Monday, May 24, 2010

The decline and fall of Francis Beckwith

Back in his better days, as an Evangelical ethicist, Francis Beckwith distinguished himself as leading advocate for the rights of the unborn. Unfortunately, by converting to Rome, Beckwith has now betrayed the very constituency he used to serve. For he has become a shameless enabler of a pedophilic institution. You only have to compare his apparatchik defense of Rome on clerical abuse with organizations like BishopAccountability.org to see what is sadly amiss.

Mind you, he continues to defend the life of the unborn while simultaneously defending a pedophilic institution–rather like a guy who punches the clock 9-5 as a fireman while moonlighting as an arsonist on his off-hours.

It’s a pity to see the moral compromises which Beckwith prepared to make to justify his conversion, or the moral freefall which that has precipitated.

Unless he defends the sanctity of the womb as a prenatal harem or brothel to supply future butt-boys for the Roman priesthood and episcopate, it’s hard to see how his divided loyalties are morally or logically coherent.

23 comments:

  1. Oh snap! He's gone done it now! *runs off to get popcorn*

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm afraid that some of the rhetoric in this post is in incredibly bad taste. I'm not making a judgment on whether or not the argument is valid, but it is certainly crude.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for demonstrating your moral priorities, Glenn. Taste trumps pedophilia.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Glenn,

    I don't see how it's any worse than, say, Isaiah comparing our righteousness to menstrual rags (and all that meant for uncleanliness in the Israelite culture).

    If something is exceedingly ugly, which seems to be just what this whole sexual abuse scandal is, it seems appropriate, by Biblical standards, to describe it as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Glenn, I'm in agreement with you.

    Matthew,

    Isaiah being lead by the Spirit in giving a very vivid, strong image to the explain a truth to the house of Israel, and the rest of us, is a bit different from what Steve is doing. Steve is making a gross stereotype of the Catholic church priesthood as being entirely made up of pedophiles. He doesn't leave any room for truth.

    Sorry Steve. I think you misrepresent the Catholic church when you refer to it as a "pedophilic institution."

    ReplyDelete
  6. JAMES SAID:

    "Steve is making a gross stereotype of the Catholic church priesthood as being entirely made up of pedophiles."

    A fallacious inference.

    "Sorry Steve. I think you misrepresent the Catholic church when you refer to it as a 'pedophilic institution.'"

    An assertion in search of an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve said - "A fallacious inference."

    How is that a fallacious inference? You are the one who claims the Catholic church is a "pedophilic institution." It is assumed that you are referring to the clergy since they are the ones being indicted for the crimes. Even if you aren't referring to the clergy solely, you are saying the entire church is an institution made up of pedophiles. That is a gross misrepresentation of what the institution actually is.

    Steve said - "An assertion in search of an argument."

    A proper example of a "pedophilic institution" would be a group of men (or women) who come together to practice pedophilia and further their pedophilic ways. Has the Catholic church proven itself to be such an institution? No.

    Steve,

    This isn't taste vs. truth, as you are trying to portray it. Calling the Catholic church an institution filled with pedophiles is a statistically incorrect statement. You're spinning a perspective that is not realistic, so it is therefore misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Roman Magisterium has been facilitating clerical pederasty for decades. It only began to back down after the conspiracy of silence was broken and the law suits began to mount.

    One doesn't have to be a pederast to be complicit in pederasty. A businessman can operate an "escort" service even if he doesn't personally sample the goods.

    But typically, for morally-challenged individuals like you and Beckwith, you're far more concerned with protecting the abusive institution rather than the abused minors.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve said - "But typically, for morally-challenged individuals like you and Beckwith, you're far more concerned with protecting the abusive institution rather than the abused minors."

    Fallacious inference Steve and an ad-hominem to boot.

    When did I say, we shouldn't protect minors from pederast priests? My claim is that you are misrepresenting the Catholic church by calling it an "pedophilic institution." Please stick to the topic at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve said - "One doesn't have to be a pederast to be complicit in pederasty. A businessman can operate an "escort" service even if he doesn't personally sample the goods."

    That's true, but to say that the entire institution of the Catholic church was complicit, like the image of the businessman you use, would be an incorrect assessment of the church

    ReplyDelete
  11. James,

    Glenn made an objection to the kind of rhetoric being used. I was only responding to that aspect of the post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think that Steve is referring to this link on Beckwith's blog:

    http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/05/catholic-sex-abuse-blunt-q.html

    In it Beckwith merely tells his readers to consult a post by Trent Dougherty, a colleague of his.

    If you read Dougherty's post carefully, it will show Triablogue readers that Mr. Hayes' charges on this blog are borne of bigotry and not reason.

    As Dougerty points out, there were are bad priests, but their numbers are on average lower than what goes on in Protestant congregations as well as the teaching profession. That's not to excuse it. It is intended to a perspective on it.

