Down yonder, a reader writes:
Honestly, Jimmy, I agree w/you about the immigration stuff, but I think it would help your cause if you would make better efforts to say nice things about Latin Americans once in a while. For example, no one would ever accuse me of racism, despite my views on immigration. I rather openly express my admiration for Latin American culture and all things Spanish. I live in Southern California, often shop at a Spanish-speaking grocery store, attend Mass with Latinos, eat various Mexican foods (not just tacos and burritos), have a devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe, and forcefully condemn the land grab of the Mexican-American War.
I appreciate what you’re saying, and I have often considered doing this. I may in the future.
Actually, I do say nice things about Latin Americans. I do that all the time.
But this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don’t" situations. If I were to go out of my way to praise the Mexican people while criticizing illegal immigration then people would accuse me of being a phony and of only including the praise as a hypocritical attempt to neutralize criticism of myself. On the other hand, if I don’t go out of my way to praise the Mexican people then this gets taken in and of itself as racism, so either way you go you are damned (i.e., condemned, look up the word damnatus in Latin).
Knowing this, my instinctive solution is to try to keep people and personalities largely out of it and stick as much as possible to talking about issues and principles. This is an extension of my general apologetic practice, which is to talk about issues and not people. If you listen to the radio show, you may notice that I try to avoid commenting on individuals (i.e., "So-and-so is a good guy" or "So-and-so is a bad guy") and instead focus on the issues that the caller has on his mind in connection with so-and-so. I find it is generally more productive this way.
Thus, while I can’t stop anyone who wants to commit rash judgment and accuse me of racism from doing so, I can try to keep my own hands clean by treating the subject on as abstract a level as possible that focuses on principles instead of ethnicities.
The issue is whether America should secure its borders and do its best to stop illegal immigration (it can never be stopped completely any more than other crimes can be stopped completely, but that’s not an excuse for not trying).
And the fact is that many illegal aliens are not Mexicans or even Latin Americans. They are people from all over the world who either crossed the border illegally or who overstayed their visas illegally.
I may document just how porous our border is, but a porous border doesn’t care whether you’re Mexican or Chinese or Arabic or Afghani. In fact, it would be the latter two groups of people who I would be more concerned about coming over the Mexican or Canadian borders illegally since they are groups which are more likely to harbor individuals wanting to blow up planes or buildings than the first two groups.
I may even comment on the particular problems concerning illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America, but when I do I wish to treat matters as neutrally and matter of factly as I can, without seeking to offer character assessments of groups one way or the other, because character assessments tend to distract from the issue.
If I were to just call attention to positive things about a particular group then I would (a) open myself up to charges of pandering in order to deflect criticism and (b) paper over problems that may exist with the group (e.g., the fact that some of the people coming over the border are drug dealers and not hard working people seeking a better life).
If I were to just call attention to negative things about a particular group (e.g., the drug dealers among illegal aliens) then I would (a) get slammed for criticizing the group and (b) fail to call attention to its good points (e.g., the fact that many are hard working people seeking a better life).
One solution to this would be to offer an assessment that calls attention to both positive and negative things about the group but this would have its own problems–e.g., who am I to judge? and it would start arguments about whether the assessment is accurate or whether it is really balanced or not; and it would have to be re-issued every time I touch the subject and thus become a kind of obligatory "Let’s get the balanced character assessment out of the way so that we can prove we’re not racists and get on with the issue-discussing part of the post," and I just really don’t want those headaches.
To date I have found it better to stay out of assessing people’s characters altogether and just stick to the issues when possible (not that it is always possible).
I also have a good bit of trust in my readers that they have a sense of my own racial and ethnic openness as displayed on the blog and the radio show, where I have defended interracial marriages, referred to skin differences as simply cosmetic differences with no more intrinsic status than hair or eye color, defended Masses that mix English and Spanish, talked a lot about cultural variability and that we need to seek to understand what other cultures are trying to accomplish with the way they write or speak or bury their dead and not automatically assume that our own way of doing these things is the right one and that we should not just evaluate them in terms of our cultural practices–and then there’s all the discussion of language that I get into, language being the central aspect of any culture.
Without going to the extreme of saying that you can never criticize anything another culture does (e.g., female circumcision in the Middle East leaps to mind as a cultural practice I would criticize), I tend to be on the more multicultural end of the spectrum, but I don’t feel the need to step forward and try to prove this each time I talk about illegal immigration.
I’m not the one who has something to prove.
I could, of course, go on the blog and point things out like the fact that I work with and socialize with folks of Latino origin, that I study Spanish, that I speak Spanish when around Spanish-speakers precisely in order to honor their culture, that I go to Spanish-language Masses, that I like Mexican music, that I like Mexican food, that I like travelling in Mexico, etc., etc., etc. But these things would get me absolutely nothing.
They would be twisted against me as an overanxious attempt to prove that I’m not a racist.
As an illustration of this point, consider the post I wrote yesterday about how the race card is being overplayed in the debate on illegal immigration.
Now, I’ve been doing a series of posts on illegal immigration (a series that will end once I’ve said what I have to say on the subject; this ain’t gonna be a perennial on the blog), and as part of that series I’ve been doing posts that point out bad arguments that are being used in the debate.
