Listen closely and you will hear Cardinal Wuerl slip a fast on by:
I'd say you were the one trying to slip a fast one by here.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl on pope s climate change message On Air Videos Fox News
Let me explain my take by starting with this:
WALLACE: Pope Francis puts this in the starkest terms. He says we're turning our precious earth into, quote, "an immense pile of filth" and he says that much of it is because of human activity. And he basically says it's a moral issue now.
WUERL: And it really is.
No it isn’t. That’s the Roman Catholic Church’s opinion.
Are you criticizing the Pope and the Cardinal for expressing the church's opinion? Whose opinion - particularly on morality - would you EXPECT them to express? And, some good Catholic can correct me if need be but I do believe the Pope's opinion IS the church's opinion.
The cardinal continues:
WUERL: And I think one of the really strong parts of this is he starts with what we're all aware of and what's going on around the world: the diminishment of water, the desertification, the fact that we're destroying the rain forest, all of those terrible, terrible things -- we're all aware of that -- and the suffering of poor people because of this.
Unless the cardinal has a tapeworm:
Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." Mark Twain
“we” does not include me no matter how many priests say it.
Your education in the English language could use some work. The cardinal has every right to use "we" in this context and his use is more accurately described as an "author's we" than the editorial version, though both could apply. And unless you've decided to reject the evidence provided by your own, direct perceptions, you ARE included in that "we"
*************************Wikipedia: Atypical Uses of
WE*************************
The royal "we"
Main article:
Majestic plural
A common example is the
royal we (
Pluralis Majestatis), which is a
nosism employed by a person of high office, such as a
monarch, earl or
pope.
The editorial "we"
The
editorial we is a similar phenomenon, in which
editorial columnists in newspapers and similar commentators in other media refer to themselves as
we when giving their opinions. Here, the writer has once more cast himself or herself in the role of
spokesman: either for the media institution who employs him, or more generally on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.
The author's "we"
Similar to the editorial
we is the practice common in scientific literature of referring to a generic
third person by
we (instead of the more common
one or the informal
you):
- By adding three and five, we obtain eight.
- We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. — Albert Einstein
"We" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author", since the author often assumes that the reader knows certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up), for example, so that the author does not need to explicitly write out every step of a
mathematical proof.[
citation needed]
The patronizing "we"
The
patronizing we is used sometimes in place of "you" to address a second party, hinting a facetious assurance that the one asked is not alone in his situation, that "I am with you, we are in this together". A doctor may ask a patient:
And how are we feeling today? This usage is emotionally non-neutral and usually bears a condescending, ironic, praising, or some other flavor, depending on intonation: "Aren't we looking cute?"[
citation needed].
The dictorial "we"
The
dictorial we is similar to both the editorial and author's "we" but more commonly used in spousal conversations or relating to them. More often used by one person having or showing a tendency to tell people what to do in an autocratic way. Take for example the following portion of a conversation:
- As soon as we get the rest of the brick work done (in progress) this is part of the plan...
This person is using the dictorial "we" and implying that the other will be doing the work and that they are currently behind and has more waiting afterwards. This form looks nicer and comes across as being less harsh. In spousal dialect this phrase could be loosely swapped out with the following:
- As soon as {insert spouse name} gets off their lazy butt and finishes the brick work this is the next thing I will have them doing..."
**********************************************************************************
This next one goes right to the cardinal’s fast ball. As an American, Cardinal Wuerl surely knows all about Thomas Jefferson’s separation of church and state that affirms the First Amendment, yet he cleverly invited the R.C.Ch. to breach the wall of separation by giving his church a seat at the government’s table; a seat the Constitution prohibits. Notice how “we” pops up four more times two sentences:
Why do you bring Jefferson up as if he were the superior authority? If you want to talk a Constitutional issue, use the Constitution.
WUERL: But then he goes on to say: I invite everybody, I invite people in every walk of life, those who have authority over so many areas of life, to come together and talk about how we resolve, how we face, how we address it. And then he says, and we bring a moral dimension, that's what the church brings. That's what he brings to this discussion.
NOTE: My reading of Weurl’s comments might be slightly off the mark. Pope Francis could have been inviting the government to sit at his table. No matter, because they both serve theocracy.
Slightly off the mark?!?!? Hah!! Your charge here is COMPLETELY without merit. Wuerl does not even MENTION the government OR the church. To characterize an invitation to "people in every walk of life" to "talk about how we resolve... face... address" as a violation of the separation of church and state is utter fantasy. It is a
completely innocent comment. Your accusation is not only without merit, it is absurd to the point of undeniable dishonesty.
