international lawbreaking by the current Bush administration. Bob Drinan had mastered the art of being professionally angry but personally gentle. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012902015.htmlI, for one, have nothing but fond memories and admiration for Father Drinan. But I would love to hear those who condemn Church intellectuals who actively question the application of Church teachings to modern life, what their view of a healthy religious institution is. Is it merely following in lock-step behind a leader or engaging in debate and discussion? Is Catholic doctrine fixed in time or can it change over time? If it can change, how can change be brought about? Has the silencing of dissent served the Church well over the last 2000 years, or has it led to embarassment? There is clearly a tension, but I would argue that the development of Catholic doctrine through dissent and debate is what has made the Chuch such an intellectually vibrant institution -- something few relgions can claim to be.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 30, 2007 12:59:14 GMT -5
I thought some on the Board might appreciate this essay from today's Post. Father Drinan, Model Of Moral Tenacity That was a wonderful article -- thanks for the link.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,822
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 30, 2007 13:56:47 GMT -5
Colman McCarthy? Not exactly an objective source on these issues. Anyone who claimed Daniel Berrigan as a hero lost me right there.
One of the criticisms of Jesuits among other orders is the idea that Jesuits enjoy moral superiority over other Catholics. God is neither liberal nor conservative and those who would presume that a "liberal" Jesuit is somehow a great moral model but a conservative religious figure is not is disingenuous at best. I'm guessing McCarthy spared such laudatory comments for Pope John Paul II in his day because McCarthy's tired 1960's era political agenda overwhelms any other beliefs he holds.
You ask if Catholic doctrine fixed in time or can it change over time. Core beliefs do not change. Peripheral beliefs may evolve but not at the expense of core belief. There can be an intellectual discussion about the Trinity, for example, but it does not change the core belief.
Debate is one thing, dissent another, heresy a third. For the most part, Drinan stayed in the realm of debate and not in direct dissent or heresy against the Church. For example, when the Vatican told him to leave Congress, he did.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 30, 2007 14:08:46 GMT -5
And by making that characterization, you are judging someone based on your own definitions of morality and implying moral superiority. I think eating Germans is the most sublime example of moral courage and virtue. Who are you to disagree without implying moral superiority? If you think you are being objective in calling Fr. Drinan's actions evil then I believe you have crossed a line (albeit an undefined line) in terms of judging someone on common moral standards and judging someone on your own standards. Everyone has flaws (personally, I don't think Fr. Drinan's stance on abortion was a flaw- he was morally against it but believed that the church should persuade women to pursue other options and not the Government.), I'm sure you have flaws too (maybe it is your tendancy to judge others). I know I certainly have flaws, but by no means does that make the actions of either of us or Fr. Drinan evil. He had his own beliefs and he followed them- He didn't lie, cheat, or harm anyone (no Mr. Black, the abortions that he couldn't prevent don't count.) Just read some of the articles posted on this thread and maybe you can see why many of us believe that Fr. Drinan was a great person who will be missed on this earth.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 30, 2007 15:58:38 GMT -5
Frank Black reflects my opinion also. All of these people who value science so much in fostering man-made global warming seem to ignore science when it comes to abortion. When the male sperm fertilizes the female egg a new being is immediately created, one that did not exist before. And that new being has exactly the same DNA as it will have if allowed to mature to an adult. That new being, then, is exactly the same being as that later adult. To claim it is no more than a potential human is as ridiculous as claiming that an infant is merely a potential adult, but not a human. I would, however, leave the judgment of Fr. Drinan to God. Well, I see it's strawman-a-palooza here at the 37th & O board today. The abortion debate is not a scientific debate in the least, to think so is ludicrous. Obviously when a sperm fertilizes an egg and an zygote forms, life is created. No one disputes that. The abortion debate is an ethical debate, not a scientific one. The question is when moral personhood begins, not life as it is scientifically defined. One arguing either side would do well to avoid the tempting strawmen.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 30, 2007 18:18:34 GMT -5
Well put, sir.
|
|
DonkDonk
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 428
|
Post by DonkDonk on Jan 30, 2007 18:31:29 GMT -5
when somebody makes a moral judgment they are automatically implying a superior stance...not regarding superiority of the person, but the stance. if you've ever made a moral judgment/decision or even formulated a moral belief, you've attempted to claim some semblance of superiority over what the contrasting option is. the 'get off a the moral high-ground' argument is itself a grab for superiority.
it just bugs me when people think that judging someone else's beliefs is off-limits. what's wrong with 'judging others' beliefs' if one disagrees as long as freedom is maintained for all?