    By focusing only on Catholics and ignoring his own tradition and its crimes, Hayes shows himself to be a bigot of the first order.

    Read this too: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

    Mr. Hayes has a right that critique Catholicism or any other religion that he thinks is mistaken. I speak for many who would defend his liberty to make his case. It is vital to a functioning democracy. But he has no moral right to slander the innocent. In that sense, he cooperate with the evil he deplores.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow. I just read this after completing my response to Matthew. Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you completely. Glad someone stepped in.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've got to second On the Record's comment here.

    Beckwith posted his (or more accurately, Trent's) "blunt Q & A," which provides substantial arguments. I'm not saying the arguments all irrebutable, but they're arguments.

    "Steve" here has just responded by arguing (essentially) that Beckwith can't be completely pro-life, because he's Catholic, and Catholicism is a "pedophilic institution."

    The argument is facially silly. First, it's not true, as Steve claims, that "the Roman Magisterium has been facilitating clerical pederasty for decades," in a meaningful sense of that sentence. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. The bad bishops in question failed in their pastoral responsibilities, but that's not a Magisterial function, even though it's an episcopal function. The only way you could say with any degree of honest that the Magisterium was at fault is if the Catholic Church taught that pedophilia was ok, which of course, it doesn't. The opposite, of course, is true.

    This isn't a subtle distinction. The Church's teachings aren't simply the collection of the actions of the Church hierarchy. That's not true of any Church, and particularly not of the Catholic Church, who expressly denounces that ecclessiology. Your erroneous invocation of the Magisterium suggests the depths of your ignorance on this subject.

    Barring the silly notion that the Church teaches that pedophilia is good, the thrust of Steve's "argument" is that some bishops were bad and enabled pedophilia through their conduct (true), and that therefore the Church is inherently evil, and it's evil to defend Her. Apply that logic to any other situation. America has laws permitting abortion: does that mean that all US soldiers are "betraying" the unborn by defending her? Or those who defended the Twelve during the time of Christ: does that mean that they agreed with Judas' betrayal of Christ? He was, after all, a member of the original Magisterium, so by Steve's logic, his betrayal of Christ is Apostolic teaching.

    Finally, the entire tone of the piece is entirely unbecoming to a Christian. It's rather unlike Isaiah calling our worthless works filthy rags. Steve calls the victims of pedophlia "butt-boys." Rather than attacking the evil, he's attacking the good (Beckwith, and the victims of pedophilia, respectively). So no, this isn't like Isaiah at all.

    In Christ,

    Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve,

    I responded on my blog here (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/05/can-catholic-be-pro-life.html). It's not much different than the comment: mostly background, cleaned up a few typos, etc. But I'd be remiss if I didn't let you know I'd responded, because it's not my intention to say anything negative behind your back. In the peace of Christ,

    Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  16. JAMES SAID:

    "Fallacious inference Steve and an ad-hominem to boot."

    To merely say something is fallacious doesn't make it so.

    And in Biblical ethics, what we do, or fail to do ("ad hominem") matters just as much as logical validity.

    Misconduct, both on the part of the Catholic clergy and her shameless defenders, is very much the issue.

    "When did I say, we shouldn't protect minors from pederast priests?"

    That's just a throwaway line. You don't care about that. That's not what you spend your time on. Rather, you spend your time defending an abusive institution.

    "My claim is that you are misrepresenting the Catholic church by calling it an 'pedophilic institution.'"

    Calling something a misrepresentation doesn't make it so.

    "Please stick to the topic at hand."

    When you defend the goats rather than the sheep, you put yourself in the goats' column. Remember that before you die, lest you find out the hard way.

    "That's true, but to say that the entire institution of the Catholic church was complicit, like the image of the businessman you use, would be an incorrect assessment of the church"

    I judge a hierarchical institution by the conduct of the hierarchy. That's the nature of the beast.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve:

    You're far from logical. You exhibit all the characteristics of a bigot blinded by hatred. Did you read the article that Beckwith linked to? If not, you're an intentional ignoramus. (The fact that you don't link to it here reveals your fear of being called out for your idiocy). Dougherty skewers the stupidity and bile you are spewing here.

    You are committing several fallacies:

    1. Guilt by association. Just because Mr. Jones is a Catholic and defends Catholicism does not mean that he should be saddled with every bad thing other Catholics do, especially when Catholic moral theology FORBIDS the practice.

    2. Hasty generalization. As Dougherty's article shows, the focus on Catholics rather than other groups reveals that it is driven by a deep hatred and not logic. The Catholic Church is the only Christian group that has consistently resisted the cultural corruption of the Far Left. The mainline denominations have all bolted. Evangelicals are getting squishy. Who thought of "the culture of life"? Billy Graham, Al Mohler, John Gerstner? Nope. John Paul II. Who coined "dictatorship of relativism"? Ratzinger. Who issued the first real salvo against modernism? Piux X: "PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS."

