FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: George Weigel Defends (Neocons) Pope
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
As Zoe Romanovsky reports, Weigel gets praise from America Magazine. If he gets praise, it might have to do with he fact that Weigel echoes the tired anti-clerical language of Liberal catholicism, but invokes it to praise the person of the Holy Father, if not the institution of the Papacy, how masonic...

Really, George Weigel is a Hegelian statist who likes the idea of religion, even if he does find its deeper claims and political aspirations distasteful.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010...-pope.html
Weigel and Noonan =  :puke:

Have you ever seen Peggy Noonan on tv? Her mannerisms are insufferable.
Never seen her on TV for more than 3 seconds, I fear.  I don't watch much television at all.

Even Austen Ivereigh has had to comment on this:

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010...alism.html
Sigh.  George Weigel said nothing wrong in the passage you cited.  The Vatican does have a sclerotic institutional culture -- every traditionalist agrees on this!  When was the last time a trad had something good to say for the Curia?  And he defended the Pope.  So when Weigel says something stupid (and he does, a lot), he gets beaten up for being stupid.  AND when he says something that ISN'T stupid, he gets beaten up again for being a neocon.  So your objection to this statement is really that Weigel is the one who said it.  That's called an ad hominem.  It means *you're* the one playing an ideological card here.  When a neocon says something unobjectionable, you object -- because he's a neocon.  Nothing masonic in what he said.  Please stop putting ideological labels first before objective analysis of others' statements.  It is uncharitable and un-Catholic, regardless of how problematic Weigel's stances *on other topics* may be. 

evil neocon Weigel says, Wrote:To be sure, the Catholic Church ought to hold itself to a higher moral standard than other similarly situated institutions. But after too long a period of denial, the Catholic Church is now at the forefront of combating the sexual abuse of the young in the United States. And no one in the church has done more, over the last decade, to compel the sclerotic institutional cultu

I know Weigel really well, not personally, like I don't go to the cocktail parties he gets invited to, but I resent his language about what the Church is.  He didn't just say the curia was sclerotic, he said the Church was suffering from a learning disabillity. (I don't think we need guys like Weigel psychoanalyizing the Church. I see malice, maybe you see a helpful, friendly neighborhood Mason)   I don't know about you, but I'm guessing you don't like outsiders talking about your relatives.

The Church is my mother and I don't want crypto-illuminist creeps like Weigel talking about her with his condescending tone.  I read that and I immediately recognized it as one of those moments of supreme  arrogance on the part of a guy who thinks he's got it made as a spokespiece for the Catholic religion.

Yeah, I'm willing to give the Devil his due, and as a matter of fact I have actually commented positively on different articles this stuck-up public intellectual has written, but I'm not going to let this pass without comment.


Actually, someone wrote an apropos response to the articel on InsideCatholic.  While Weigel, like a state employee concerned about the religious iconography hanging in the home of one of his "clients", wants to criticize the Church, this commentor said the following:

• What did the NYT know and when did it know it? The credibility of journalism is at stake.
• We need far more transparency from the NYT. Identification of all the sources for the stories, their biases and interests, would be a minimal gesture.
• The entire culture of secrecy, protection of anonymity and traditional defenses of the “needs” of journalism must be renounced.
• The cover-up is worse than the original crime. And each revelation about the process, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, slowly erodes the trust we have placed in this venerable institution.
• Criticism of the NYT is bona fide. Now we need genuine repentance from this shadowy and frightening institution.
1.)  Weigel is correct:  the Church ought to hold itself to a higher moral standard than other similarly situated institutions.  The Church is divinely founded and hence it ought to have a higher standards.  Absolutely.

2.)  You seem to take it that Weigel was faulting the entire Church as such qua Bride of Christ and Mystical Body of Christ.  That's not how I take it.  He could have been more precise, yes, but I think we should exercise some *charity.*  Up until recently, Wiegel is right -- the Catholic Church *as an institution functioning here on earth in its members* (and that is how Weigel is discussing the Church) has not been at the forefront of combating the sexual abuse of the young in the United States.  It hasn't.  "It" means the responsible Church authorities.  That is what Weigel should have said explicitly, but I don't think its that hard to see that's what he meant.  If you asked him if he was faulting the Church in its essentials or rather its sinful members, I'm sure he'd say its sinful members.  A bad verbal shortcut?  Sure.  But we do often use the words "the Church" as shortcut to refer to leading Church*men* and the apparatus of power (canon law, tribunals, etc.).  And Weigel was speaking in this context -- in terms of the Church as an institution, i.e. of a bureacracy with chains of command and institutional culture, discipline, management, etc.  Not in terms of its divine origin.  It would be good for people to point out that the Church itself is a perfect society and hence any and all scandals are the sole responsibility of the peopel who commit the scandal.  But this scandal has to do with the Church's imperfect aspects -- sinful members and sinful institutional cultures, which I think it's clear is the subject of Weigel's talk. 

