Bishop of Little Rock Responds to The Remnant
#41
(02-15-2012, 05:34 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote:
(02-15-2012, 05:10 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-15-2012, 04:48 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote:
(02-15-2012, 02:45 PM)JayneK Wrote: That you seize on Facebook as an excuse to criticize this bishop is a further indication that you are acting from prejudice rather than reason

Prejudice? Absolutely. And reason. In short, reasonable prejudice.

Most have embraced the error that prejudice and reason are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Many prejudices are actually quite reasonable. Indeed, there are many instances in which one radically fails if he isn't prejudiced. For instance, parents would be unreasonably unprejudiced if they failed to exclude convicted child molesters from their babysitter applicant pool. Reasonable prejudice demands that they exclude them all.

Similarly, I'm prejudiced against all post-Vatican II bishops. And given the wreckage over which they've presided and continue to preside, this is a reasonable prejudice. To suspend prejudice in the face of the wreckage would be unreasonable. Nor would it be charitable, because true charity demands purification, and purification demands that their feet be held to the fire.

Your response to this situation has nothing to do with facts, reason or charity.  It is all prejudice.  You have made up your mind that this bishop is at fault and nothing gets in the way of you believing it.

I've noticed that you have a habit of speaking like this, later realizing your error, and then apologizing for your rashness. True, it's good to apologize. But it's better not to create situations that call for apologies. It seems to me that under a mask of reason, you're actually a sentimentalist, since such a pattern is characteristic of sentimentalists. In the future, you might consider checking your feelings before you respond to see whether they're truly in accord with reason - along with reasonable prejudice.

I suspect that my rashness is more due to my quick temper than on sentimentalism.  I must admit that I am angry to see a bishop spoken of in such a way.  I am even more angry to see this bad behaviour called charity. It is neither charitable nor just to approach the situation with one's mind already made up that he is guilty of wrong-doing.  If there were some legitimate complaints to make about him (and there is no credible evidence of this) they could be made respectfully. 
Reply
#42
(02-15-2012, 06:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: I suspect that my rashness is more due to my quick temper than on sentimentalism.  I must admit that I am angry to see a bishop spoken of in such a way.  I am even more angry to see this bad behaviour called charity. It is neither charitable nor just to approach the situation with one's mind already made up that he is guilty of wrong-doing.  If there were some legitimate complaints to make about him (and there is no credible evidence of this) they could be made respectfully. 

Ray Zürbeck seems to make some legitimate complaints in his response. Of course none of us know, because we're not there in Arkansas.

As for the bishop, I haven't made up my mind that he's guilty. I don't have enough information. But I do adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion towards all post-Vatican II bishops. They've earned it. It appears that you adopt the same hermeneutic towards Ray Zürbeck and other traditionalists. I don't know how they've earned it.
Reply
#43
I do not start with a hermeneutic of suspicion towards trads. Ray Zurbek lost his credibility with me by the way he wrote his article.  It went beyond a hermeneutic of suspicion. It assumed the worst possible interpretation for the bishop's actions, apparently without any effort to verify it.
Reply
#44
(02-15-2012, 08:38 PM)JayneK Wrote: I do not start with a hermeneutic of suspicion towards trads. Ray Zurbek lost his credibility with me by the way he wrote his article.  It went beyond a hermeneutic of suspicion. It assumed the worst possible interpretation for the bishop's actions, apparently without any effort to verify it.

I think Zürbeck nicely* supports this worst possible interpretation. In fact, I think he's too soft on the bishop.

*3. characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision, skill, tact, care, or delicacy: nice workmanship; a nice shot; a nice handling of a crisis. http://tinyurl.com/7nnnvqn
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)