“Catholics For Choice” And Other Oxy-morons

They would have liked "Catholics For Choice"

I never cease to be amazed at that particular form of human stupidity expressing itself in people insisting that things be the contrary of what they are. Say, I am buddhist and I’d like to think that Jesus was Buddhist, therefore I persuade myself that Jesus was Buddhist.

The problem with that is that one can’t believe one thing and ts contrary. Unless he is outright stupid or deluded to the point of stupidity, of course. If you believe in Jesus you can’t believe that he was Buddhist and if you think that Jesus was Buddhist you don’t believe in Jesus, you believe in a self-made religion to which you conveniently attach what you and many other like in an attempt to make it credible.

The same happens here. You can’t believe that you are a Catholic and that Catholicism is wrong on doctrinal issues. You really can’t. It’s a contradiction in terms. Besides indicating the belonging to a group, being Catholic has a meaning, it signifies something. It is logically impossible to claim to belong to this group and at the same time to negate what the belonging means. You can’t say that you are an “Atheist for Allah”, because being an Atheist implies that you do not believe in any Allah and every claim of doing so lets one sink into total ridicule.

This is so unbelievably banal that it shouldn’t be necessary to explain this at all, not even to a chid. No child claims to be, say, a boy but also a girl because he knows that if you are a boy, you obviously can’t be a girl.

This wisdom is accessible to every five-years-old child, but is apparently beyond the grasp of a group calling itself, wait for this, “Catholics for Choice”.
As the Motley Monk blog reports, not only such an organisation exists (I am tempted now to google in order to see whether the “Atheists for Allah” also exist, seriously…), but it even has a “President”. This chap has – in a moment of boredom or drukenness or, more probably, in a desperate attempt to make himself important – released a statement about Bishop Olmsted’s decision to deprive a group of medical structures to call itself “Catholic” and about which I have already reported.

The statement, available in full on the above mentioned blog, is hilarious. I mean not hilarious for me, but hilarious for every five-years-old who has been properly instructed about what “Catholicism” is. The statement reeks of those home-made religions that aromatherapy-addicted old aunts invent after a longish sojourn in Thailand and reminds rather of the immortal Monthy Phyton sketch about the man who “wants to be a woman” .

Here the sublime humour of Monthy Phyton is not even approached, but a good effort is made when the “individual conscience” is presented – by people who call themselves “Catholic” – as the decisive criterium of what is good.
Also nice is that, very much in line with “liberal” thinking, the good conscience of the one who defends elementary Catholic values is put into question. Basically what the chap says is: “we go against the Teaching of the Church but we are in good conscience, so we are fine; you defend them, therefore are probably in bad faith”. Classic.
The substitution of praxis with Catholic value is also very funny: a lot of Catholics recur to abortion, therefore abortion is in line with Catholicism. I’d like to know the chap’s opinion about fornication, adultery, drunkenness, gluttony, & Co. No wait, better not…..

Enjoy the statement and add, if you can, a Hail Mary for the poor deluded chap who is in serious need of them.


Posted on December 29, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. I read this press release as well, and was just as baffled. I’m curious to hear what Mr. O’Brien thinks caused the Bishop to act in bad conscience, since I can see no palpable benefit to doing what the Bishop did (in worldly terms), unless he truly believed he was doing the right thing.

    All Bishop Olmstead’s gotten from this is a lot of scorn in the media and the chattering classes. Even Anne Rice felt the need to insult him in -of all places- Jimmy Aiken’s combox!

    • NSSN

      I think the chap considers himself exempt from the duty to think. He reads his name in press launches and this is probably enough. Anne Rice is the one, as you probably know, with the homo son. She considers it terribly bad from the Church that she doesn’t accommodate her on this tiny detail.


  2. I was actually not aware that Anne Rice had a homosexual son. I was, however, aware that she was given to throwing hissy fits over the internet (famously directed against people who gave her bad reviews on Amazon.com, and even her own fans that try to homage her work by writing fan fiction!)

    I guess with her much publicized conversion to Christianity, follower by her much publicized apostasy, I should have expected it. Still, I always expect famous people to have handlers or something who are there to keep them away from acting like idiots, especially on the internet, where it is possible to express one’s opinion anonymously.

    • NNSS,

      in my experience, when people have a fit of hysteria about the Church homosexual relatives or friends are seldom far away. If it’s not that, it’s lesbians.

      Anne Rice, though, is a particularly tragic example because – as far as we know – her son’s homosexuality was clear to her before her supposed “conversion”. She certainly can’t say she didn’t know what the Church teaches on the matter….


%d bloggers like this: