tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post4593623591378741995..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: Philosopher, Healy ThyselfUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-10411628071631304392010-08-30T21:17:19.012-05:002010-08-30T21:17:19.012-05:00I wonder how can West's cheerleaders have it b...I wonder how can West's cheerleaders have it both ways...<br /><br />No matter how bad he screws up, we're all supposed to shut up and look past his blunders - which everybody pretty much recognizes - for the sake of his message.<br /><br />When it comes to you, they say they are going to ignore your message because your "tone and attitude" render them automatically dismissible.<br /><br />Go figure...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-85193043286024447392010-08-30T14:46:32.903-05:002010-08-30T14:46:32.903-05:00Wow.
What would you have said to Jeremiah or John...Wow.<br /><br />What would you have said to Jeremiah or John the Baptist?<br /><br />That whole "You brood of vipers... who told YOU that you could escape the coming destruction!" riff was really, REALLY evil of him.<br /><br />And if you read some of the Fathers of the Church (St. Jerome, for instance), you can see that they were clearly NOT effective because of their high-handed attitude.<br /><br />But, let's get to the point.<br />Do you have anything to contribute to the theological discussion, or is this just meant to point out that I'm a mean, vile bastard who is in need of repentance?<br /><br />I mean, if that's your only theological point, well, YEAH, who wouldn't agree? I certainly can't refute it. <br /><br />But if you don't have anything more than that to contribute, then why did you even open your mouth? <br /><br />Except you wanted to be holier-than-thou and I provided a good chance to show off to the crowds? <br /><br />Ok - well, you're great and wise, and I'm a heartless bastard of a sinner. That's settled then. <br /><br />But Dr. Healy is still a substantial liar and his son isn't the brightest bulb on the tree. And Chris West is still a heretic, so all's right with the world, then, eh?Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-3464079713467524392010-08-30T13:49:39.638-05:002010-08-30T13:49:39.638-05:00I have no interest in getting embroiled in this sn...I have no interest in getting embroiled in this snake pit, except to offer a fraternal word of caution. Tone and attitude make a big difference in how credible you come off. If you have some legitimate criticisms of Christopher West (and I agree that there may be some), and if you have some legitimate concerns about the disgusting topic of anal foreplay (and I know that Dr. Smith personally finds them disgusting and has concerns about the question just as you do), you are doing the cause of divine truth and clarity no service by undercutting your own posts with an attitude of cavalier disrespect for prominent apologists for the Catholic Faith, who are widely known to be devout and faithful, magisterial Catholics -- not flagrant dissidents. This just throws up dust into everyone's eyes.<br /><br />In Korea, they used to tell missionaries to say nothing but only to <i>listen</i> for your first ten years. By that point, you've earned the right to be heard, once you've won the confidence of your audience by showing that you understand their points of view and care about them as people. Then, if you speak, others will have some confidence that you will speak with respect, charity and understanding. <br /><br />Is there respect or charity in this snake pit? Is there understanding or prudence in throwing down gauntlets and issuing <i>fatwas</i> against these friends and fellow Catholics? Please stop pontificating at the top of your lungs and consider a quiet and modest alternative: that of deferentially raising legitimate questions for Janet Smith and her colleagues for their consideration. When you "lay down the law" to them as you have here, you come off sounding like an upstart Korah in the Book of Numbers or a recent convert trying to play Grand Inquisitor or Pope. Nobody will listen to you. And that would be a pity if you really have some legitimate questions to raise, as I suspect you might. But I, for one, and not about to stick around until the smoke settles and the snakes quit biting to see for myself. It's far too unpleasant around here. One can hardly breathe. Clean house. Please. Pretty please with HONEY on top.Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-50253498802456713792009-06-16T13:45:57.950-05:002009-06-16T13:45:57.950-05:00The thing is, the text does not support the argume...The thing is, the text does not support the argument. It only lends a line of reasoning. It is used to prop up a case that cannot be made. It is a misapplication that is not immediately apparent, especially because it was not even supplied, which seems to be why Steven called him on it.<br /><br />When the quote was provided in the follow-up, the omission of the first sentence, as with the omission of any sentence, was because it was not considered significant. That does not make it purposeful deception, and Steven does not allege that. It is deliberate, however, because the specifics it mentions are irrelevant to the line of reasoning. Without them, it does seem applicable.<br /><br />That is precisely why Steven highlights the omitted sentence and obliquely references - rather than directly quoting - Dr. Healy's equation of orifices. Is it significant or not? It suddenly becomes significant to Dr. Healy when they are his words that are omitted. <i>"You yourself ... here commit -- quite obviously and publicly -- the very crime you accuse me of."</i><br /><br />Yet, Steven <i>explicitly mentioned TWICE</i> that Dr. Healy, considering the distinction between anus and oralis insignificant, finds such contacts to be morally parallel. Wait, that defense look familiar. Check the first comment.<br /><br />Indeed the distinction becomes very significant when you apply the common sense that Steven points out, and additionally so when he consults the same text on the matter. How fair is it to borrow reasoning from a text to support something the same text contradicts? Without being able to consult the author for clarification, it is highly unfair, and deserves to be corrected.<br /><br />Dr. Healy Jr. responds that Steven failed to provide the clues to indicate his overstatement. Yet Dr. Healy Sr. says that Steven's misquote is "obvious." Which is it? I see it, and I do find this post to be instructive. Since it seems to be part of the discussion, I might add that I never attended FUS nor studied a lick of philosophy.<br /><br />Steven seems to have anticipated their taking offense. That would be why he details what West did to an audience member. There is offending for the sake of offending (<i>"you are displaying your own ignorance"</i>), and there is offending in the process of pointing out error in defiance of pride.<br /><br />There is a deeper and broader point to be seen here as well in this desperate grasping at straws to try to find some way to justify West. Steven's point isn't just to correct this particular error of West's. Rather it stands as a red flag. It becomes all the more alarming the harder and the more fiercely people try to defend it. To the extent they succeed in giving him credibility, it becomes all the more dangerous.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123119830359717991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-13875034096893134592009-06-16T13:14:16.233-05:002009-06-16T13:14:16.233-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123119830359717991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-36686712636497716092009-06-15T15:50:17.954-05:002009-06-15T15:50:17.954-05:00He hasn't denied manipulating the quote. Rathe...<i>He hasn't denied manipulating the quote. Rather, he has argued that it doesn't count as manipulation</i> ***<br /><br />Um, doesn’t arguing that it doesn’t count as manipulation amount to a denial of manipulation? As for why Professor Healy and his son have not been back, maybe it’s because they were offended.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-66712489004263600932009-06-10T11:18:40.547-05:002009-06-10T11:18:40.547-05:00Jordanes, you have overstated the case. He hasn...Jordanes, you have overstated the case. He hasn't denied manipulating the quote. <br /><br />Rather, he has argued that it doesn't count as manipulation because he made oblique reference to the unsupplied quote in his main article. But that's the point: he didn't supply the quote in the article. <br /><br />He only supplied the quote after I challenged him. Now, the full quote doesn't support his contention. But, that's easily fixed: he left out the beginning sentence. Then he discusses the quote AS IF IT supports his contention. As a result, if all we have is his discussion and no way to reference the original quote (and who would expect a morals book from 1953 to be available to most readers?), it LOOKS like the quote DOES support him, when the preceding unsupplied sentence makes clear how little his "evidence" actually brings to bear to support him.<br /><br />Philosophers are second-hand philologists. Good philosophy depends on careful nuance. He knew what he was doing. Notice that he didn't come back. Instead, he sent his son to argue the point. And his son hasn't come back either.<br /><br />I've seen this game played before in the journals. You make a heavily qualified statement near the beginning, laid out in as obscure language as possible. This is your CYA. Then, over the next several paragraphs/pages, lay out the full force of your whole argument, ignoring those initial qualifications as if they never existed. Quote selectively, garnish your facts, etc., whatever it takes to lay out your full argument. <br /><br />Now you are covered. If anyone calls you on your manipulation of quotes or data, you point back at the first heavily qualified paragraph and say, "but I SAID that at the beginning!" <br /><br />Nobody can touch you.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-22721535425142824232009-06-10T10:50:50.713-05:002009-06-10T10:50:50.713-05:00It is also a fact that, when I called him on the s...<i>It is also a fact that, when I called him on the source, he deliberately left out the immediately preceding contextual sentence in the quote he DID provide in order to lessen the dissonance between what he alleged and what the original authors actually said.</i> ***<br /><br />I don’t think you can insist that he did that deliberately and with a motive of lessening the dissonance. He has plausibly denied that’s why he did so, and it’s basic Christian decency to respect his denial and let God judge his heart. Thus, since it’s inaccurate to say he “deliberately misquoted” that text (the objection can’t be to how he quoted it, but to why he did and how he interpreted it), those words need to go and you ought to apologise, as accusing somebody of deliberately twisting moral theology texts is a dread serious charge. After all, as you rightly quote St. Augustine, God doesn’t need your “lie” either.