..."I've been working in the media for many years. We always hear the Catholic bishops complaining that the Church doesn't get a fair hearing. And then they behave like this!"
Not verbatim, and I don't know the name of the man who said it, but I assure you that's a fair rendering.
How do you argue with that anti-logic?
Along with this, several of the panel (it was a discussion regarding the Vatican disciplining dissident clerics) spoke about their desire for "change" in the Church.
How do you argue with the unthinking worship of "change"-- never "change" from, "change" to, "change" aspiring to a particular ideal which, when reached, will no longer require "change"-- but simply "change" simpliciter?
And when we get the change-- do we then desire change from that?
And change from that?
And change from that?
To what end? By what criteria? Against what ideal? For what motives? By what standard?
There are lots of words bandied about today that make me squirm. One is "comfortable." ("I'm not really comfortable with that phrase".) Another is "progressive". (Progress towards what?) Another is "conversation". (We need a "conversation" in society, in the Church. But surely the conversation has to arrive somewhere eventually?) Another is "exclusion". (All character and specialness would be drained from the world without exclusion of one form or other. A tweeny girls' sleepover party would be rather ruined by the addition of five strapping Hell's Angels.)
But surely the daddy of all blood-boiling, nebulous, mendacious, point-missing, thought-neutralising words-- when it is reduced to a mere fetish-- must be "change"!
No comments:
Post a Comment