For Soc (and Anyone And Everyone)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1582628' date='Jun 25 2008, 01:46 AM']My problem with it is that it is written in a way to put others down, and is also using black and white thinking, which I can't stand.[/quote]
Spoken like a true pastoral, sensitive, compassionate, flexible non-judgmental person.


BLACK AND WHITE THINKING: the unthinkably unPASTORAL and inSENSITIVE crime of believing that things are actually[i] right[/i] and [i]wrong[/i] (see RIGID [see SIMPLISTIC]), commonly practiced by CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALISTS, ULTRACONSERVATIVES, and other such JUDGMENTAL people; other than perhaps SEXISM or HOMOPHOBIA, the greatest of the only remaining personal mortal sins. Sensitive, pastoral Catholics must rely on FEELING instead, and share the VISION that everything is a gray blur and that WE HAVE NO RIGHT ANSWERS/WE DON'T HAVE MANY ANSWERS.

[Alycin]

Actually black and white thinking is one of many cognitive distortions that has little to do with right and wrong, but has to do with extremism.



It's okay though, you're not the first to make that mistake.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Alycin

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1582628' date='Jun 25 2008, 01:46 AM']My problem with it is that it is written in a way to put others down, and is also using black and white thinking, which I can't stand.

But yeah, taken with a grain of salt I can see how it would be funny.[/quote]
If we can't laugh at ourselves, we can't laugh at anyone.
I don't think I'm so called "conservative" or "liberal" enough in terms of Church policy to start arguing with anyone about this, but I think it's ok to relax a bit and poke a bit of good natured fun at ourselves.
After all, even if they're 'liberal' Catholics, they're still Catholics, and they're with us.

[Didymus]

it wasn't just a slam on liberal catholics tho... in some areas it slammed Catholics inline with Church teaching:

[quote]RULES: A word that once was operative but was done away with by the Second Vatican Council.[/quote]

pretty lame

[Lisieux Flower]

[quote]CHANGE: Mandated by the Second Vatican Council; must be open to all change unless instituted recently; see WE HAVE NO RIGHT ANSWERS.[/quote]

Edited June 26, 2008 by Lisieux Flower

[Alycin]

It's written by RadTrads to put anyone who doesn't think like them in the same category, mixing orthodox, obedient Catholics with those who break the rules.

THAT is why I said it is black and white thinking. It is saying, "either you're a super-conservative, VATII hating Catholic, or you're a bad Catholic."

[KnightofChrist]

This [i]article[/i] when referring to the Second Vatican Council is poking fun at the false spirit of Vatican II.

[jeffpugh]

Miss, I think you're reading into this a bit much. I agree w/ your definition of B&W. I see that you're not confusing it with moral absolutivity like some people are. Different terms, folks.

[Alycin]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1583443' date='Jun 26 2008, 12:05 AM']This [i]article[/i] when referring to the Second Vatican Council is poking fun at the false spirit of Vatican II.[/quote]

What do you mean?

[Alycin]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1583445' date='Jun 26 2008, 12:08 AM']I agree w/ your definition of B&W. I see that you're not confusing it with moral absolutivity like some people are. Different terms, folks.[/quote]

Thanks. I understand that people get it confused a lot. I don't expect people to know things that I learned through independent study. Most people have very little knowledge of cognitive distortions unless psychology is their field of study, or they learned about it in therapy.

Thanks for not being a jerk to me just because we happen to disagree on whether or not this is funny.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]What do you mean? huh.gif[/quote]

There is what Vatican II actually says which is in line with the Traditional Teaching of Mother Church. And the "spirit of Vatican II" which is not, which allows abuse such as dancing hippies, and the like.

Also I can find no proof that Fidelity magazine is part of any outside the Church radtrad group.

Edited June 26, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Lisieux Flower]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1583466' date='Jun 25 2008, 11:22 PM']There is what Vatican II actually says which is in line with the Traditional Teaching of Mother Church. And the "spirit of Vatican II" which is not, which allows abuse such as dancing hippies, and the like.

Also I can find no proof that Fidelity magazine is part of any outside the Church radtrad group.[/quote]

I don't think that fact that it's talking about "the spirit of Vatican II" instead of Vatican II council is very clearly stated.

CHANGE: Mandated by the Second Vatican Council; must be open to all change unless instituted recently; see WE HAVE NO RIGHT ANSWERS.

How did you interpret the "Spirit of Vatican II" from this definition?

[Alycin]

I am guessing that KoC is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[Alycin]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1583466' date='Jun 26 2008, 12:22 AM']There is what Vatican II actually says which is in line with the Traditional Teaching of Mother Church. And the "spirit of Vatican II" which is not, which allows abuse such as dancing hippies, and the like.

Also I can find no proof that Fidelity magazine is part of any outside the Church radtrad group.[/quote]


Oh, if that's the case, then it makes sense, but the author did not make the distinction clear.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1583486' date='Jun 25 2008, 11:34 PM']Oh, if that's the case, then it makes sense, but the author did not make the distinction clear.[/quote]

I think the confusion is caused by the author who tempted to write this as a 'liberal' would. For a liberal catholic there is no difference from Vatican II, and the spirit of Vatican II.