Kill the messenger is not an adequate defense

Robert Royal has an excellent article on this today on his experiences over the weekend, go and read it.

This weekend my family was on a retreat for special needs families.  Every year, we send the kids to "respite care" - playtime with volunteers- while we care giving parents get a much needed break and a chance to talk.  This session is led by a priest.

This year, Fr. Raul told us a couple of things we really didn't want to hear.  The first was that this would be the last year he was able to come to this retreat, as he's been named as the priest for the deaf community in Portland (and yes, it was a joy to watch him say mass, as he's picked up the habit of adding American Sign Language to the mass- the closest thing I've ever seen to actual honest-to-goodness holy liturgical dance in accordance with the General Instruction- quite beautiful).  And yes, I did make the suggestion that next year, we add the deaf community to the English weekend for the Journey Together in Hope Retreat- I think they would add much to the rest of our disabled community.

The other thing we didn't want to hear, but which needed to be said, was that every good priest he knows- including himself- are burning up the ears of their spiritual advisers and father confessors.  He himself has gone from monthly to weekly confession, and same with sessions with his spiritual adviser.

This was on Saturday, before the last bomb dropped, and we found out the Pope himself had encouraged this cabal's resurgence in the past 5 years.

That bomb was received by many with what has now become the standard modus operandi for armchair apologists.  It is a game called "kill the messenger" or "discredit the messenger".  Archbishop Vigano gave us such a damaging report, that the first instinct is to slander him, rather than believe such awful things about Pope Francis.

But a pattern of this has emerged, for the same thing has happened repeatedly.  In Ireland, Italy, France, Chile, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Honduras, the Philippines, the story is always the same:  believe the clerics, discredit the abused.

It is time to stop this.  It is time to declare that killing the Messenger is not an adequate defense for what was done. 

There's something wrong with consent itself

The latest round of the priest abuse cases, which is about younger-but-adult people being abused, shows a crack in the very philosophy behind the Sexual Revolution.

Not every act can be consented to.

At least not validly.

Yes does not mean yes when coercion of any sort is involved.

Yes does not mean yes when selfishness replaces love.

Yes does not mean yes when damage and pain is involved.

Yes does not mean yes when sex is perverted away from conception.

Yes does not mean yes when sex is over in a single night.

Basically, sex is supposed to be a part of something larger- a lifelong relationship that brings new life into existence and raises that new life to be a functional part of society.

Sexual revolution consent fails at the primary purpose of sex completely.

Where there was one, now there are two

I've written often about my confusion at the Jesuit proposal of a "doctrine of reception", which enables cafeteria catholicism by explaining sin away as merely being "a teaching not received", as if the real problem isn't enough learning rather than the effects of Original Sin in our lives.

Today, in an article written by Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB on the Salt and Light blog  we see a new doctrine proposed.  I'd call it, for lack of a better name, the Anti-Pharisee doctrine.  Apparently under this new doctrine, while it is nice to follow scripture and tradition, both are

considered to be "disordered attachments" at times at the discernment of the Pope.  This leads to a rather confused teaching- for everything is now based on the Pope as Dictator, rather than on continuity with the historical magisterium.

On Zenit where this first appeared, the article has been rescinded, but it is a fascinating look into the mind of some people in the church.

I have gotten very busy with work, but these demands are worth mirroring

Everybody knows that Silicon Valley corporations struggle when it comes to how they deal with conservatives.  Here are four very practical suggestions on what big tech social media firms can do to rectify the situation.

1) Provide Transparency: We need detailed information so everyone can see if liberal groups and users are being treated the same as those on the right. Social media companies operate in a black-box environment, only releasing anecdotes about reports on content and users when they think it necessary. This needs to change. The companies need to design open systems so that they can be held accountable, while giving weight to privacy concerns.

2) Provide Clarity on ‘Hate Speech’: “Hate speech” is a common concern among social media companies, but no two firms define it the same way. Their definitions are vague and open to interpretation, and their interpretation often looks like an opportunity to silence thought. Today, hate speech means anything liberals don’t like. Silencing those you disagree with is dangerous. If companies can’t tell users clearly what it is, then they shouldn’t try to regulate it.

3) Provide Equal Footing for Conservatives: Top social media firms, such as Google and YouTube, have chosen to work with dishonest groups that are actively opposed to the conservative movement, including the Southern Poverty Law Center. Those companies need to make equal room for conservative groups as advisers to offset this bias. That same attitude should be applied to employment diversity efforts. Tech companies need to embrace viewpoint diversity.

4) Mirror the First Amendment: Tech giants should afford their users nothing less than the free speech and free exercise of religion embodied in the First Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. That standard, the result of centuries of American jurisprudence, would enable the rightful blocking of content that threatens violence or spews obscenity, without trampling on free speech liberties that have long made the United States a beacon for freedom.