Skip to comments.Denver Archbishop Says Catholics Refusing to Defend Morality "Demonstrating Cowardice" (AWESOME)
Posted on 10/24/2004 3:50:58 AM PDT by cpforlife.org
LifeSite Daily News
Friday October 22, 2004
Denver Archbishop Says Catholics Refusing to Defend Morality "Demonstrating Cowardice"
Indirectly slams Kerry citing "dishonest", "dangerous" avoidance phrases used by some Catholics
DENVER, Colorado, October 22, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput has once again come out in the New York Times powerfully teaching the serious obligation and right of Catholics to defend moral principles during elections.
(c) Copyright: LifeSite Daily News is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
You are correct.
Sadder still is that European Catholics are substantially worse.
Yes, except for particular bastions like Portugal and Spain.
Absolutely its a convenience for him.
If it weren't he would be a practicing Catholic.
It's amazing how so many are blind to this guy... We will keep up the good fight though.
Dead babies do NOT vote.
Catholic politicians should learn from the example of Alan Keyes.
I heard a priest once say of these cultural Catholics, "we hatch 'em, match 'em, and dispatch 'em."
"Claiming that 'we don't want to impose our beliefs on society' is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible."
My thoughts exactly.
"...Claiming that 'we don't want to impose our beliefs on society' is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible."
BRAVO! BRAVO! God bless this man for speaking so!
P.S. Are any of the FReepers here clergy? If so, brethen, THIS IS what leadership sounds like!
If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice."
Excerpts from a relatively long paper:
Clarence Thomas @ the Francis Boyer Lecture for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research at Washington, D.C. on February 13, 2001
. . . by yielding to a false form of "civility," we sometimes allow our critics to intimidate us. As I have said, active citizens are often subjected to truly vile attacks.... To this we often respond (if not succumb), so as not to be constantly fighting, by trying to be tolerant and nonjudgmental, i.e., we censor ourselves. This is not civility. It is cowardice, or well-intentioned self-deception at best.
My beliefs about personal fortitude and the importance of defending timeless principles of justice grew out of wonderful years I spent with my grandparents; the years I have spent here in Washington; and my interest in world history, especially the history of countries in which the rule of law was surrendered to the rule of fear, such as during the rise of Nazism in what was one of the most educated and cultured countries in Europe at the time.
These "rules of orthodoxy" still apply. You had better not engage in serious debate or discussion unless you are willing to endure attacks that range from mere hostile bluster to libel. Often the temptation is to retreat to complaining about the unfairness of it all. But this is a plaintive admission of defeat. It is a unilateral withdrawal from the field of combat.
If you trim your sails, you appease those who lack the honesty and decency to disagree on the merits, but prefer to engage in personal attacks. A good argument diluted to avoid criticism is not nearly as good as the undiluted argument, because we best arrive at truth through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister. One should not cowed by criticism.
In my humble opinion, those who come to engage in debates of consequence, and who challenge accepted wisdom, should expect to be treated badly. Nonetheless, they must stand undaunted. That is required. And, that should be expected. For, it is bravery that is required to secure freedom.
On matters of consequence, reasons and arguments must be of consequence. Therefore, those who choose to engage in such debates must themselves be of consequence.
Much emphasis these days is placed on who has the quickest tongue, and who looks best on television. There seems to be an obsession with how one looks to others; hence, a proliferation of public relations professionals and spin doctors. As I was counseled some years ago, perceptions are more important than reality. But this is madness. No car has ever crashed into a mirage. No imaginary army has ever invaded a country.
It does no good to argue ideas with those who will respond as brutes. Works of genius have often been smashed and burned, and geniuses have sometimes been treated no better.
But, there is much wisdom that requires no genius. It takes no education and no great intellect to know that it is best for children to be raised in two parent families. Yet, those who dare say this are often accused of trying to impose their values on others. This condemnation does not rest on some great body of counterevidence; it is purely and simply an in-your-face response. It is, in short, intimidation. For brutes, the most effective tactic is to intimidate an opponent into the silence of self-censorship.
Even if one has a valid position, and is intellectually honest, he has to anticipate nasty responses aimed at the messenger rather than the argument. The aim is to limit the range of the debate, the number of messengers, and the size of the audience. The aim is to pressure dissenters to sanitize their message, so as to avoid hurtful ad hominem criticism. Who wants to be calumniated? It's not worth the trouble.
But is it worth it? Just what is worth it, and what is not? If one wants to be popular, it is counterproductive to disagree with the majority. If one just wants to tread water until the next vacation, it isn't worth the agony. If one just wants to muddle through, it is not worth it. In my office, a little sign reads: "To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."
This tendency, in large part, results from an overemphasis on civility. None of us should be uncivil in our manner as we debate issues of consequence. No matter how difficult it is, good manners should be routine. However, in the effort to be civil in conduct, many who know better actually dilute firmly held views to avoid appearing "judgmental." They curb their tongues not only in form but also in substance. The insistence on civility in the form of our debates has the perverse effect of cannibalizing our principles, the very essence of a civil society.
Gertrude Himmelfarb refers to two kinds of virtues. The first are the "caring" virtues. They include "respect, trustworthiness, compassion, fairness, decency. " These are the virtues that make daily life pleasant with our families and those with whom we come in contact.
The second are the vigorous virtues. These heroic virtues "transcend family and community and may even, on occasion, violate the conventions of civility. These are the virtues that characterize great leaders, although not necessarily good friends."
She notes that the vigorous virtues have been supplanted by the caring ones. Though they are not mutually exclusive or necessarily incompatible, active citizens and leaders must be governed by the vigorous rather than the caring virtues. We must not allow our desire to be decent and well-mannered people to overwhelm the substance of our principles or our determination to fight for their success. Ultimately, we should seek both caring and vigorous virtues-but above all, we must not allow the former to dominate the latter.
Listen to the truths that lie within your heart, and be not afraid to follow them wherever they may lead you.
Great article. Reminds me of a proverb:
The turtle only makes progress when he sticks his neck out!
John Kerry voted AGAINST the ban on partial birth abortion. Enough said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.