Comments of the Week: Things Get Heated with the ‘Smoke of Satan’
Last week, Vox exposed the inadequate suicide prevention measures in the District’s jails, anticipated the craziness of the upcoming mayoral elections, and recounted House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy‘s candidness about Instagram selfies with Supreme Court Justices.
But by far, Vox‘s address of the utter absurdity that is the ‘Smoke of Satan’ at Georgetown video evoked the most, um, colorful of responses.
The comment thread became even more exciting as Pope Francis himself so kindly decided to make an appearance. At least now everyone on Vox has been absolved from sin.
Let’s see. On this thread, we have:
1. A reporter who is clueless about my position on homosexuality putting a bunch of words in my mouth.
2. A number of well-intentioned but painfully sincere people who have the teaching right, but seem to have lost track of the whole “Christian charity” thing in their desire to berate a bunch of college students on a blog that, um, is not exactly known for intellectual stimulation. Love ya, Vox, but let’s be honest here.
No wonder that other guy decided to hang up his subcinctorium so early. But I forgive you all anyway.
you all racist
I guess now we know what the gays of georgetown burn to produce the smoke of satan
Sadly, it looks as though a disgruntled Faith clearly confused the concept of “comment” with “dissertation” with a verbose response that included a whole lot of irrelevancy… and some rando named Mutz (too bad no rational human being possesses the time, or desire, to read it).
The Vox article does little to present an accurate overview of the Catholic position, as already noted. Instead, Echarte relies on ridicule toward those making the film, primarily on the basis of the video’s admittedly overstated title (no doubt intended to provoke dialogue). A lack of credibility has not been established, only a complaint about the technical means of protecting the identities of the speakers (something the Vox reporter fails to do). The Vox article also quotes a spokesperson for the “Coming Out day”group who believed his position not fully conveyed in the video. If the “Coming Out” spokesperson said his ideas had not been sufficiently expressed in the video, yet the representatives filmed in the video are given several opportunities to define the purpose of their event and the video does not break off the interview in the midst. Moreover, the Vox article represented yet another opportunity for the “Coming Out Day” representative to fully present his position. Finally, Encharte criticizes those making the video for using “philosophical jargon.” While the video includes phrases common to Catholic doctrine that merit further explanation, these are terms necessary to understanding the Catholic position, and the assumption was probably that those taking classes at a Catholic college should be familiar with such terms. Re-watching the video, I notice that the spokesperson for the “Coming Out” day is the one to introduce the terms “individual revelation” and “hierarchy.” The person conducting the interview points out that homosexuality is considered “intrinsically disordered” by the Catholic Church. According to Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., head of the committee on doctrine, “Homosexual acts are never morally acceptable. Such acts never lead to happiness,” he said, because they are “intrinsically disordered,” meaning they are not directed to the bonds of marriage and the goal of procreation that are “part of God’s design. But having an inclination that is disordered does not in any way diminish human worth.” Encharte might have gone to the trouble to include such definitions in her article, and thereby moving toward genuine dialogue. Instead, the Vox article demonstrates the “Mutz paradox.” College is…not just a place to gain information and to acquire skills, colleges also provide indoctrination in political correctness. According to a group called FIRE(Foundation for Individual Rights Education).Lack of real dialogue with those holding divergent opinions is so common, in fact, that it has been coined the Mutz paradox, after Diana Mutz’s book, Hearing the Other Side. The higher a crowd’s educational level, it turns out, the less willing they are to hear divergent views.
Only talking within like-minded social networks is one thing, but actually perpetuating a viewpoint in the name of even-handed or balanced journalism is another. Journalists from the Washington Post and The New York Times, for instance, admit to submitting editorial veto power to the power base. In another example named in “Mainstream Media Censors the News,” a journalist admitted that CNN had become a voice for a 3rd world dictator, taking his money for ads and serving as a vehicle for his state-sponsored propaganda. http://americanfreepress.net/?p=6213 The three comments below the Vox article offer corrective details as to the Catholic position on homosexuality.