"Identity Politics" and "Gang-banging" in Catholicism
#21
(08-08-2013, 10:04 AM)Tim Wrote: Guacamole,
I hope you find that and post.

I found it when I got home this afternoon.  I looked it up in my book (the Sr. Benedicta Ward translation of The Sayings of the Desert Fathers) and found it under Ischyrion:
Quote:The holy Fathers were making predictions about the last generation.  They said, 'What have we ourselves done?'  One of them, the great Abba Ischyrion replied, 'We ourselves have fulfilled the commandments of God.'  The others replied, 'And those who come after us, what will they do?'  He said, 'The will struggle to achieve half our works.'  They said, 'And to those who come after them, what will happen?'  He said, 'The men of that generation will not accomplish any works at all and temptation will come upon them; and those who will be approved in that day will be greater than either us or our fathers.'
Reply
#22
(08-08-2013, 06:02 PM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-08-2013, 10:04 AM)Tim Wrote: Guacamole,
I hope you find that and post.

I found it when I got home this afternoon.  I looked it up in my book (the Sr. Benedicta Ward translation of The Sayings of the Desert Fathers) and found it under Ischyrion:
Quote:The holy Fathers were making predictions about the last generation.  They said, 'What have we ourselves done?'  One of them, the great Abba Ischyrion replied, 'We ourselves have fulfilled the commandments of God.'  The others replied, 'And those who come after us, what will they do?'  He said, 'The will struggle to achieve half our works.'  They said, 'And to those who come after them, what will happen?'  He said, 'The men of that generation will not accomplish any works at all and temptation will come upon them; and those who will be approved in that day will be greater than either us or our fathers.'

If I interpret this right it's the same as I've heard regarding this present era. God knows us from the beginning and the reason we are here now is the others would never have made it. In short we are greater than those.

tim
Reply
#23
(08-08-2013, 02:50 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-08-2013, 10:20 AM)Deidre Wrote: [quote='Miriam_M' pid='1193431' dateline='1375970647']
I do see, however, that I personally get "put into a camp" when I merely defend the faith without appeal to a 'gang" or a "group."  Sacred Tradition is not a gang and is not "identity politics."  The Church is universal because Christ is universal.

"Sacred Tradition" isn't a group, but Catholics are, and it's my experience that within that larger group are smaller groups that like to beat each other up, metaphorically speaking. The problems aren't with the religion; it's with people.

Whether you put yourself into a group or not, what I'm saying is that others will put you into groups. Mind you, I think some groups actually  exist and there's a good reason for calling them out, talking about the differences, etc. I even think that various groups tend to use words and phrases in a stereotypical fashion (some of which I find quite annoying. I'm esp, annoyed by trads who speak/write as if they're living in hte 19th c. and writing for the back of a Holy Card or something). That isn't the problem. The problem is the quick, E-Z judgments made about who belongs in what groups, typically based on things like a few uses of buzzwords, the dehumanizing and the ignoring of the real arguments the other is trying to make, the great willingness to have a "them" against which to pit ourselves, etc.


Hey, Vox? I think there was a mistake with the quote button in your post...Not quite sure how I ended up sayng the above.   ??? And now it's happening with my post!  :LOL:
Reply
#24
Agree, on the Quote problem, Deidre, so I won't use it.  I'll merely refer to this, which was a response to my post earlier.

"Whether you put yourself into a group or not, what I'm saying is that others will put you into groups. "
Whoever did say that...
I don't care that "others" do or might.  I ignore that because I keep bringing Catholics around to the OHCAC.  I am unfazed by anyone's self-chosen identity politics and do not operate in that sphere.  And I would suggest that that's the best antidote, as a response.

Reply
#25
(08-08-2013, 08:11 PM)Miriam_M Wrote: Agree, on the Quote problem, Deidre, so I won't use it.  I'll merely refer to this, which was a response to my post earlier.

"Whether you put yourself into a group or not, what I'm saying is that others will put you into groups. "
Whoever did say that...
I don't care that "others" do or might.  I ignore that because I keep bringing Catholics around to the OHCAC.  I am unfazed by anyone's self-chosen identity politics and do not operate in that sphere.  And I would suggest that that's the best antidote, as a response.

