Wednesday, May 22, 2013

I Flunked Zmirak's IQ Test

From Facebook ...

  • John Zmirak Fine, Kevin O'Brien. If you consider that undercover journalists have anything in common with bishops who cover for pedophiles, you win the Pharisee mantle too. Why would Catholic bloggers spend months defaming prolife activists for something (a falsehood told to a killer, to stop him from killing) that they admit is a VENIAL SIN and accuse all who differ with them of being dissenters.... I will not speculate about their motives. Why spend energy and time denouncing venial sins? I will not lower myself to speculate about the motives of such people. God knows. And He will requite them justly.
  • Kevin O'Brien As to defaming Lila Rose et. al. READ WHAT WE'VE BEEN WRITING. We have never defamed them. We have always said they are well-intentioned and if sinning sinning venially. We have never said that their lies are mortal sins. Read what we write and don't mischaracterize it, John.
  • John Zmirak Calling people "Liars for Jesus" and comparing them (as a columnist for Patheos did this week) with pedophile enablers is defamation. Parse it all you want, but if you deny it, you become the liar here.
  • Kevin O'Brien All we're saying is what the Catechism and the Ordinary Magisterium says - LYING IS INTRINSICALLY EVIL. Period. If you don't like that, take it up with Jesus and His Church as He smites me and requites me justly.
  • Kevin O'Brien John, look, what Lila et. al do is NOT as serious in ANY stretch of the imagination as a pedophile enabler.
  • Mark Scott Abeln Is this a debate about lying or is it really a debate about the Just War Doctrine? Clearly, many people seem to think about the issue in view of the latter.

    However, I think it is important that we must avoid lying in little matters so as to build up the virtue of loving the truth. Many people, even Catholics, rationalize ‘little white lies’ and so they do not have the truth in them, which is a tragedy.
  • Kevin O'Brien Weather's point is that lying "burns the bridge of trust", and that you can't justify lying venially for a good cause without opening the door to what the Jesuits in Chicago did.
  • John Zmirak Those issues are precisely what is contested, and for you to pretend in the face of evidence that they have been settled--apparently, you're much more knowledgeable than Cardinal Schonbrun, who wrote the first edition of the Catechism that took the position I and Janet Smith and Peter Kreeft support--is dishonest.
  • Kevin O'Brien And you're more knowledgable than Aquinas, Augustine, Scripture, the Catechism of Trent, the Modern Catechism?
  • Kevin O'Brien John, there are big names on both sides.
  • Kevin O'Brien The point is the Ordinary Magisterium has spoken on this, and you and others want to claim it's still and open question. Well, go ahead and claim that but you're wrong.
  • John Zmirak Weather's column is contemptible. His comparison is slanderous. The pedophile enablers--most of whose evil work was NOT done by lying, but by abuse of authority and secrecy--in no way could have made a case that parents of victims, or the police, had "no right to the truth." So to compare Lila Rose to them is slander.
  • Kevin O'Brien Lila Rose is not lying to people who have no right to know the truth. Abortion workers have as much right to know the truth of Christ as anyone.
  • John Zmirak Fine. It took a long time to clear up Usury, and a REALLY long time for Religious Liberty, so I'm perfectly comfortable waiting.
  • Kevin O'Brien John, the Chicago Jesuits are your principle that lying for a good cause is legit carried to its logical extreme and you don't want to see that.
  • John Zmirak SHE WAS NOT LYING TO THEM ABOUT THE TRUTH OF CHRIST. She was pretending to want an abortion.
  • Kevin O'Brien You can't serve Christ and the Lie. You can't serve two masters.
  • Kevin O'Brien How open to the Faith do you think the victims of her stings are?
  • Kevin O'Brien Now that she has done what she's done?
  • John Zmirak I have no idea and neither do you.
  • Kevin O'Brien Look, you have rejected the Ordinary Magisterium on this, but you claim you haven't, so neither of us will convince the other. What your side does need to do, however, is distance itself from those of you who are saying, "Jesus was a liar so I may lie to". That is horrific.
  • John Zmirak You have pretended that Lila Rose was denying that the abortionists had a right to the truth of Christ, because she tried to stop them from carrying out their prior intention of mortal sin. How very well thought out.
  • Kevin O'Brien "lie too", not "lie to".
  • Kevin O'Brien She did not try to stop them. How did she try to stop them?
  • Kevin O'Brien Enticing them in a fiction is trying to stop them?
  • John Zmirak By exposing their illegal activity and closing their clinic. Really, are you just pretending to be this thick?
  • Kevin O'Brien The end does not justify the means, and that is Catholic teaching 101, John.
  • Kevin O'Brien Look, we're not going to get anywhere. I ask only one thing: please distance yourself from those among you who are calling Jesus a liar.
  • John Zmirak WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT AND STOP LYING ABOUT US BY SAYING THAT WE ARE. We are saying that means are JUST. That not all falsehoods are lies, as not all killings are murders.
  • John Zmirak Hence it would not be blasphemous if someone attributed an action he believed was JUST to Christ. He might be wrong, but it would not be blasphemy--which requires intent.
  • Kevin O'Brien John, some of you are saying that Jesus lied and so we may lie too. Look at the comments of my blog and on Shea's blog. Some of you are saying that. You may not be, but it's all over the internet.
  • John Zmirak So stop slandering those people.
  • Kevin O'Brien To say that Jesus lied is blasphemy.
  • Kevin O'Brien Spin that however you can.
  • John Zmirak We're done. You just flunked my personal IQ test. Have fun!
  • Kevin O'Brien Good answer.


Paul Stilwell said...

"We are saying that means are JUST. That not all falsehoods are lies, as not all killings are murders."

Means always have an end. Therefore, the justness of those means must be decided by figuring into the equation what the ends are (but not that alone). *Everything* must be considered *together*.

Therefore, one can neither justify the means by pointing to the end (consequentialism), nor can one look only at the means, in and of themselves, and declare them just. Many do the latter, thereby allowing them to bring in their analogies about submarines, someone threatening to rape your wife, poker games, etc.

The falsehoods of Live Action are lies, not only considering the actions themselves, but the intended ends (exposing the abortion industries illegal activities with the hope of shutting down abortion clinics).

You see, when you look only at the means, you can declare them just, because you've isolated them.

There is a kind of dualism at work here I think, as with the Westians. That's the only way they can continue to applaud and support Live Actions tactics.

Joey Higgins said...

So... withholding evidence, covering up complaints, and moving pedophiles to avoid truth isn't a form of lying? Isn't that the definition of a lie of omission? Do the people have to ask their pastors "Do we have any pedophiles working here?"

If there is one truth that everyone can see from all this is that people don't like to hear that they are wrong and that you will be "crucified" for pointing that out. I was surprised at the response I received from posting the "torture quote" from one of your previous blogs.

Kevin O'Brien said...

Yes, as many of you have pointed out, my "bite me" comment was uncharitable.

Forgive me, dear readers; I'll try to do better in the future.