Wednesday, July 13, 2005

More Tantrums and Tiaras

Of course, with a subject line like that, it can only mean that these stories come from News Bytes at the CWNews Tribunal, where the anger never ends.

We have this gem from Canada:
[A] former television host... is leading a group urging Queen Elizabeth to step in and block Parliament from passing same-sex marriage legislation.

David Mainse concedes the Queen's intervention could spark a crisis but has launched a letter-writing campaign in the hope of prompting Her Majesty to take the historic step anyway.

Wow. So they want to subvert constitutional process to defend... a particular interpretation of scripture. Can I get an "Iran!"?!

If we could only divert their energies toward sniffing out terrorists as opposed to those oh-so-dangerous LGBT couples (who would, by his own baffling admission, absolutely ruin Rick Santorum's marriage), the world would be a much safer place for our children. Tres savvy, snowflakes. I'm surprised these people haven't found their way to Leon Panetta's yet.

But cons have always had a special thing for queens -- look no further than the cult following of Diogenes, Queen of Mean, over at Lawler's place. Even if it means risking a constitutional crisis, do not get between the lace crowd and their bejewelled ones! It's like the running of the bulls!

Also, from the "Cardinal Law Died for You" desk, Rick Santorum returns... to absolve Law from his role in the cover-up and blame it on... prepare yourself for this... liberalism.

See what you can get away from your ilk if you're anti-abortion? It's like the cure-all issue position! McCarrick is pro-life and gets defamed every day by the same people who still view Law as seemingly pristine -- "he wasn't really bad, he was just a victim of his times," to use Molly's immortal Texas phrase.

There really is no justice in this world. Rick said in a back interview, picked up by the Globe:
"'When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
Apparently our junior senator (who kept his kids in Leesburg, VA -- a DC 'burb -- while billing their schooling to Pittsburgh-area taxpayers) never heard of clericalism. It's more authoritarian libertinism than liberalism.

And believe me, Senator, there's a big difference between the two.



Blogger Tony said...

Rocco, I have been looking for a distribution of abuse claims by diocese. I think once that is produced and released, you're going to see a surprising "blue state" correlation.

13/7/05 21:46  
Blogger Richard said...

Hello Rocco,

Well, I'm not an expert on Canadian constitutional law - I just play one on TV.

Admittedly the role of the Queen in Commonwealth countries where she still retains her status as true head of state, functioning almost always through her appointed governor generals (and in increasingly fewer Commonwealth countries, through the privy council on adjudication of difficult cases), is effectively symbolic and hardly ever exercised insofar as theory actually allows it. The most striking recent case I can think of was the governor general dissolving the Australian parliament in...1974, I believe.

But if she retains constitutional power, this fellow Mainse would be on untroubled legal ground. Politically, obviously, it might be something quite explosive. "Subversiveness" is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps.

And yet it's the second part of your formulation I think I take real exception to. If it is "a particular interpretation of sacripture," it's one emphatically endorsed by the magisterium and reaffirmed by Canada's Catholic bishops, who see themselves as supporting natural law, not merely scriptural injunctions, and apparently are pursuing the point by denying communion now to legislators who voted for the bill. Given the repeated statements by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI drawing the line on the sand on the subject I just don't see that there's any argument on that. All of which I am sure you're aware of. So why do I get the feeling that you're arguing that the Church has no business advocating against legal recognition of same-sex unions of various stripes?

For my part I think Mainse's move is ill-advised. The gripe of many conservatives in Canada and the U.S. is that they're sick of unelected judges ramming through social revolution despite the will of the people. Here it would be they benefiting from a non-democratic ukase. Error may have no rights and the truth may not in a real sense be up for a vote, but it still looks odd for cultural conservatives (or at least this one) to abandon the ground they've chosen to play on in recent decades.

However it happened - even if it was by political skullduggery by Martin - the people's elected representatives passed this thing. If that really doesn't reflect the will of the Canadian people, they'll get a chance to demonstrate that at the next election.

I think you make a cogent point on clericalism. The Mess in Boston predates Law by a long, long, long time. On the other hand, while it's just one part of a complex matrix and it's clear Santorum either doesn't understand this or failed to express it artfully, I think it's also true that there's considerable evidence of a certain congruency between heterodox tendencies on doctrine and liturgy in a diocese and a lot of the behavior we end up associating with The Scandal. And, I might add, a lack of vocations.

best regards
Richard Lender

14/7/05 01:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home