3.)  And there has been too long a period of denial within the Church.  And this period of denial has crippled the Church in its battle against sex abuse.  But its uncharitable reading to say that Weigel meant that the Church itself has been in denial as opposed to the members in charge.  It's unfortunate that he uses imprecise terms that look like liberal criticisms of the Church as such, but it doesn't take an Illuminatus-mason to use the common parlance in this way.  And I don't think it takes a neocon to recognize what Weigel meant. 
If Weigel is all about putting the blame where it belongs, then he needs to come out and put it where it belongs.

The blame falls directly on the priests who did the abusing.  The indirect blame falls on JP2 and the bishops he appointed or kept that did the cover-ups and/or ignored what was going on.

As a Neo-Catholic he will never say, "The people to blame for the cover-ups are JP2, Cdl Mahony, Cdl Law, etc." even though that is the truth.   He wants to give B16 the credit for fighting the cover-ups, and rightly so.  But he's ignoring the other side of the story: who were Cdl. R's opponents in the battle?  Who was sweeping crap under the rug and/or ignoring it?

The best way to serve the Church and defend her is with the truth:  a weak / bad Pope and a bunch of weak / bad bishops made some bad choices and now we're going to fix it with B16 leading the charge as he wanted to do when he was Cdl. R.

If JP2 "The Great" can apologize for the "mistakes" the Church made in the past, maybe Mr. Weigel et al. can fess up that JP2 and his bishops made some big mistakes and apologize for those.  I doubt that will happen for reasons I've alluded to before.

(04-06-2010, 01:17 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: [ -> ]Sigh.  George Weigel said nothing wrong in the passage you cited.  The Vatican does have a sclerotic institutional culture -- every traditionalist agrees on this!  When was the last time a trad had something good to say for the Curia?  And he defended the Pope.  So when Weigel says something stupid (and he does, a lot), he gets beaten up for being stupid.  AND when he says something that ISN'T stupid, he gets beaten up again for being a neocon.  So your objection to this statement is really that Weigel is the one who said it.  That's called an ad hominem.  It means *you're* the one playing an ideological card here.  When a neocon says something unobjectionable, you object -- because he's a neocon.   Nothing masonic in what he said.  Please stop putting ideological labels first before objective analysis of others' statements.  It is uncharitable and un-Catholic, regardless of how problematic Weigel's stances *on other topics* may be. 

You're wasting your time.  The echo chamber has spoken.
(04-06-2010, 01:36 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-06-2010, 01:17 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: [ -> ]Sigh.  George Weigel said nothing wrong in the passage you cited.  The Vatican does have a sclerotic institutional culture -- every traditionalist agrees on this!  When was the last time a trad had something good to say for the Curia?  And he defended the Pope.  So when Weigel says something stupid (and he does, a lot), he gets beaten up for being stupid.  AND when he says something that ISN'T stupid, he gets beaten up again for being a neocon.  So your objection to this statement is really that Weigel is the one who said it.  That's called an ad hominem.  It means *you're* the one playing an ideological card here.  When a neocon says something unobjectionable, you object -- because he's a neocon.   Nothing masonic in what he said.  Please stop putting ideological labels first before objective analysis of others' statements.  It is uncharitable and un-Catholic, regardless of how problematic Weigel's stances *on other topics* may be. 

You're wasting your time.  The echo chamber has spoken.

Well, I think Bonifacius is wrong.

"When was the last time a trad had something good to say for the Curia?"

The reason isn't because the Curia has "a sclerotic institutional culture" but because it was formerly comprised of people leaning towards Liberalism and Modernism.  That's why trads didn't speak well of the recent Curia.  Talk about the Curia (or equivalent) of Pope St. Pius V, which had an even greater institutional culture facing the Protestant revolt and all, and most trads will give it praise.

And I think that's the difference - trads don't have a problem with a closed-in culture.  They have a problem with nuts running the asylum.
To call something sclerotic, obscurantist and backward, 9 to 10 you've got a masonic academic talking about the Catholic Church, whether it's Gibbon or someone like Bernal.

I've never heard a traditionalist use those terms to describe the curia, but I've heard plenty of  folks at America Magazine do so.
Pages: 1 2 3