The Lament of George Weigel
His short piece on Nancy Pelosi is excellent. Excerpt:
Then there was the carefully choreographed January 3 Mass at Washington’s Trinity University, where Pelosi had attended college. At the Speaker’s invitation, the celebrant and homilist was Father Robert Drinan, SJ, who would succumb to pneumonia a few weeks later. Father Drinan was the man who, more than anyone else, gave the moral green light for the Democratic Party to tarnish its modern civil rights record by embracing the abortion license; the man who, during his years in Congress, consistently defied the canons of public justice (and the Church’s settled conviction) on the great civil rights issue of the day; the man who helped turn Senator Edward Kennedy from a potential champion of the pro-life cause into the desiccated, Wolsey-like specimen he is today. If Father Drinan’s record provides insight into the Pelosi speakership, then Nancy Pelosi has betrayed the great public lesson of the Baltimore Catholicism in which we both grew up.
This is insightful commentary on the new Speaker and the kind of hopscotch these dissenting Catholic politicians play. But I cite it also a good example of very strong but controlled criticism of a clergyman who did significant damage to the Catholic Church; Weigel deals forcefully with the subject without once overheating. Weigel's tone remains sad rather than mad and that's why this I believe this kind of criticism is constructive. It leads to a deeper insight into these problems and hopefully more informed prayer and action, not simply anger which does not accomplish God's righteousness.
The writer who has to browbeat the reader shows a lack of trust in the reader.
ReplyDeleteBut should the reader be trusted?
ReplyDeleteI trust you guys.
ReplyDeleteIn most cases yes. Those angry fiery articles appeal to the emotions. The need to control the reader's actions is a problem with the author.
ReplyDeleteWeigel is not browbeating us into agreement. He trusts his readers to draw the correct conclusions. Other writers want to force a "torch and pitchfork" reaction from the reader.
To hurl grenades at the hierarchy is useless in most cases, but not all. If you ever came to my blog, I tried to stay at the grassroots. We are really in control not the leadership. They only react to us. Whether we realize it or not, we are in control, not our leaders.
By attacking the leadership you tacitly imply or accept that we are all helpless and in need of constant guidance. I choose to appeal to the individual. Hence I have to try to persuade but also trust that they will make the right decisions. Hope that make sense.
To clarify: I'm not in favor of browbeating the reader either, and for writing in a dignified manner, and refraining from pandering and condesceding and employing irresponsible rhetoric and all that... but not because I "trust" the reader. For one thing, in most cases I don't really know him. I also know that people can be bloody stupid much of the time.
ReplyDeleteandy nowicki, if you pander to the lowest common denominator in your writing, then you alienate those readers who are trustworthy, and therefore end up writing for an audience you don't want and don't respect. no point in writing at all, then.
ReplyDeleteyes, true... but that's still a very different mstter than trusting the reader as a guiding principle.
ReplyDelete