Oops! Fixed that quoting problem in my post, Deirdre! Sorry!

Miriam, that might be fine when it comes to individuals and day-to-day lives, but when you're running a website and trying to get links and advertisers, the gang-banging and "identity politics" issue are extremely problematic. "We can't link to you; you allow SSPXers and sedevacantists to post at your forum" or "Sorry, won't be linking to FE; you mention Camille Paglia on your "About This Site" page. And it is that ridiculous.Advertising is how I am able to survive (quite literally), so this sort of nonsense not only affects how I'm able or not able to further the cause of Tradition, it also affects whether Marta and I get to eat.

On another level, no one likes to be grouped in with people he doesn't agree with because of using a word in a way that displeases someone else, and no one wants to have his arguments twisted to mean the opposite of what is actually said because of such things. But it happens all the time in the trad world.

Reply
#26
I don't see a problem with "identity politics" as long as the Catholic politicians really live their faith. The problem we have today is that there has been so much betrayal for at least a generation. I still remember Mario Cuomo's decisive tie breaking vote that brought abortion to New York. And don't forget that the decision that made abortion legal in the United States was authored by a Catholic justice on the Supreme Court. It is the betrayal of Catholic values that is wrong. 
Reply
#27
Poche, that is the problem. Identity sub-divisions over rule being Catholic.If you look pre the pill both parties Dems, and Repubs, had liberals and conservatives, and their religions came first. Everett Dirksen, after much soul searching, brought Repubs over to vote for the voting act. That would not happen today, as we saw in the health bill. Not because the Repubs are bad men but Dems have become evil.

tim
Reply
#28
Unnecessary divides. It happened here recently when someone made a thread questioning Pope Francis' statement: "prayer without concrete works is fruitless prayer." Immediately the Pope was suspected of belittling contemplative prayer, the contemplative life and contemplative orders. For me, the Pope was simply saying to all of us: don't pay the Lord lip service...... get out there and LIVE your faith!

I never did like the separation of corporal works of mercy and spiritual works of mercy either. Our Lord makes no such distinction. The Sermon on the Mount, as well as the parables, gives lessons in both and they're all mixed in together.
Reply
#29
(08-08-2013, 09:01 AM)Tim Wrote:
(08-08-2013, 08:35 AM)2Vermont Wrote: One question:  did we have these divisions before Vatican II?  Because although a simplistic response, I do believe that the division in our Church stems from Vatican II.

In the post above this one of yours I wrote how it was similar before Vatican II.

If I understood that post, then you are saying there were similarities, but it's much worse now. 
Reply
#30
(08-08-2013, 11:20 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-08-2013, 08:11 PM)Miriam_M Wrote: Agree, on the Quote problem, Deidre, so I won't use it.  I'll merely refer to this, which was a response to my post earlier.

"Whether you put yourself into a group or not, what I'm saying is that others will put you into groups. "
Whoever did say that...
I don't care that "others" do or might.  I ignore that because I keep bringing Catholics around to the OHCAC.  I am unfazed by anyone's self-chosen identity politics and do not operate in that sphere.  And I would suggest that that's the best antidote, as a response.

Oops! Fixed that quoting problem in my post, Deirdre! Sorry!

Miriam, that might be fine when it comes to individuals and day-to-day lives, but when you're running a website and trying to get links and advertisers, the gang-banging and "identity politics" issue are extremely problematic. "We can't link to you; you allow SSPXers and sedevacantists to post at your forum" or "Sorry, won't be linking to FE; you mention Camille Paglia on your "About This Site" page. And it is that ridiculous.Advertising is how I am able to survive (quite literally), so this sort of nonsense not only affects how I'm able or not able to further the cause of Tradition, it also affects whether Marta and I get to eat.

On another level, no one likes to be grouped in with people he doesn't agree with because of using a word in a way that displeases someone else, and no one wants to have his arguments twisted to mean the opposite of what is actually said because of such things. But it happens all the time in the trad world.

I understand your practical dilemma.  Perhaps the answer is to have a website that requires membership.  That might bring in less members, but it would allow those members wiling to pay the price to discuss topics that might offend advertisers.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)