Or: A short vignette describing what happens when young, poorly catechized Catholics rely on emotions and the MSM to form their "thoughts" about things they should know something about, but—alas!—do not.
The opinion editor of The Orion, the student newspaper of California State University, carefully outlines her credentials as critic of matters Catholic and papal:
Here's the catch: I think the Pope is absolutely ridiculous. I suppose that makes me a heretic but I can't help it.
She can't help it? So, is it fate that has caused her to arrive at such a thoughtless position, or simply a nascent desire to rebuke her (apparently ardently nominal) Catholic heritage, combined with knee-jerk, unthinking chugalugging from a keg of Benedict bashing? I think you know my choice; it is amply supported by comments such as this one:
Awesome, a creepy-looking ex-Nazi Pope in ornate robes and a huge funny hat.
Having shown herself shallow, she then shows herself callow, demonstrating that while she didn't choose to be Catholic, she has chosen to be clueless about Catholicism:
Strict Catholics believe the Pope is infallible. This is where I get confused. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I think directly contradicting yourself by saying particular views are "intolerable" and then rehabilitating someone who holds those views is a mistake. Therefore, he seems very fallible.
The whole Papal position to me seems a little outdated and a lot ridiculous. What does this guy do other than ride around in the Pope-mobile, condemn good people, forgive bad ones and offend believers and non-believers alike?
In this modern age, I don't think many people care too much about the Pope anyway. Even so, he should still be able to make basic value judgments and think critically about the people he chooses to rehabilitate.
One laughs. One cries. But wait, consider something she wrote shortly before the November 2008 elections:
People who vote without being properly educated on the issues are just stupid. This is where young voters come in. Young people are encouraged to vote, but most don't take the time to learn about the issues, since politics is less interesting than the latest episode of "Grey's Anatomy."
Hmmm. Let's try it again, but with a couple of changes:
People who vent their opinion without being properly educated on the issues are just stupid. This is where young people come in. Young people are encouraged to have opinions, but most don't take the time to learn about the issues, since Catholicism is less interesting than the latest episode of "Grey's Anatomy."
Here's hoping the young lady decides to actually hunt for the truth as she continues writing for The Orion...




































































































'Educate yourself, then vote': Just as well she doesn't get to vote for the next Pope.
Posted by: Salome | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 02:22 AM
Remember what Professor Kirk said in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, when Peter and Susan were discussing Lucy and the wardrobe with him? "I wonder what they do teach them at these schools."
I know that young people (I was the same) like to deal in abstractions and avoid the messiness--and sheer hard work--of dealing in the concrete and particular. But you would think they had taken a logic class somewhere along the line and had learned to make distinctions.
What do they teach them?
Posted by: M. L. Hearing | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 06:27 AM
Very nicely said... the sooner california floats into the Pacific the better we all are
Posted by: Petey P | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 07:35 AM
Please tell me you sent this to her as a letter to the editor....
Posted by: Christopher Milton | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 08:43 AM
Wow. That was one of the best posts I've read. Please tell me you emailed her. If you didn't, I will.
Great work!
Posted by: Bryan | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM
For a moment there, I thought she wrote for The ONion---it would have fit better.
Posted by: dad29 | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM
The article is a good example of what one might believe if the mainstream media were one's only source of information about the Church and Pope Benedict.
Posted by: Dan | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM
As Carl might say, she has a contentious relationship with facts and logic. But who cares? What really matters is that she's "keeping it real" and expressing herself!
Posted by: Jackson (Augustine) | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM
This is just another example of the rampant stupidity infecting college campuses today. These people copy and paste from their favorite liberal blogs, giving no real thought to what they are saying or thinking. It sounds good to them so why not? They can't even see their own obvious contradictions.
Posted by: Mulder | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Touche!
Posted by: Martin | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Hey, if California floats into the Pacific it's coming my way, towards Australia! Give us a break.
Posted by: Dr John James | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 03:34 PM
i think it was Steele Dan in the 70's who sang: 'the weekend at the college didn't turn out like you planned, the things they pass for knowledge i can't understand.'
