Comments

1. Marianne Tierney 03/03/2008 - 5:49 pm  contributor

   I can’t believe I forgot to mention another new documentary in my last post, to which Martin Sheen contributed greatly. “Father G and the Homeboys” (www.fathergandthehomeboysmovie.com) is a film narrated by Martin Sheen that looks at Homeboy Industries, an organization founded by Fr. Greg Boyle that I mentioned a few weeks ago here on the blog.

   Martin Sheen has been a great participant in Catholic social activism. Now if only we could get him to subscribe to Commonweal…

2. Jimmy Mac 03/03/2008 - 6:34 pm  subscriber

   He should be given a complimentary subscription.

3. Kathy 03/03/2008 - 8:51 pm

   Awarded annually to a Catholic lefty.

4. Kathy 03/03/2008 - 9:35 pm

   No offense.

5. Grant Gallicho 03/03/2008 - 10:10 pm  contributor

   Blast that dissenter Dave Brubeck!

6. Kathy 03/03/2008 - 10:44 pm

   Grant, why must you use that word, “dissenter?” I never do. Sounds like it should mean “exhume” or “exit.” Besides, it’s incredibly inexact.

   But “lefty”–I’m pretty sure that’s a reasonable term here. Not for Brubeck, or Percy, but generally.

   Not that that’s bad. Toby Ziegler, if he got an award, that would be nice.

7. Jean Raber 03/04/2008 - 11:56 am  subscriber

   Sheen also played Peter Maurin in a very middling movie about Dorothy Day, “Entertaining Angels,” so was glad to hear there is a more serious biopic coming out.

   Meantime maybe Kathy can define “lefty” and explain how it is a more incredibly exact term than “dissenter”–and why she felt the need to point out that Martin Sheen is a “lefty” in the first place.

   No offense.

   Not that that’s bad.

   Probably perfectly harmless.

   Just wanted to clarify it for anyone who missed it, I’m sure.

   Not that it makes any difference.

   We don’t always have to agree on everything.

   Not even worth mentioning, really.

8. Kathy 03/04/2008 - 12:23 pm

   Some righties use the term “dissenter” for anyone who is “not faithful to the Magisterium.” I think that the claim “I am faithful to the Magisterium, and you’re not” is a vague and pretentious claim and is often fraught with ignorance about what the Magisterium teaches.

   I knew this one girl whose first question about any professor was, “Is s/he faithful to the Magisterium?” But she eagerly sang “I have decided to follow Jesus,” which is pure semi-Pelagianism. So she was inconsistent about “fidelity to the Magisterium,” whatever her intentions.

   Whereas lefty and righty are somewhat more well-defined terms. Lefties promote causes on the left, righties promote causes on the right, generally speaking.

   I loved the West Wing and its wit. Sheen was great in that. But he should have turned down Gettysburg, don’t you think? And he favors lefty causes, as do many recent winners.

   Am I missing something?

9. Jean Raber 03/04/2008 - 3:13 pm  subscriber

   Just a sensible answer.

10. Sean Hannaway 03/04/2008 - 3:27 pm

    I happen to think Kathy’s distinction makes perfect sense. “Dissenter” only makes sense in relation to a specific context. I know there is a tendency for some, particularly progressives, to treat our society as some sort of monolithic entity, but it’s not. I for, example, am usually a dissenter here. When I deal with my professional community, and in particular legal academia, I am almost always a dissenter, but in other contexts I’m not. Left and right, in a political context, makes more sense – no offense.

    I like Sheen as an actor, but isn’t anyone a little concerned about his 9-11 conspiracy positions?

11. Jean Raber 03/04/2008 - 3:44 pm  subscriber

    This really isn’t worth belaboring further than that making flippant little remarks about awards being given annually to Catholic “lefties” requires that one list the winners and explain what leftist causes they support that makes them lefties. It is not manifestly obvious to me how some of the individuals on the list are “lefties.”

    Sean, if you can make sense of Kathy’s story about the girl who inconsistently supports the Magisterium by singing semi-heretical hymns and how that fits in with Mr. Sheen’s receiving a “lefty” award, please feel free.

    I have no idea what Mr. Sheen’s 9-11 positions are, and I generally don’t get my information about national events from Hollywood actors. However, if these notions concern you, I encourage you to write to the Notre Dame award committee.