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-44383753088944457672009-06-09T21:56:16.572-05:002009-06-09T21:56:16.572-05:00I am willing to compromise and change the wording ...I am willing to compromise and change the wording to "inadequately referenced moral theology texts."<br /><br />However, it is a fact that he didn't quote the original source AT ALL in his original essay.<br /><br />It is also a fact that, when I called him on the source, he deliberately left out the immediately preceding contextual sentence in the quote he DID provide in order to lessen the dissonance between what he alleged and what the original authors actually said. <br /><br />He's trying to get dead priests to support his assertion that sin is not sin by using a faulty analogy and cherry-picking texts.<br /><br />Given these facts, I don't think I've got anything to apologize for.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-77894978246911035662009-06-09T20:25:52.215-05:002009-06-09T20:25:52.215-05:00Steve, while I agree that Dr. Healy's attempt ...Steve, while I agree that Dr. Healy's attempt to draw a moral parallel between fellatio and anal intercourse doesn't stand up, and there is no tradition in Catholic moral theology to support the view of West and Smith that anal intercourse might sometimes not be objectively sinful, nevertheless Dr. Healy is correct that you have no basis to accuse him of "deliberately misquoting moral theology texts," as you put it. He simply did not do that, and you are morally obliged to withdraw your claim that he did so and apologise to him. You may disagree with his interpretation and application of that moral theology text, but he clearly did NOT misquote it at all -- and if he didn't misquote it, he couldn't have done so "deliberately."<br /><br />Please rewrite your weblog post and apologise to Dr. Healy.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-24103744129811015512009-06-08T20:59:34.668-05:002009-06-08T20:59:34.668-05:00Mike, I demand logic from philosophers, not variou...Mike, I demand logic from philosophers, not various logical fallacies. Certainly every philosophical technique at least follows that bare minimum?<br /><br />For instance, your father's reply here engaged in the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well" in the very first sentence. He claims I am "misleading and duplicitous about a great many things in this piece", but he doesn't list any of them. We are supposed to trust his judgement. But what has made him trustworthy?<br /><br />As for not following Kierkegaard's technique, please pay closer attention. I knew perfectly well that your father was likely to read this piece - one of the more popular Catholic news sites on the web linked to it. What was the likelihood that it would be completely ignored? None, really. <br /><br />So, you (in the sense of a Healy supporter, if not a West supporter) were certain to come in and make exactly the attack you made. I've been waiting for you, precisely so this discussion could take place. <br /><br />I am much more impressed by the fact that Christopher West's own instructors and the very institution from which he graduated is horrified by him than I am by Dr. Waldstein. Waldstein has nowhere near the clout in this relationship that Schindler does. <br /><br />If you or your father are really personalists or TOB experts, you would recognize what John Paul II taught. That is, you would recognize West's response to criticism is to question the sexual identity of the person doing the criticism. You would recognize that this constitutes the most basic assault on a person's physical existence that can be made, apart from attempting to take his physical life. <br /><br />"Male and female He created them." Our sexuality is basic to our identity, so basic that we retain that physical and psychic sexual identity for all eternity. <br /><br />Your father witnessed an attack on an audience member's sexual identity by Christopher West and ENDORSED it. That's far more disgusting than a discussion of anal sex, no matter what epistemology you follow.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-35828612983482477332009-06-08T18:05:28.264-05:002009-06-08T18:05:28.264-05:00Hello, this is Michael Healy, Jr., again. At the ...Hello, this is Michael Healy, Jr., again. At the end of your general article, you made this comment:<br /><br />"This is often what passes for philosophy at Franciscan University. As a former graduate student, I can firmly attest and witness to the fact that, while Franciscan University's theology department is competent, their philosophy department has only a few decent thinkers. Far too many are of Dr. Healy's stripe. That's why I have never recommended the university to people."<br /><br />As a matter of fact, this is an unfair criticism. You are demanding that people who were trained in the tradition of realist phenomenology start thinking in a different mode (medieval scholasticism?) than that in which they were trained before you will take them seriously. This is just as unfair, though in a different way, as if a mathematical logician were to demand that you, after having been trained in theology at FUS, start thinking in the same mode as Bertrand Russel or Ludwig Wittgenstein before he would take you seriously. Surely you see that the latter would be an injustice, so please extend some Christian charity to the philosophy professors at FUS and accept that they can make valuable contributions to Christian philosophy even while using a method that you do not, perhaps, find congenial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-9869486297741510582009-06-08T17:58:46.068-05:002009-06-08T17:58:46.068-05:00Allow me to introduce myself. I am Michael Healy,...Allow me to introduce myself. I am Michael Healy, Jr. I have an MA in Philosophy and an MA in Theology, both from FUS.