I was deeply saddened and disturbed by parts of Michael P.'s blog letter to me. Michael P. wrote:
Michael [S.], you and I live in very different theological universes. I'm guessing, for example, that you interpret the infancy narratives literally. I do not. Anymore than I interpret the "apostolic succession" narrative literally. I doubt it would be productive for you and me to try to bridge the chasm between those universes.
I wasn't engaged--nor do I have any interest in engaging in--a dialogue with those bishops who were sinfully complicit in the immoral, ugly, outrageous, disgusting abuse of children.
I see no more need to argue *for* women priests and bishops--or *for* married priests and bishops--than I see a need to argue *against* the proposition that the earth is flat. (Or *against* the position of young-earth creationists.) What a pointless, tiresome endeavor that would be.
Michael P., if I am reading these sentences correctly, I draw two conclusions. First, you are not interested in dialogue - whether with me, other members of the blog, the hierarchy, or others - on many of the issues that have presented themselves in our day. With me, it wouldn't "be productive." With the bishops, their sin seems to preclude dialogue. And, with respect to some of the issues (human sexuality and who ought to be eligible for the priesthood), you suggest that dialogue would be "a pointless, tiresome endeavor." Second, you seem to be incredibly close-minded on these issues. With respect to gay marriage, you label those who oppose it as "prejudiced" without (so far) giving reasons for your conclusion. And, if I read you correctly, those who think that women are theologically ineligible for the priesthood and those who for prudential reasons favor a celibate priesthood (note, Michael, that I am not taking a position on either of these issues because those questions are above my pay grade) are no different than people who believe the world is flat. By your analogy to the flat earth, I take it that you are not open to the possibility that the magisterium, as it presently understands these issues, could possibly be right.
Is the world we inhabit so post-modern and post-rational that two people (the two Michael's in this case)who claim the same Church as their home cannot engage in rational productive dialogue about the important issues of the day?
If I have misinterpreted anything you have said Michael, please correct me. If not, I have an honest and sincere question: What issues are worth the attempt to engage in productive dialogue with people who inhabit very different theological universes from your own?
Michael, Michael, Michael, as I write this imagine (smiling) that my professorial finger is wagging seriously but playfully in your face. You missed the whole point of my post. What I wrote had nothing to do with whether we live in "very different theological universes." I wasn't making any claims about your theological perspectives or mine. I was simply scolding you - wagging my finger in your face - for the tone of your remarks. You wrote: "These are the men--the men!--whose insights regarding the complexity of human sexuality we are expected to genuflect before. Gimme a break." That sentece seems like a rant to me. What other purpose does it serve? You have said you weren't attempting an argument.
In Christ,
Michael S.
Michael P, what are your "reasons" for concluding that those who support the Iowa gay marriage decision have exercised "reason" and those who oppose the decision do so on the basis of "prejudice"? If that is not what you meant by your post, please clarify.
Thanks, Michael S.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
With Michael P., I pray that God help us, that He guide our leaders, giving them holiness, courage, and wisdom. A couple of questions for Michael.
1) Michael, are you suggesting that women are sinless? (There is a precedent, but she is currently busy mourning the misguided actions of the male president of her university). Or, are you suggesting that women sin differently than men so that while we might have avoided the abuse scandal, our human frailty (including the frailty of the bishops) would have manifested in other ways?
2) Does the type of civility in dialogue that we are attempting to achieve on this blog extend to civility toward the successors to the apostles? Your post reads more like a rant against authority rather than a reasoned argument for - what - women priests and bishops? married priests and bishops? a change (development?) in the doctrine regarding human sexuality? All three are implicated in your two line opening but you don't develop any of the arguments.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
According to this report: "If all goes as planned tonight, hundreds of students at the University of California, Davis, will watch a $10 million pornographic movie in a chemistry lecture hall, the periodic table of elements hanging above their heads."
Meanwhile, the University of Maryland was planning on screening the same XXX movie. "We thought this would be something fun for the students to do, especially since we're getting close to the end of the semester," said Lisa Cunningham, program coordinator for the Hoff Theater, which is showing the film. "We're a college movie theater and we thought it would bring out the students." (Baltimore Sun article). In an update, the Sun reports that the Maryland screening was canceled "after state lawmakers objected and threatened to cut funding to the flagship state university."