|
|
|
Post by Frank Black on Jan 30, 2007 20:28:26 GMT -5
I think eating Germans is the most sublime example of moral courage and virtue. Who are you to disagree without implying moral superiority? If you think you are being objective in calling Fr. Drinan's actions evil then I believe you have crossed a line (albeit an undefined line) in terms of judging someone on common moral standards and judging someone on your own standards. Everyone has flaws (personally, I don't think Fr. Drinan's stance on abortion was a flaw- he was morally against it but believed that the church should persuade women to pursue other options and not the Government.), I'm sure you have flaws too (maybe it is your tendancy to judge others). I know I certainly have flaws, but by no means does that make the actions of either of us or Fr. Drinan evil. He had his own beliefs and he followed them- He didn't lie, cheat, or harm anyone (no Mr. Black, the abortions that he couldn't prevent don't count.) Just read some of the articles posted on this thread and maybe you can see why many of us believe that Fr. Drinan was a great person who will be missed on this earth. Abortion is deeply evil, in a sense that is fundamental not just to Catholicism but also to the universal virtues that our Republic stood for. To miss that is, as I said, to miss everything. And Drinan missed it. Drinan's support for legal abortion makes him complicit in this evil. The fact that he was wrong on just about everything else only compounds his fundamental error on this most fundamental of issues. And I also find it grating when people use words like "peace" and "justice" because their use of the terms is so saturated with political opportunism that whatever initial good intent existed gets lost in the fury that their use, and the implicit contention that conservatives "oppose" peace and justice that their use entails, engenders.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jan 30, 2007 21:01:01 GMT -5
You haven't made an argument yet, Frank. You say that your position is "fundamental" to universal values outside of the church, but I've yet to hear what those are.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jan 30, 2007 21:08:39 GMT -5
Congratulations jerks, you have managed to make a thread celebrating the life of a man who gave his in service of others into a debate about the most debated social issue of our time. Surely there were no other places to do that. Please lock this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Black on Jan 30, 2007 22:08:19 GMT -5
Congratulations jerks, you have managed to make a thread celebrating the life of a man who gave his in service of others into a debate about the most debated social issue of our time. Surely there were no other places to do that. Please lock this thread. I presume Fr. Drinan, being a Jesuit, would expect nothing less than for his life to be examined in its fullness. Let's reserve hagiographies for actual saints.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 30, 2007 22:18:03 GMT -5
Congratulations jerks, you have managed to make a thread celebrating the life of a man who gave his in service of others into a debate about the most debated social issue of our time. Surely there were no other places to do that. Please lock this thread. I presume Fr. Drinan, being a Jesuit, would expect nothing less than for his life to be examined in its fullness. Let's reserve hagiographies for actual saints. Frank, I think its sickening to hear you claim to wrap yourself in traditional Roman Catholic values while spitting on the grave of a priest who just died. There is a certain dignity that everyone should be allowed when they are being laid to rest by their friends and family. To deny someone that in a public forum because you happened to disagree with the ideologically is sad. I hope that you can grow up and be a little more mature about how and when you express your ideological views in the future.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 30, 2007 22:25:02 GMT -5
It is sad that we are fighting a war against religious zealots , yet some in this country use similarly and no less rigid beliefs, albeit without physical violence, to pile on the deceased, divide communities, exclude men and women of faith from worship, etc. I was not taught these beliefs in Sunday school, wonder what "madrassa" some of our posters attended, and wonder how some find it appropriate to use them to attack a deceased man.
Even more alarming and offensive is these so-called men of faith claim to know what our forebearers intended and seemingly seek to monopolize the wisdom of the Founders. I would suggest that it does not likely give weight to the divisive, cynical smears that some conservatives have spewed forth in this thread.
I fear for this country if this kind of thinking prevails, much less in an online community of highly educated individuals. I agree with Jack that this thread should be locked if for no other reason that it reflects poorly on Georgetown.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Jan 31, 2007 0:32:50 GMT -5
The fact that he was wrong on just about everything else only compounds his fundamental error on this most fundamental of issues. Father Drinan was big into the civil rights movement -- was he wrong there too? That said, I'm with everyone on locking this thread up. Try to at least appreciate and respect Fr. Drinan's intentions, even if you refuse to acknowledge his actual contributions.
|
|
HoyaNCCT
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
We will remind them.
Posts: 685
|
Post by HoyaNCCT on Jan 31, 2007 8:38:53 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2007 10:25:57 GMT -5
Isn't it okay - and shouldn't it be encouraged - to question things rather than to march in lockstep all the time? Seems to me that the issues that some here have with Father Drinan basically boil down to "He disagreed with the Church, and the Church is always right". Talk about simplistic. I'd expect more nuanced analysis than that from Georgetown alums.
If you want to have an "I'm right, and you're wrong" argument, take it to the Terp board - you'll fit in perfectly.
Just leave Father Drinan out of it.
|
|
|
Post by virginiamom on Jan 31, 2007 11:14:31 GMT -5
I note that most of those posting here are men. Well, I'm a mom who has spent a lot of my adult life trying to save the lives of unborn children. I've spent a cumulative month in jail for rescuing at abortion mills. I've held babies saved at the last minute because they accepted help from sidewalk counselors.
I know who the players are on the other side, those who worked vigorously to make sure babies continue to be killed. Fr. Robert Drinan was one of their champions.
Since I heard about Fr. Drinan's death I have been praying that he repented at the last minute although there is no public evidence he did so. On January 3rd at a Mass for the "children" (of Darfur and victims of Katrina) celebrated in honor of Nancy Pelosi. Father talked about working for the "least" ones. Of course he did not mean the little abandoned ones in the womb. There were no words of compassion for them. They were non-persons to him just like the non-persons abused and murdered by the slave traders, the Nazis and the murderers of My-Lai? To Fr. Drinan the babies were just fetuses. Substitue the disparaging terms for blacks, Jews, and asians and you have a picture of Fr. Drinan toward the tiny victims of abortion. The "civil rights" he supported excluded the most helpless, those who most needed defending.
Father is being eulogized everywhere including this site. He will lie "in state" at Boston College and again at a local Church. I'm sure many of his brother Jesuits will concelebrate his funeral. A far different picture than the one that greeted the very holy Jesuit Fr. John Hardon when he died several years ago. But he did not walk among the glitterati.
Fr. Drinan was a whited sepulchre literally filled with dead men's bones, the tiny bones of millions of babies sacrificed on the altar of choice. He served well as a high priest of choice and, unless he repented, he will face a frightening master who says to him, "Well done good and faithful servant."
Spare your praise of Fr. Drinan. It does him no good now. Rather pray and fast that he repented in those last seconds before his death.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jan 31, 2007 11:32:13 GMT -5
Wow. That entire post begs the question for paragraph after paragraph--well done. Lock it up.
|
|