<br /><br />First of all, to situate myself in this discussion, I have heard West speak on one or two occasions and have met Waldstein, Alice von Hildebrand, and (of course) my father. I have my doubts about West's interpretation of Original Sin, but thus far have not seen any reason to question his general methods. Also, I am impressed by the fact that Waldstein, who so excellently translated The Theology of the Body, supports Mr. West.<br /><br />Now, with reference to your response to my father's response to your comments, Mr. Kellmeyer, you are not following either my father's recommendations or Kierkegaard's technique.<br /><br />In particular, Mr. Kellmeyer, you have failed to provide the clues that indicate the overstatement and enable the reader to see past it and discover the true meaning for himself. Without these clues, which my father refers to in the quotation you cited, it cannot be proven that you were using the technique of Kierkegaardian exaggeration, and your defense falls flat.<br /><br />Also, my wife notes that you mispelled the word "philosopher" in the title.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-48103565850833696602009-06-08T17:12:31.988-05:002009-06-08T17:12:31.988-05:00Doc, this is what you said in your piece:
"...Doc, this is what you said in your piece: <br /><br /><i>"I think Janet Smith has largely done this in her article cited above. Much depends on the context and situation, but nothing I see in that list is inherently wrong. It just needs proper explanation and application. Even the “anal penetration as foreplay” reference would seem to be parallel to the discussion of the status of preparatory oral-genital contacts discussed extensively by Frs. Ford and Kelly in their two-volume moral theology book from the 1950’s for seminarians (future priests in the confessional) with similar conclusion and this is referenced as the authority to consult by Germaine Grisez in his great ongoing compendium of moral theology. (See The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. II, p. 641, ftnt 176 where Grisez mentions only oral-genital contacts, but as I say Ford and Kelly treat this in such a way that anal-genital contacts would seem to be parallel). " </i><br /><br />Given your sentence structure, your reference is obscure, to say the least.<br /><br />In your piece, you quote Janet Smith, you quote Chris West, but you never quote the two priests who claim to support Smith and West. When you *DO* quote them, you deliberately leave out the oral-genital context of their remarks, even though it's only another sentence. <br /><br />As you yourself said: "First, as to content, whether Christopher consciously intends this or just naturally does it, I think he at times practices what Kierkegaard (a favorite of Alice von Hildebrand) describes as his own approach of “indirect communication.” Soren Kierkegaard, radical Christian existentialist, was of the opinion (especially in his early years) that just stating the truth to others on the level of direct intellectual communication often merely remained on that level and never penetrated any deeper. So Kierkegaard began to state things in extremes, yet in such a way that the clues and the evidence were there for the mind of the reader to see through the extreme statement itself and bring it back into balance as an insight and a “work” that the reader did for himself. Thus the truth was more actively seen by the reader, as an achievement, not just passively absorbed. Now I think Christopher West does the same—whether as a consciously chosen technique or not is irrelevant."<br /><br />Well, I'm just following YOUR recommendations, doing what YOU praise Chris West for doing.<br /><br />You yourself witnessed Chris West questioning an audience member about that audience member's grasp of his own sexuality. Sexuality lies at the heart of a person's identity in a way that mere scholarship does not. <br /><br />If West can question the very core of a person's identity by overstating the case, if you find this endearing in HIM, then why don't you find it endearing when I just question your scholarship in a Kierkegaardian, over-the-top way? <br /><br />A person's scholarship is not at the heart of his identity, Dr. Healy. But of course, you - being a good philosopher - would have already noted the parallels. Indeed, I would say that just as Smith argues in a way parallel to the good priests, I'm arguing in parallel to YOUR argument. <br /><br />On that basis, you should thank me, compliment me and invite me to write something for Communio for having penetrated, "in a thrusting way," (as you so eloquently phrased it)into the core of your argument.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-90676020819806063622009-06-08T15:40:05.849-05:002009-06-08T15:40:05.849-05:00Steve, while I think you are misleading and duplic...Steve, while I think you are misleading and duplicitous about a great many things in this piece, I do want to point out that in my original article I explicitly mentioned TWICE that Ford and Kelley speak only of oral-genital contacts, adding on my own that anal-genital contacts short of orgasm would seem to be morally parallel. You are free to radically disagree with this last statement; however, to accuse me of deceiving people about what Ford and Kelley said is obviously a complete lie. You yourself in your false accusation of me here commit--quite obviously and publicly--the very crime you accuse me of. --Michael HealyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com