This next one clearly means the R.C.Ch.’s moral frame of reference:
WALLACE: The pope frames this as part of his -- I think it's fair to say -- continuing critique of the global market economy. And he writes this, he writes, "Whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interest of the deified market, which become the only rule."
WUERL: And isn't that a fact that if you don't have a moral frame of reference, then you only are driven by your own self-interest -- whether it's economics, whether it's politics, whether it's finance -- everything has a moral dimension to it because it's human.
If Cardinal Wuerl is so concerned about non-Catholics being driven by self-interest, he might take a look at the greedy self-interested parasites who get rich on tax dollars. Instead of moral horseshit, he might suggest reducing retail prices with competition rather than eliminating competition to increase prices though government control of everything. The more taxes rise in First World countries, the worse the poor become in the rest of the world AND HERE AT HOME.
No... the cardinal in quite obviously talking about ANY moral frame of reference. His comments are directed at all humanity; there is no specific commentary directed at non-Catholics there.
Your attempt here, to invalidate the cardinal's standing on this question because he fails to specifically address "self-interested parasites who get rich on tax dollars", "retail prices" and "competition" are logically worthless. The cardinal, not you, gets to decide what topic(s) he will address (part of that Freedom of Speech you laud when it defends the spew of Rush Limbaugh). Your demand that he talk about something else is meaningless claptrap. The cardinal's comments are obviously addressing a broader and more general set of topics centered around the environment. His remarks are entirely pertinent and valid in a discussion of the morality of humanity's treatment of the Earth and it's biome; while yours: "moral horseshit", "reducing retail prices with competition", "government control", "taxes", "First World" and "HERE AT HOME" are an inapplicable, gish gallop of pro-capitalist diatribe.
I do not expect this pope, or any pope, to cut their own throat by attacking greed in government
Your implication that the church is corrupt and benefits immorally from government greed is unsupportable. Name an example of such funding. The Catholic Church lives on donations from its members, most of whom rank deeply within the poor of the human race.
nor do I expect any priest to admit that Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living for the most people the world had ever seen —— before the income tax was implemented. The same thing will never happen worldwide until competition is restored and the number of people driven by government greed is reduced to an absolute minimum.
The topic under discussion by the Pope, the cardinal and this thread, is global warming. What do taxes and competition have to do with any of that?
And I am not trying for sarcasm when I say that I’ll give up my own self-interest after Catholic priests give up theirs. I am positive that every priest in the world believes that their self-interest is a ticket to paradise for everyone. The less fortunate can only get there after they buy their tickets from priests.
Your comments here are confused. You state that priests' self interest is to get everyone into heaven as if that were a bad thing. Then you bring up the less fortunate buying tickets from priests. To what less fortunate do your refer and how do they go about "buying tickets" from the priests of the church?
And whatever happened to the good old days before environmental claptrap was born. In those happier times the philosophy of enlighten self-interest did not mean doing good according to R.C.Ch.’s moral good. The R.C.Ch. now tells us that the environment added a moral dimension to enlightened self-interest. Woe be to anyone who turns to the Devil teaching them all about unenlighted self-interest.
What in god's name are you babbling about? What happened to the "good old days" is enlightenment - humans learned that the Earth's resources and its ability to absorb the harm we did to it were not without limits. This really seems like a trolling statement. Your comment about enlightened self-interest is simply wrong. Enlightened self-interest states that doing good for others invariably serves our own self interests as well. There is no conflict between enlightened self-interest and the moral teaching of the Catholic church. Francis is not suggesting anything has been added to humanity's moral reference frame - the moral requirements regarding humanity's relationship with our environment would have always been there - Francis simply reminds us of it.
WUERL: And what the pope is holding up for us is we can't just close in on ourselves, our own personal interests, our economic or financial interests or political interests. We have to look at this through the moral dimension of, how does this affect everybody on the planet?
Sounds like the Golden Rule, does it not Mr Flanders? Are you opposed to the Golden Rule?
Should you listen to the video you can easily spot Cardinal Wuerl’s talking points. I do have a kind word for him. He is not all bad because he does like one part of the First Amendment. The part that says Congress shall not abridge freedom of speech:
WALLACE: I never thought I'd ask you this. How do you respond to Rush Limbaugh?
WUERL: Well, this is one of the great -- one of the great blessings of America, isn't it? We're all allowed to speak our mind even if we don't have all of the facts, even if we don't have a clear view of what the other person is saying. We're all allowed to speak our mind and that's what he's doing.
You have completely failed in your attempt to show us that Cardinal Wuerl or the Pope have made any attempt "to slip one by us". This post seems to be nothing more than an expression of your hostility to the Church and your fixation on unrestrained capitalism.
