A Very Interesting Disputation

Tom's latest insightful commentary on Mary Kochan's analysis of Cd. Rigali's reaction to President Obama's reversal of the Mexico City policy is a good example of why we're happy that all those internets were invented by Al Gore.

There are good points on both sides, to be sure, but my favorite is the one with which Tom concludes.

Cardinal Rigali's use of "disappointing" is not the baffling mystery Kochan paints it to be. I think it's time that we―by "we," I mean not honest, plain-spoken people, but the tiny fraction of Catholics who read USCCB statements―stop pretending that we expect USCCB statements to be indistinguishable from fiery sermons, and simply admit, honestly and plain-spokenly, that we just want them to be fiery sermons (by "we" I mean the people who want USCCB statements to be fiery sermons). Then we can move on to the question of whether we should want that.

Emphasis mine. Because I think a fiery sermon should be a fiery sermon, and diplomatic language should be diplomatic language. Certainly if there is a "time to be silent", shouldn't there be an appointed time for both of these contrasting modes of speech "under Heaven" as it is written? Obviously the question is one of prudence and not one of belief. Back on October 29, I linked to this article written by Cardinal Rigali in my "Pile of Stuff" section in the sidebar. Excerpt:

The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion. We wish with all our hearts that no candidate and no party were advocating this heinous act against the human person. However, since it is a transcending issue, and even supported in its most extreme and horrific forms, we must proclaim time and time again that no intrinsic evil can ever be supported in any way, most especially when it concerns the gravest of all intrinsic evils: the taking of an innocent life.

I'm with Tom with regards to the word disappointing. There are definitely many implications to it. Like, for example, if you're an Arizona Cardinals fan, you're probably very disappointed that they lost the Superbowl. One could say "Well, you shouldn't be disappointed; they were expected to lose by 6-1/2 points by the oddsmakers." But the person saying that is probably planning to study Icelandic instead of actually watching the Superbowl, so they will never experience the moment when Arizona is up by 3 points. Similarly, Barack Obama's promise to sign FOCA on his first day as POTUS should not give us false hope, but we may hope guardedly since this has not happened quite yet. And pray.

If the Cardinal had used the word "appalling" rather than "very disappointing", don't you think someone could make a similar accusation of naivete, and "You should have been prepared for this"? The comeback is the same, that is "Of course I'm not completely surprised, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm completely appalled / horrified / dismayed / very disappointed, etc."

And just for the record, I wouldn't mind a fiery sermon from a bishop with regards to abortion. In fact, I'd welcome it. Obama would probably deny he heard it as he's done in the past vis-à-vis fiery sermons, but it would provide more evidence to the bystanders that a prophetic voice has spoken on the matter. I think there's plenty of evidence already, but that's just me.