Posted by: matteo | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 07:05 AM
On Wednesday we withdrew our children from the local public school to begin homeschooling them.
Thank you; this post further confirms our decision!
Posted by: Donna Ellis | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 02:45 PM
Does anybody else visualize this girl as throwing her head side-to-side and saying "Whatever!" and "Ooh, something shiny!" while she's writing this?
"Very nicely said... the sooner california floats into the Pacific the better we all are."
QFE! Escape from L.A. anyone? Let's make sure we get all the good Catholics out first. And then... San Andreas Fault!
Hey... a fault-line named after "Saint Andreas" that could plunge California into the ocean? I see a good prayer-card!!!! :-D
Posted by: Telemachus | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 06:19 PM
I'm glad you wrote the article, Carl. You say "Ignorant Catholics are undermining Catholicism and should consider educating themselves on the issues or keeping their opinions to themselves until they do." Well, I guess we're all ignorant and sinful, aren't we. And then, perhaps it's the educated Catholics who are undermining Catholicism. I'm thinking of poor Fr. Maciel, poor Prof. Kmiec, poor Bishop Law, and the unfortunate Oregon chapter of the Society of Jesus. Plenty of sin to go around for everyone.
Yes, the journalist at "The Onion" should consider educationg herself, and then actually start, as we all should.
No, journalists should express their opinions as best they can and meet the publishing deadlines. How much education is enough?
You should now go to the young lady's university and engage her in debate and publish the results on your excellent "Ignatius Insight"!
Finally, "undermining Catholicism". What does that mean? Are you suggesting that Catholicism isn't Christian? How can people undermine God's path to heaven? Wouldn't that mean that people are stronger than God? You might want to write another, more careful article.
Posted by: Dan Deeny | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 04:51 AM
You would be making a mistake to think that it is just California.
Posted by: Susan Peterson | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 07:57 AM
Mr. Olson, that was an outstanding post. I only hope the young lady in question has an opportunity to read it.
Mr. Deeny, your post ... well, not so much. I think a careful reading of Mr. Olson's comments would show that
he wrote the line "Ignorant Catholics are undermining Catholicism ..." to mirror the young lady's own comments
concerning "ignorant voters", hoisting her on her own petard. And yes, as you say, "the journalist at 'The Onion'
(sic) should consider educationg (sic) herself ... as we all should." I agree.
Posted by: Clinton | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Clinton, Thanks for your response. And yes, "educating" is not spelled "educationg". (I read that post over a couple of times!)
Two questions:
1. I didn't understand why you wrote (sic) after 'The Onion'?
2. What about "undermining Catholicism"? Is that possible?
Thanks.
Posted by: Dan Deeny | Sunday, February 22, 2009 at 06:10 AM
Publicity she does not deserve. College editors and paper staffs are as a breed rather juvenile. Speaking as a former one.
Posted by: Joe | Sunday, February 22, 2009 at 09:33 AM
There's more than one type of "cultural Catholicism." I, too, am a "cultural Catholic." However, I practice my faith and it is the most important thing in my life. My family has been Catholic as far back as anyone can remember. We are "culturally Catholic" and proud of it. It's not a slur.
Posted by: Ben | Monday, February 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Telemachus,
Carl is assuming that the readers of his article are educated, not in the sense that you seem to be associating with Public ed, which of course is not education according to those who are educated in the true sense. I imagine the true sense eludes you. Your word games indicate what Chesterton might call, "a superiority complex coupled with arrested development."
You mistate Carl's intended message so badly that it is painful to read your comment. You may want to write another more careful comment, maybe limit yourself to a thank you to Carl for bringing this important topic to light. Achilles
Posted by: Achilles | Monday, February 23, 2009 at 01:08 PM
California is an amazing state, I am surprised to see all the disparaging remarks about it.
Posted by: Achilles | Monday, February 23, 2009 at 01:13 PM
Dear Telemachus, Please allow me to apologize, I was not replying to your post. I didn't understand that the poster's name was below, my post was to Dan Deeny. I am sure he will recognize my mistake as a lack of proper education, and if he is speaking about public ed, I would definately get a red mark on my post. Sorry about the confusion. Achilles
Posted by: Achilles | Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 03:25 PM