Print

---

"Br. Alexis Bugnolo" wrote:

> But if the answer is something than should be omitted from the list, then
> don't ask if you don't want a frank, uncensored answer.

does this mean that you are not responsible for the things that you write?  This
wouldn't be the first time a bigot has hidden behind the supposed need for
"straight talk."  But judging from your qualifications (below), one cannot
assume that you are a bigot.

As an agnostic I was shocked to read your non sequitur which connected people's
beliefs about the unseen with their parents' marital status.  You might as well
say they all have small dwarves living in their stomachs.


> Perhaps I entertain a medieval view of the world, or that my response
> seemed so medieval.

perhaps, but highly unlikely.  How is it that you could be medieval?  By virtue
of order or belief?  Your modern religion no more makes you capable of
gestalting the medieval than my surname grants me supernatural powers.


> then what is so disappropos of repsonding to your
> perfectly good question about the pastoral care of atheists, on a medieval
> religion list, and it being answered to the point by a Franciscan, who has
> had a good deal of experience both by correspondence and socially with
> atheists (some of whom I consider among by closest friends),

responding is entirely apropos.  The response was not.


> nevertheless
> what I said was true but not of all persons at all times in all conditions.

this is, apparently, some strange new usage for the word "true" with which I was
previously unfamiliar.


> How is it that the exrpession of medieval views is somehow verboten on a
> Medieval Religion list?

It isn't.  Were you planning on referring to some?


> Or is this rather a presentist, politically
> correct, reinterpretationist (under the guise of academic) discussion of
> Medieval Relgion, or at least what is popularly the target for poopooing
> about the Medieval period.

False option.  At some point, I hope, your discussion of this topic will turn
from rhetorical flourishes to sound discussion of medieval religion.  This is, I
suspect, what the listowner has attempted to do and what you are still
avoiding.  And if this really is your opinion of this list, why are you still
here?


> I have no objection to serious disagreement on
> fundamental issues...but don't be an advocate of
> censorship merely because what the other says is offends your
> sentimentality or prejudice.

you are not being censored, you are being held to standards of civil conduct.
And your statements about atheists do not agree with my cloying sentimentality
when it comes to facts, their reference, and logic.  There:  I thought in the
interests of full disclosure I should make clear my bias.

Now,  what was that about atheists coming from "broken homes" (charming
expression) again?  Were you going to posit some causal relationship, or just a
strong, statistical correlation which clearly points to the need for further
study?  You see, it's not that your statement was "politically incorrect," it's
that it's unsupportable.  It was also quite clearly out of left field, so don't
be surprised if people wonder what you're up to.


> That at least would make even the worst
> imaginations of what the Inquisition was not, much more defensible; for
> sentimentality is emotionalism, which is subrational, and unworthy to be
> the basis of academic endeavor or discussion.

please read the above and try to abide by it.  I think it's an excellent
sentiment.  And we've probably all read Peters.


> O.K. I agree that if there are any atheists on this list, you all probably
> winced on that last post of mine.

Not just the atheists, and not for the reasons you may be imagining.


> But I told you frankly what is done
> pastorally for atheists; and though I would doubt that in the medieval
> period there was a pastoral methodoloy to address atheism--not too many
> medievals woke up one day and said; "I don't believe in God." -- its
> generally a post-reformational phenomena in a sociological magnitude,
> nevertheless, if there were, I am sure that theologians, such as Aquinas
> and Scotus, who addressed the question academically, and who knows maybe
> for the pastoral care of some of their studens or fellow faculty members,
> would have answered the question similarly.

See?  The above is fit for our discussions, although I doubt its content would
surprise any members.


> The comment about chaste love has nothing
> intentionally to do with any implication that there was abuse in their
> families--if you thought that, it is you who read into the statement what
> was not there

it was, however, another non sequitur, so quite naturally many of us were
wondering what you were after.  Chaste love is not a new idea to this list's
members, its relevance to bizarre correlations between metaphysics and marital
bliss, however, probably is.


> I perhaps should have warned you that I was going to use
> English in a manner particular to the dominate religious confession of the
> Medieval period (perhaps being a Franciscan isn't sufficient to warn you in
> advance as to the intellectual and cultural and academic context of my
> response).

are you familiar with an organization known as the "Society for Creative
Anachronisms"?  Please refer to a current calandar:  you are as modern as
polyester and so am I.


> In all of this, I take no personal offense by your rap on the knuckles,
> George; nor was my post intended to offense anyone on this list. But I
> can't help being what I am, a Franciscan, which means that you can expect
> me to be very frank (using francus in the Late Latin sense) as to my
> viewpoints on all topics, Medieval or otherwise.

Essentialization.  You have been criticized for what you've done, not what you
are.  Confusing the two might work as a dodge in some circles, but not here.  If
anyone's asked you to change your spots I'd like to see an example.  In the
meantime, the rules for civil discourse are not derived from some obscure,
kabbalistic matrix, they're (supposedly) common knowledge.  You'll notice ad
hominem (which is what your statement amounted to) is on the no-no list.

J. St.Lawrence