Allegations of racism are a bad argument. In fact, they aren’t arguments at all. They’re simply as ad hominem attacks on people one disagrees with. And I’ve been reading about these attacks in various newspaper stories and editorials online, and I’m thinking, "Man, that’s a really stupid argument. I’m going to do a blog post about it."
So I do a blog post about it, in which I never once mention the fact that I’m rather multicultural or the fact that I’m not a racist or anything like that, and I stick to talking about the issue, and one reader who was behaving like an asinus (look up that word in Latin if you need to), pops off with:
Oddly enough the racism charge is the only thing that has given pangs to your conscience.
which is a direct statement that I have pangs of conscience over the racism charge, which implies that I have a guilty conscience on this, which implies that I’m guilty of racism and am overcompensating, which is a rash judgment on the part of the commenter.
Excuse me, but I was talking about a dumb argument. I’m not overcompensating every time I comment on a dumb argument. The reader really should try out the Catechism’s giving a favorable construction to others’ words and actions idea.
Then there are some people who are just over the top, like this fine commenter:
For those who didn’t to bother reading the entire post, let me summarize:
1) I’m not racist.
2) If you accuse me of being racist, the Catholic church says you are a sinner.
3) Let me quote some church law.Honestly Jimmy, if you want to debate whether or not you are racist, you can do better than threaten Catholics with church laws. You might try actually discussing the issue.
Respectfully,
NAME DELETED
who is simliarly behaving like an asina, and in a more heavy-handed way than the first commenter.
So you see what happens: I do a post pointing out the vileness of making unfounded allegations of racism because they’re vile and because they’re being made in the current debate, and two readers behaving like asini decide to make vile allegations against me to the effect that I must have a guilty conscience over racism and am therefore overcompensating by doing a post that is really all about me, though the post wasn’t about me at all. It was about a dumb argument–which is really an interpersonal attack rather than an argument–that is out there in the debate right now.
What these people were doing was making a personal attack on me by publicly suggesting that I’m a closet racist with a guilty conscience. It was an attempt to embarrass me in public and thus an attempt to hurt me emotionally. It wasn’t an attempt to engage in rational discussion. It was an attempt to shut down rational discussion by making an interpersonal attack.
That’s vile.
Can you imagine what these people would do if I started saying things they could translate into, "Hey, many of my best friends are Hispanics!"
My conclusion is thus that there are simply asini in the world who will behave in a vile manner no matter what you do, and as a general matter it is better to ignore the tea-leaf reading that the donkeys will try to do and just stick to the issue.
That way we don’t get distracted from the issue and if the donkeys try to distract us then they’re the ones who have been acting like asses.
This, I believe, is what my friends from high school would have called a “smack-down.”
Jimmy-
I loved and was an avid reader of your apologetics/canon law/Vatican watching blog. I’m getting a bit bored with your immigration blog.
JD
You’re not fooling anybody, Jimmy. Everybody knows that anyone who espouses your views MUST be a racist. (Wink, wink)
Wow ~ that was well said! Way to go, Jimmy. Don’t let the asini drag you (or us) down!
I loved and was an avid reader of your apologetics/canon law/Vatican watching blog. I’m getting a bit bored with your immigration blog.
Understood. Like I said in the above post, this too will pass. The blog goes through phases as I work through various topics. The immigration phase has about run its course for the moment. I only have one or two more posts in mind on this topic at present.
(Let me preface this by saying that I DO NOT believe you are a racist.)
The ad hominem is notoriously difficult to keep out of argument.
For example: suppose someone believes in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and insists that few Jews were killed by Hitler. This COULD be a simple factual error, a person who is eccentric, or a person trusting sources of authority (parents, members of a religious community, as with some Arab Muslims, for example) who are actully untrustworthy. But it could VERY WELL be rooted in anti-Semitism. Is it unfair to suggest this? Even if it is often the actual, real case?
The problem is that people are not rationality machines and often their ideas, even if plausible, are the result of rationalization of attitudes and other things.
Of course, the other side is that it makes a purely rational discussion difficult. But arguments are usually with persons, not just with minds. So readings of motive will play a part in judgment. One ought to be cautious with them, very cautious. But on the other hand, I have found that sometimes my critics have been spot on when the suggested a hidden motive for my ideas, bitterly though I resented it at the time.
Okay, if you like, just write this down as an exercise in putting the best and kindest construction on those who call you racist and engage in ad hominem argumentation. Frustrating thought it may be, I think the principle applies when we evaluate those who violate it. We must treat those who seem to engage in rash judgment against us by the very standards we believe they are NOT using in their judgments of us…
“I loved and was an avid reader of your apologetics/canon law/Vatican watching blog. I’m getting a bit bored with your immigration blog.”
Fair enough. But one of the things that makes this blog so worth reading to me is the variety of topics well beyond “apologetics/canon law/Vatican watching”. Posts on topics such as …
BSG & Monk
The sexual preference of Batgirl (LOL)
How to listen to an Mp3 of Deus Caritas Est
Diet
Interesting pics
et al
As well as pertinent and timely social issues relevant to our faith, such as the immigration issue.