    U haven’t seen Martin Sheen in a movie I thought was any good since “Apocalypse Now.”

12. Kathy 03/04/2008 - 4:02 pm

    I thought this was a forum in which ideas could be expressed, regardless of what letters were or were not being written.

    Who receives awards–this has been a significant issue since the Iliad. Who does a society or organization hold up as an example of excellence? Why? Are there limitations or biases built into the selection process?

13. Jean Raber 03/05/2008 - 8:09 am  subscriber

    Kathy, dear, you can say whatever you want–and you do that regularly, usually to my great perplexity.

    And, yes, this IS a forum of ideas, so why not offer one?

    You’ve bounced around, making a variety of oblique references to the ND award that might suggest various and sometimes conflicting views about it. (I do understand your not wanting Grant to put words like “dissenter” in your mouth, but perhaps if you made your points more clearly–or, rather, made any point at all–he might not have done that.)

    Is your point that it’s OK that lefties or Sheen win the award? That a preponderance of people with ideas you associate with the left wing win the award? Or that the the award process is biased (tainted, corrupt, unfair)?

    I understand Sean’s concern that someone with nutty ideas about 9-11 should win an award from a prestigious Catholic institution. Suggesting he write a letter to the Notre Dame awards committee was simply a practical suggestion he might want to consider in addition to expressing his views here.

    Though Sean and I rarely find common ground, he is always very gentlemanly about trying to help me see his points, and he provides arguments that challenge my own opinions.

    However, when asked to clarify your points, you throw out cryptic references to the Iliad and “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus.”

    Since I assume you are intelligent and well-grounded, I can only suspect that you occasionally gets a kick out of seeing if you can engage others in senseless conversations. My bad.

14. Kathy 03/05/2008 - 9:37 am

    Jean, since this sort of thing comes up regularly, I have to wonder why you have the reputation with me of being intelligent and a good reader. I think of you as both. But I cannot understand what is so cryptic about this exchange:

    ***

    Jean:
    Meantime maybe Kathy can define “lefty” and explain how it is a more incredibly exact term than “dissenter”–

    Kathy:
    Some righties use the term “dissenter” for anyone who is “not faithful to the Magisterium.” I think that the claim “I am faithful to the Magisterium, and you’re not” is a vague and pretentious claim and is often fraught with ignorance about what the Magisterium teaches.

    I knew this one girl whose first question about any professor was, “Is s/he faithful to the Magisterium?” But she eagerly sang “I have decided to follow Jesus,” which is pure semi-Pelagianism. So she was inconsistent about “fidelity to the Magisterium,” whatever her intentions.

    Whereas lefty and righty are somewhat more well-defined terms. Lefties promote causes on the left, righties promote causes on the right, generally speaking.

    ***

    You asked me to explain why “lefty” is a more exact term than “dissenter.” I explained what I think is inexact about “dissenter” (my paragraphs 1 and 2 above). Then I explained what is more exact about “lefty” (paragraph 3).

    I honestly have no idea why you aren’t following this. You ask a question, I answer it, you say my answer is not on point. Why are you saying that?

15. Jean Raber 03/06/2008 - 9:46 am  subscriber

    I’m sorry if you think there’s some personal animus here.

    I suppose I do respond to your tone, which often strikes me as flip. More frustrating, I find your messages somewhat opaque–or perhaps my bulb is too dim to penetrate your point. In any case, I got frustrated because I didn’t see clearly what you were trying to say about the award.

    You clarified that on Cathleen’s post above, so thanks for that, though I don’t equate “lefty” with “Democrat”–certainly not Moynihan–and I don’t know what a “progressive” is exactly, but I think Bob Nunz has already pointed out the pitfalls of using labels, so I can’t really add anything.

16. Kathy 03/06/2008 - 10:17 am

    I don’t know what “animus” means, but I wish you would look over the last several comments you’ve made to me and try to avoid lashing out like that in the future.

    I’m not sure what to make of your distinction between lefty and Democrat.

    As for flip, yes, I’m flip, but not more than you, David Gibson, or Grant. So I don’t know if we should all tone that down or just try to enjoy each other’s attempts to lighten things up every once in awhile. Personally I think Gibson’s hilarious.

17. Jean Raber 03/06/2008 - 11:07 am  subscriber

    You have a real good day, Kathy.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment