This is me, Eccles

This is me, Eccles
This is me, Eccles

Friday, 2 October 2020

Amy is the wrong sort of Catholic

So, RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, the one who ate broken bottles, killed rats with her teeth, wore barbed wire next to the skin, and was strongly suspected of turning into a werewolf at the time of the full moon (as P.G. Wodehouse would have put it). Who can possibly replace you?

Well, it would have to be a lawyer, and other good boxes to tick are (1) being female or possibly gender-fluid, (2) being black or at least not white, (3) being a socialist, anarchist, or at least a liberal, (4) having no perceptible religion that might influence how you live your life, although atheism would of course be optimal.

So who do they get to replace Aunt Ruth? Amy Coney Barrett! She ticks Box 1, but not the others.

The Barretts meet Trump

The most evil family in the world?

Problem 1. She is a Catholic.

Solution 1: No problem really. After all, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics! It's just a label, which may attract some voters. You don't have to make a religion of it! Just turn up at church once a year for a photo-opportunity with a bishop. Otherwise, you can campaign on LGBT issues and push abortion to limits that even King Herod would have been embarrassed about.

Problem 2. Oh, but she does make a religion of it. She's strongly pro-life.

Solution 2. Awkward.

Problem 3. Still, you can't be pro-life unless you follow the "seamless garment" philosophy. You won't catch her adopting kids, especially not black kids; I don't imagine she does anything charitable. Not like Joe Biden who gave 3 dollars to charity last year, even if it was tax-deductible. And I'll bet she would abort a Downs kid without thinking - what a hypocrite, eh?

Solution 3. Actually, she's adopted two black Haitians and has a Downs kid.

Problem 4. Gotcha! Cultural imperialism. I'll bet she chains the black kids up at night and sends them into the fields to pick cotton during the day time. And a Downs kid! What a sadist! She just likes to see him suffer.

Barrett family

Slavery. Or sadism. Or racism. Or something.

Solution 4. No, they seem to be a happy well-balanced family. No drug addicts, no mysterious money from Ukraine.

Problem 5. Well, she's obviously a white supremacist then. Don't worry, we'll find something against her. Probably she touched someone inappropriately 30 years ago.

Solution 5. Like Biden did last week, you mean?

No, no, no! Biden is a Democrat. He can do no wrong! Amy is a Republican, and so EVIL EVIL EVIL.


  1. You skipped solution 4 and problem 5

  2. When comparing someone such as ACB to, say, someone such as AOC the person doing the comparison must keep their eyes and, particularly, their minds, open.
    What at first appears to be "good" when, after much deep and circumlocutional thought, provided the proper nuancing, may turn out to be, as you say, "evil, evil, evil." Therefore, despite all appearances, ACB must faall into the category opposite what appearances deceive.
    On the other hand what at first appears "evil," hooves, tail, horns may, upon further and muddled reflection, really be "good," and so, say AOC despite holding "values" that on the surface aren't so much values as deplorable opinions, may then be seen as a creaation of the Lord and viewed as "good."
    It is the nuancing folks, like nuanceypelozi, a "goodcatholic."

  3. I'm struggling with this. As a former member of a conservative Catholic charismatic community (Communauté des Béatitudes in France) I find the demonisation by the liberal press of Judge Barrett entirely unacceptable. Where is the recognition of her human right to freedom of religious expression? Swinging the supreme court towards a pro-life majority is without question a paramount just cause.

    And yet... For the faithful to achieve this worthy gain through the manipulations of a President who is cynically using an assumed pro-life Catholic/Evangelical position for his own questionable worldly power - while having no connection or even a semblance of belonging to the community of the faithful - is morally questionable. Instead of being a confused Peasant and donkey keeper, I wish I had the mind of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: I would trust his judgement of what is morally right here! What comparisons might he make with a certain well-known German corporal in the 1920s and 1930s?

    1. Ah, for goodness sake, Trump=Hitler. That's pathetic. And a terrible insult to the latter's victims, not least Bonhoeffer. Then again, you seem to be claiming special insight and can read minds, so maybe I'm wrong. By the way, have you forgotten that he's married to a Catholic? Even assuming your mind-reading of his cynicism is correct, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is preferable to those doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

      Or maybe he just needs to get closer to the community of the faithful, like Biden, Pelosi et al.

    2. As I said, I'm struggling with this. You seem so more certain, like many. I find that worrying. I would never judge you as "pathetic". I simply expressed my doubts. That's all.

    3. I didn't describe you as pathetic, but your notion that Trump is equivalent to Hitler, an echo of a leftist calumny, ironically reminiscent of Goebbel's claim that the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. It would be absurd not to be certain that Trump is not in the least like Hitler.

  4. While Amy is a Catholic (='Izzacatholic') Joe is an 'Azzacatholic', as in 'Azzacatholic, I don't agree with Catholic teaching on [fill in current progressive obsessions of secularists]'. There are plenty of the latter to choose from, especially among politicians!

    1. As I said several years ago on a traditional Catholic website I helped set up, if we have to be 100% for Trump in order to be accepted as traditional Catholics, count me out. If that's now anathema, I'm probably not too surprised, but as I'm a hermit who cares anyway?

  5. Well Bruvver -- if Judge Amy lacks sufficient "expansiveness of mind" to be in favour of "some form of world authority regulated by law", then she cannot possibly be such a good Cathlic as de Pop.

    After all, she should "promote more effective world organizations, equipped with the power to provide for the global common good". (hmmmm, wonder why de Pop used "good" rather than "purpose" ?)

    Mustn't ever in any case be such a bad Cathlic as that Saint Augustine fellow !! He's the one "who forged a concept of ‘just war’ that we no longer uphold in our own day" !! Off to the naughty corner that bad, bad, bad Church Father, who would have been well advised to read Laudato Sì before writing that silly City of God not-properly-Cathlic thing.

    Desmond Tutu, and Mahatma Gandhi are of course better Cathlics than he ever was, and de Pop rightly props them up on the empty pedestal that that white stale male bloke from Hippo was rightly toppled from.

    1. We apologize for the bad line there, and we appear to have lost Jabba during a bad storm which is not very Nice.

  6. Amy C. Barrett is in with a good chance. More challenging is the semi-final between Aunt Ruth B. Gin vs. gin-guzzlin' Anti Moly.