From: jocallag@ovid.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: Myth exposed!!!
Date: 19 Dec 92 17:59:38 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <921218150540.2020ca8e@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>
>> As you must know,
>>this myth arose in a discussion of the Pope's teaching
>>authority in matters of doctrine. Martin used this typical
>>liberal pseudo-fact as an argument against the reliability
>>of the Papal magisterium. (I don't accuse Martin of having
>>invented this piece of silliness, but of having too much
>>trust in things written by liberals, by which he was un-
>>doubtedly deceived.)
>
>Steve, I don't know if it's just me, but when I read your
>use of the word "liberal", it always screams ANTI-CHRIST.

Wow!  J.J. I think its jsut you.  In fact I think its so much
just you that perhaps you might want to see someone about this
manifestation of paranoia. ;-)

>Steve, I don't want to be insulting either, but, only a brain-dead
>conservative would feel threatened with this "railroading" evidence
>presented by Martin. I think Martin half-heartedly threw it out
>there just to see if some "defender of the faith" would jump
>at it, beat it to death, and claim victory for truth, justice and
>the Vatican way (I do like this Martin Berry line:-)

Perhpas that was Martin's intent.  But then I guess I would not
think he or anyone else was acting in the spirit of Christian charity if
it was done intentionally; would you?  I guess I and perhaps Steve wanted
to give Martin the benefit of the doubt, and respect his intentions, namely
that he was presenting what he took to be a fact.  A fact he said he
would look up, and get back to us on.  I suppose one of the faults
of the "brain dead conservatives" is that they naively suppose that those
with whom they communicate are communicating sincerely and truthfully, even
if they happen to disagree with them.  I suppose the virtue of "brain alive"
liberals is to be insincere in communication.  In fact this leads me to
a speculation, J.J., about an interesting paradox.  "Brain dead" conservatives
believe in sincerity and truth, and are willing to argue using their dead brainsover the truth of what they take to be sincere statements of others who think 
the statements are true.  "Brain alive" liberals on the other hand don't seem to be interested in sincere communication, and hate the fact that anyone would 
argue with them over the truth of the their insincere communications.
I suppose then we can list the vices of "brain dead" conseervatives:
1) belief in truth
2) commitment to sincerity
3) commitment to honesty
4) willingness to argue

On the other hand I suppose we can list the virtue of "brain alive" liberals:
1) lack of belief in truth
2) no commitment to sincerity
3) no commitment to honesty
4) unwillingness to argue.

Perhaps the original sin of "brain dead" conservatives, which killed the
life of the brain in them, was that original moment when they turned
away from the divine light of insincerity, dishonesty, ridicule, and
sarcasm which feeds and nourishes the brain of the "brain alive" liberal,
to the darkness of truth, sincerity, honesty, and argument.

Any "brain dead" liberals out there that want to talk? :-(

And perhaps Martin would like to speak for himself, as J.J. so
eloquently speaks for himself?

>
>>You obviously have passionate convictions, and suffer deeply
>>because of what you regard as wrongs in the Church.
>
>I am honored that you think so, but if I were truely suffering
>deeply, I would be doing more than just debating the issues here.
>Remember, a liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been
>mugged yet. (Marty can relate to this:-)

Problem is J.J., you haven't even been "debating the issues here." :-)

>
>> But you cloak you seriousness in so much flippancy that we
>>mistake your arguments for jokes and your jokes for arguments!
>
>To be honest, Steve, I didn't know whether your whole "Myth exposed!!!"
>post was a joke or not? You obviously take what you do and say very
>seriously, an admirable quality, but one I obviously lack when
>discussing politics, religion or sex.
>
>>By the way, though I like brockely, I don't know how to
>>spell it. That puts me in the same catagory with V.P. Quayle,
>>which I regard as "a badge of honor". Steve.
>
>Not to mention soon-to-be former president Bush, and not to sound
>cruel, but does your brother have a job lined up? I can recall reading
>a rather negative editorial on him recently, about a cover-up or
>something. (Obviously from a ANTI-CHRIST columnist, Chancler or
>somebody:-) -J.J.

Really J.J., there are people trained to help you with this paranoia. ;-)



John