    For all your dislike of Catholicism, it animates you and drives you. You can't escape it. If it's not the Council of Trent, it's purgatory, or the Council of Florence mentioning Jews. You're like a communist who reads the Wall Street Journal. Just as he needs the market to know the right price, you need Catholicism to direct your compass. It is really, really obvious, and embarrassingly clownish.

    3. Ad hominem. Name-calling is wrong if it is a cover for good arguments (or in this case, any argument).

    Steve, are you a gown up?

    ReplyDelete
  18. On The Record,

    Who are you? You throw out a lot of invective for someone hiding behind a pseudonym.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'The Catholic Church is the only Christian group that has consistently resisted the cultural corruption of the Far Left. The mainline denominations have all bolted. Evangelicals are getting squishy. Who thought of "the culture of life"? Billy Graham, Al Mohler, John Gerstner? Nope. John Paul II. Who coined "dictatorship of relativism"? Ratzinger. Who issued the first real salvo against modernism? Piux X: "PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS."'

    Didn't you guys just honour Obama (ya know... the one who's all for killing babies?) at one of your most prestigious American universities?

    As for the rest... does it really stand to reason that because a certain pope coined a phrase that no one prior to him had ever thought along the same lines? Are you saying that before Ratzinger said "dictatorship of relativism" no one had said anything like it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. David,

    I'm not sure if yours was a serious question or not, but I'm going to assume the best. If the "you guys" in question means Catholics, I think your statement is pretty inaccurate.

    (1) As background, there are real limits to what the Church hierarchy can do with Notre Dame both legally and canonically. And since at least the Land O' Lakes Declaration in the 60s, ND has made it clear that it isn't going to be docile about accepting pastoral oversight.

    (2) The decision to honor Obama was made by Notre Dame in spite of his stance on abortion, not because of it.

    (3) Religious schools honor pro-choice politicians all too frequently: both Catholic and non-Catholic schools. The reason that the decision to honor Obama made the news at all, much less weeks of national news, was because a whopping 83 bishops came out against it (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050607.html).

    (4) If you're arguing in good faith here, you presumably want the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to enforce orthodoxy on the abortion issue. That's exactly what they tried to do here. There was a small and recalcitrant group legally in charge of deciding whether or not to honor Obama. They refused the exhortations of literally dozens of Catholic bishops. That's plenty of reason to say that small group was in the wrong, but Catholic bishops rarely come out looking better than they did here. They took a stance, they were right, and they didn't back down in the face of weeks of hostile media coverage. So trying to hit Catholics over the head with Obama-Notre Dame is perverse.

    (5) I think On the Record's point, which has extensive support from non-biased coverage, is that the Catholic Church is absolutely at the forefront of the pro-life movement, and has been from the start. You can determine this pretty empirically. Look to the first-responders to the abortion issue, trace who's given the most money, who's got the most volunteers praying and protesting, who makes up the overwhelming majority of March for Life marchers, however you want to measure it. The Catholic Church manned the pro-life cause virtually single-handedly prior to the early 1980s.

    And if you want to see the clearest and most sophisticated refutations of Modernism, you could do a lot worse than the last two popes.

    The point here is that it's dishonest to say that Beckwith is less pro-life for joining and defending the Catholic Church, and it's dishonest to portray the Catholic Church as something less than pro-life... just as it's unfair to present the Notre Dame-Obama fiasco as the fault of the Church collective, rather than individual and arrogantly stubborn Catholics. Yours in Christ,

    Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Steve,
    Scripture also says that the name of Satan is "Accuser", and you have accused several people here (including Beckwith) unjustly, slinging mud, namecalling, and basically acting without knowledge or charity. No, I'm not comparing you to Satan--but if you're going to start prooftexting Scripture to sling mud against Catholics, then I'm up to the challenge.

    You make GROSS mischaracterizations of the Catholic Church. E.g., only 2% of all Catholic priests have actually been convicted of pedophilia, whereas 10 times that number have been accused of the same in Protestant circles--where's the outrage? Or is it only reserved for Catholics, and Protestants get a pass? If that isn't bigotry, I don't know what is.

    Christ said that "men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." Matt. 12:36. You've spoken many, many careless words here, and I suggest you do some serious rethinking of your attitude before you accumulate further displeasure from the God you claim to follow!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Except what is written as righteous rebuke against calumnies, It is not worthy to swim in these muddy infected waters with gossip. Only pray for grace to change your heart. If you can manage to deal with arguments I respect that and is Ok, but not this silly attitude. And I hope so, since there has been silence after the last comment, and so after a month. And silence hopefully means reflection.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Except what is written as righteous rebuke against calumnies, It is not worthy to swim in these muddy infected waters with gossip. Only pray for grace to change your heart. If you can manage to deal with arguments I respect that and is Ok, but not this silly attitude. And I hope so, since there has been silence after the last comment, and so after a month. And silence hopefull means reflection.

    ReplyDelete