My (earnest, obstinate) point remains: you've got a right, even a duty, to judge ideas, words, actions. But it is not right to display contempt for the person.
Especially not right to display contempt for a person who, in context, has said and done no wrong.
Easy contempt is not a heaven-inspired impulse. It's one of the besetting sins of our age. It --- I can testify to this --- gets to be a bad habit. And it's way too emotionally self-indulgent. (I would know about this as well...)
“My (earnest, obstinate) point remains: you've got a right, even a duty, to judge ideas, words, actions. But it is not right to display contempt for the person.”
I agree. I guess my (obstinate, maybe less earnest and at least mildly tongue-in-cheek) response is, you're focusing on the words, and I don't think the words are what matter so much.
I think it's the attitude. Look at what Jesus says:
“* But I say to you, whoever is angry* with his brother will be liable to judgment,o and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”
I don't think Jesus is just talking about the words but about an attitude of anger - I'm guessing that self-righteous anger for which we all have a seemingly infinite source - that we often bring to the table.
“23Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you,p 24leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him.q Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
“26Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”
This isn't just about words, or even angry words. It strikes me that in context, it's about reconciliation, or rather, the failure to reconcile. I'm not sure it's about comments one makes about someone not present, into the air, so-to-speak. My sense is that Jesus is talking about angry confrontation.
“Especially not right to display contempt for a person who, in context, has said and done no wrong.”
The difficulty here is that different people may have different views of what the cardinal has said. The difficulty here is that not every member of the hierarchy has conducted himself with the highest honor when speaking publicly, before, and the past keeps trying to break into the present, as we remember transgressions that have gone before.
And well we should, since, even as we must forgive, it behooves us not to forget.
The bishops have torched their moral authority over the past decades, and now, people view their words with suspicion. Not many give them the benefit of the doubt. And frankly, collectively, they've gotten that skepticism the old-fashioned way - they've earned it.
So, sometimes folks are leery of the words of bishops, and do not give them the most generous reading possible.
It's tough to criticize.
sitetest