Tag Archives: stupidity

Association of [Heterodox] Pittsburgh Priests

Jeff Miller always seems to more on top of Catholic news in Pittsburgh than me. :/ Anyhow, he mentions an article at KDKA about a press conference held by the Association of Pittsburgh Priests. They want Bishop Wuerl to voice their desire for optional priestly celibacy and ordination of women to next month’s Synod on the Eucharist in Rome. Jeff makes some good observations about better ways for these priests to spend their energy (If the post weren’t so short I’d quote bits of it for you folks). One question that he didn’t ask immediately sprang into my mind as I read the story.

Why in Heaven’s name hasn’t Bishop Wuerl laid the smackdown on this heterodox organization yet?!

Here’s another article.

"In response [to the priest shortage], the Pittsburgh Association of Priests — a group of priests and lay people — is proposing a controversial conversation. Bishop Donald Wuerl goes to a three-week meeting with church leaders in Rome next month."

"When he’s there, some local priests want him to discuss two very radical ideas [optional priestly celibacy and women’s ordination]."

For the record, the idea of married clergy is not radical. Priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite is a discipline, not a doctrine. The ordination of women, however, is a theological impossibility.

Yet another article.

"Along with the priests’ letter to Bishop Wuerl the group also presented him with a petition signed by more than 28,000 Catholics backing their concerns."

*sigh* 28,000 poorly catechized Catholics. Please feed Christ’s sheep, Your Excellency.

Update 10/03/05: Apparently Australia has a similar problem with heterodox priests.

Repeat After Me: Correlation Does Not Necessarily Imply Causation (Katrina and Global Warming)

More people need to read this.

"In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some commentators are jumping to the conclusion that global warming is responsible for its destructiveness. While there is a theoretical possibility that higher ocean temperatures could lead to more powerful hurricanes, no individual hurricane can be shown to be so affected. Moreover, most scientists who study hurricanes believe that we are moving from a period of low hurricane activity to one of greater activity – change not caused by global warming. So, arguing that Katrina’s ravages are the result of climate change commits a causal fallacy."

….

"1. There is no way of telling how much, if any, of Katrina’s destructiveness was caused by global warming. There were equally, and even more, destructive hurricanes prior to global warming, and it is impossible to differentiate between a hurricane that is destructive due to global warming and one that is just plain destructive."

"2. Most scientists who study hurricanes believe that they are becoming more severe due to cyclical changes which have nothing to do with global warming, so it may be that all of Katrina’s destructiveness was due to these other causes. If this were not the case, there would be a plausible argument that global warming was responsible for Katrina’s excessive destructiveness for lack of an alternative explanation. However, there is an alternative. Now, I am not a scientist who studies hurricanes myself, so I’m relying upon press reports for the expert opinions of those who do (see the Resources below). Of course, press reports are not always reliable, so caveat lector."

Voting Restrictions Racist?

I fail to see how a law requiring photo ID at polls is discriminatory against anyone, but that’s just what the NAACP is claiming.

"The NAACP accuses the U.S. Justice Department of weakening one of the nation’s most important voting laws. On Friday, the Justice Department approved a Georgia law requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot. Supporters say the new law will prevent fraud at the polls. But opponents say it will keep thousands of voters away — especially poor and elderly people who don’t have drivers’ licenses and can’t afford to pay for a state-issued ID card. They say the new Georgia law essentially requires many black people to pay a fee before voting."

….

"Under the new Georgia law, the list of acceptable photo IDs for voters is limited to the following: a Georgia driver’s license, U.S. passport, U.S. or state agency employee ID, military ID, tribal ID or an ID card issued by a legally empowered branch of Georgia, any other state or the U.S. government."

How much could it possibly cost to get a non-license photo ID in Georgia?! In PA, it’s about $10. For what poor soul is that too much to bear? If the cost really would be a deterrent for many, lobby for some kind of subsidy instead of trying to get the whole idea scrapped. Don’t they realize how many dead people and other inelligible parties vote each year?

Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

Update: Gclectic left an intriguing comment in which he called my bluff and presented an interesting idea. As he points out, I haven’t a clue how many fraudulant votes are registered at elections. I don’t think anyone would really deny it’s a problem, but he’s right that I ought to have provided evidence. I was being flippant and he called me on it. That’s fair.

He also suggested some alternatives to the photo ID idea. I really like one of them – indellible ink. Yup, the same ink used in Iraq’s elections. I think that’d be a really cool – and fair – way to curb voter fraud. I’d be very interested to see how many of my fellow citizens were – or weren’t – walking around with inky fingers on election day. Come to think of it, there might even be a fringe benefit to the practice – increased voter turnout.

Something similar happens in the Catholic Church. Every year on Ash Wednesday, churches are packed. More people attend that mass – one that isn’t even a holy day of obligation – than any other mass throughout the year. Why? Well, the full answer is complicated, but at least some of them likely attend because they get something to show for it. They get ashes put on their foreheads. First of all, people, particularly Americans, like to feel like they get something to show for their efforts. Secondly, for the rest of the day they can advertise what good Catholics they (allegedly) are, simply by being seen in public.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with US elections? Well, perhaps if voters got to walk around with ink on their fingers – a something tangible they could show off – they’d be more inclined to get off their lazy butts and vote. I’m sure I don’t have to provide statistical proof that voter turnout is often no higher than 60% of those who are eligible. So, with indellible ink we could fight voter fraud and possibly increase voter turnout in the process. Cool. 🙂

A Litmus Test By Any Other Name…

Apparently, conservatives don't own dictionaries. They seem utterly oblivious to the definition of "litmus test" as well as "irony" and "hypocrisy". I've received a number of alarmist emails from various conservative groups with in this vein:

"Write to your Senators and let them know you don't support any litmus test demands!"

How are demands for so-called strict constructionists who will overturn Roe v. Wade not litmus tests?! Everyone knows that if Bush hadn't nominated a "solid conservative", the loyal base that got him elected twice would have eaten him alive. That wasn't a suggestion. That was demand – a political debt to be paid.

These kinds of hypocritical political tactics will only hurt the pro-life cause. I'd like to see abortion on demand ended as much as the next pro-lifer, but this is not a productive way to go about it. As long as this battle remains Us versus Them, hearts will not be changed and lives won't be saved. Why should we be forced to accept any Supreme Court nominee – or political candiate for that matter – based solely on his position on abortion rulings? Worse yet, in this case, we don't even know for certain what his position is!

Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. There are other ways to reduce abortions than loading the courts with pro-lifers. Also, Supreme Court appointments are for life and there a lot of ways a justice could screw up constitutional law. I'd like to know how a nominee feels about a lot of issues aside from abortion before hounding my senators to accept his appointment. Besides, demanding pro-life strict constructionists is just as much as litmus test as demanding pro-choice "living document" nominees. It makes pro-lifers just as hypocritical as the pro-choicers they demonize, if not worse, and it undermines the pro-life cause.

In the name of the modern Holy Innocents, I beg you to stop.

Pat Robertson Does Not Speak For Me

Pat Robertson does not speak for me. He should not speak for you, either. I used to merely sigh when people spoke as though Robertson is or ought to be representative of Christianity, like some kind of Protestant pope. Now, I will shudder.

Continue reading