jasdpace@gmail.
Registered User
- Messages
- 193
I'm not sure what to think!
I never heard of the man until a day or two ago. He seems like a bit of a nutter intent on enjoying his Andy Warhol moments. I listened to him on Liveline yesterday and here’s my rough and ready of his comments – some of which may not make a whole lot of sense if you didn’t hear Liveline. [And arguably, some points may not make a whole lot of sense if you had!]
1. Much, but not all, of what he said is consistent with Catholic teaching. It’s just that official teaching is “better” at conveying the “love the sinner but not the sin" message.
2. In some ways, it's strange that the Catholic hierarchy seems to have completely distanced itself from all his comments? [Must be scope for a good journalist to develop]
3. At a personal level, Fr. Sean does seem to suffer a severe lack of empathy and have extremely undeveloped listening skills. Mind you, if This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was alive, he, too, would be seen by many as a right pain.
4. In spite of his claims to be a martyr to the official teaching, he seems to be flat wrong on a number of points, including:
- The Church’s teaching does change, e.g. Vatican councils, Limbo, etc.
- If the Church’s teaching did not evolve, why would you have the concept of the « Pope’s infallibility » ?
- Priestly celibacy was not obligatory in the early centuries of the church
- The official teaching of the Church does not forbid transgender surgery
5. When some of his thinking errors were pointed out (in his discussion with the US theologian), rather than pause to reflect and consider what was being said, he seemed to double-down on his tendency to demand of the other to « hold on a minute » in some desperate attempt to demonstrate his own infallibility. Is this the classic tell-tale of a bigot ?
6. He may be right that « plebiscites », in whatever form, are, to a large part, the function of the uniformed – look at the electoral success of Truss, Bojo, Brexit, Trump, etc. [Poor oul Joe didn’t like this at all – perhaps because his listenership is not the most informed cohort on the planet?]
7. It is true that the media plays a part in social discourse. Prior to the media’s involvement, there was no real debate – the Church’s position was unchallenged.
So, whilst it can be said that many who vote are not particularly well-informed, they would be even less well informed if it wasn’t for the work of the media and the referendum commission, etc.
8. Fr. Sean seemed to associate the mindless people who voted as those who voted in a « liberal » way. Of course, it could reasonably be argued that many of the « mindless » people actually voted on the traditional side (blindly following whatever « love the sinner but not the sin » message the Church was then disseminating) and that many who voted against the traditional position, did so after informing themselves and grappling with their consciences, etc.
9. The above points seem too nuanced given Fr. Sean’s absolute views on things. In the cut and thrust that is Liveline, he may even have out-pointed poor oul Joe.
10. All in all, it’s an amazing snapshot of the extent Ireland has changed when views, that were once considered mainstream, are now broadly considered as somewhat ridiculous.
11. I’m left unsure of this man’s motivation. I’m curious about what really goes inside his head/heart? Does he really believe he is doing good? Does he really believe he is going about things the right way? Or is it some form of demented last throw of the dice?
Thoughts?!
I never heard of the man until a day or two ago. He seems like a bit of a nutter intent on enjoying his Andy Warhol moments. I listened to him on Liveline yesterday and here’s my rough and ready of his comments – some of which may not make a whole lot of sense if you didn’t hear Liveline. [And arguably, some points may not make a whole lot of sense if you had!]
1. Much, but not all, of what he said is consistent with Catholic teaching. It’s just that official teaching is “better” at conveying the “love the sinner but not the sin" message.
2. In some ways, it's strange that the Catholic hierarchy seems to have completely distanced itself from all his comments? [Must be scope for a good journalist to develop]
3. At a personal level, Fr. Sean does seem to suffer a severe lack of empathy and have extremely undeveloped listening skills. Mind you, if This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was alive, he, too, would be seen by many as a right pain.
4. In spite of his claims to be a martyr to the official teaching, he seems to be flat wrong on a number of points, including:
- The Church’s teaching does change, e.g. Vatican councils, Limbo, etc.
- If the Church’s teaching did not evolve, why would you have the concept of the « Pope’s infallibility » ?
- Priestly celibacy was not obligatory in the early centuries of the church
- The official teaching of the Church does not forbid transgender surgery
5. When some of his thinking errors were pointed out (in his discussion with the US theologian), rather than pause to reflect and consider what was being said, he seemed to double-down on his tendency to demand of the other to « hold on a minute » in some desperate attempt to demonstrate his own infallibility. Is this the classic tell-tale of a bigot ?
6. He may be right that « plebiscites », in whatever form, are, to a large part, the function of the uniformed – look at the electoral success of Truss, Bojo, Brexit, Trump, etc. [Poor oul Joe didn’t like this at all – perhaps because his listenership is not the most informed cohort on the planet?]
7. It is true that the media plays a part in social discourse. Prior to the media’s involvement, there was no real debate – the Church’s position was unchallenged.
So, whilst it can be said that many who vote are not particularly well-informed, they would be even less well informed if it wasn’t for the work of the media and the referendum commission, etc.
8. Fr. Sean seemed to associate the mindless people who voted as those who voted in a « liberal » way. Of course, it could reasonably be argued that many of the « mindless » people actually voted on the traditional side (blindly following whatever « love the sinner but not the sin » message the Church was then disseminating) and that many who voted against the traditional position, did so after informing themselves and grappling with their consciences, etc.
9. The above points seem too nuanced given Fr. Sean’s absolute views on things. In the cut and thrust that is Liveline, he may even have out-pointed poor oul Joe.
10. All in all, it’s an amazing snapshot of the extent Ireland has changed when views, that were once considered mainstream, are now broadly considered as somewhat ridiculous.
11. I’m left unsure of this man’s motivation. I’m curious about what really goes inside his head/heart? Does he really believe he is doing good? Does he really believe he is going about things the right way? Or is it some form of demented last throw of the dice?
Thoughts?!