For some, this issue is “wearing thin”. *Perhaps* it is not b/c Jimmy is beating it to death, but b/c it has pervaded our national dialogue in the media.
I appreciate Jimmy’s sensitivity / response to this reader; but I also appreciate the way this blog broaches a number of topics (e.g. entertainment, news / world events, geology / science, et al). A good balance and good mix of these (and other such) topics of interest make this one of my favorites.
For the record, I have zero doubt about the notion that Jimmy is racist (let alone a closet racist!) … he’s NOT.
Moreover, I truly appreciate the honesty, candor, wisdom, and thoughtfulness with which he writes. I know I can count on him to be objective about today’s issues, from a faithful Catholic perspective. He’s witty, creative, and open-minded … and buts-out funny, too!
It’s a shame that some have chosen to attack a good man’s character, because they happen to disagree with some of his perspectives. That’s just ass-anying!
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, JIMMY!
As a Brazilian, there’s nothing that ticks me off more than people who think that all Latin Americans are alike, particularly to their mother tongues or their cuisines… 😛
No, I’ve never eaten pita bread in my life until I came to America. I was raised with a lot of beef! 🙂
Hey Jimmy,
I for one have really profited from your ruminations on immigration. There is so much knee-jerk liberalism and pap being spouted by the US Bishops on this matter that it is good to hear a good law and order orthodox Catholic analysis. And this is one case where one might expect that the prudential judgement of laymen could trump that of clerics. Blog on it as much as you want!
I keep hearing these racist canards every time anyone expresses any concern about immigration. I have gotten to the point that I ignore all charges of racism because they never seem to be sincere. As you noted, there is no good way to respond.
Keep it up Jimmy!
The “racism” (is “hispanic” a race?) is only pertinent because we are discussing our southern border. I discussed this issue on my blog and took great pains to state that I don’t care what nationality you are, what color you are, what language you speak, or what God you do or do not believe in. If you are in violation of our immigration laws, here is how you should be dealth with…
Even after that very specific disclaimer, I had a commenter accuse me of racism, and an un-Catholic attitude.
You won’t be able to win here. The race card is played when the opponent has run out of other cards (or it’s the only card in his meager hand).
The thing that makes the race baiting so absurd in this case is that Jimmy may be the most “multiculti” person I know, and I say that as a blue-state East Coast Yankee.
He probably wouldn’t say it himself, for the reasons alluded to above, but it’s true. I mean, the guy just digs cultures and languages other than his own. Not just these or those cultures or languages — ALL cultures and languages.
Irrelevant side note: I’ve eaten Mexican with Jimmy here in the East Coast as well as in So-Cal, and while he was very appreciative, he indicated that in his view So-Cal’s proximity to Mexico makes for superior Mexican food both because of the availability of authentic ingredients and because of cultural osmosis.
That’s true! Same here in Texas, you can find good Mexican food (as well as Tex-Mex)
I personally have found Jimmy’s discussions on immigration very helpful. I also think it is very relevant on a Catholic Apologist’s blog simply because our Bishop’s have decided to make immigration their big crusade for the year. That can leave many people confused on their obligation to agree or not. What are our choices? Is this a representation of official church opinion, etc.? Those questions can be difficult to find answers to.
As for the racist comments, I think they speak more about the mentality of the commentator than Jimmy! You’re not a racist if you agree with border security. I for one am married to a Malaysian. Do you have any idea how expensive and difficult it is to become a permanent resident? And on top of that, to prove you are serious, INS doesn’t allow you to go to your home country until your case is finalized. My husband didn’t see his family for years. Why should the citizens of one country not have to follow the rules but the rest of the world must? That’s why it tics me off when people say that border security equals racism. That’s just crazy talk. I can’t randomly pick a country and just go live there! The world has rules and those rules are meant to avoid chaos. People coming in and out of countries with no rhyme or reason would be madness.
I am one of the “fine” readers that you quoted in this post. I did look up “asinus”, as I am not well-versed in Latin. Here is what I found.
Quite mature of you to resort to crude name-calling in ancient languages. I bow to you and your superior wit.
Frankly, I did not accuse you of being racist. Further, I have no opinion on the matter. Obviously, you care very deeply about any perceptions that you are racist. I do not feel that your first post made any effort to refute those charges.
Basically all the post said to me was, “Don’t call me a racist, or the Church will be mad at you.” Hardly anything of substance, and as someone who isn’t Catholic, I felt it made you look childish. I didn’t think you ARE childish (at least not until you started the name-calling). My comment was an attempt to hold up a mirror to you to see how your post can make people perceive you, with a little bit of humor thrown in.
Ironically, I think this is the post where you did a better job of addressing the “not liking illegal immigration does not make me a racist” issue. So maybe my comment helped a little bit.
Respectfully,
Meretrice
Meretrice? Is that really your name?
“Don’t call me a racist, or the Church will be mad at you.”
That is hardly the most obvious sense in which one could take Jimmy’s first post. Not being a Catholic, you might not understand that Jimmy was attempting to warn people about falling into SIN by making baseless public accusations… against ANYONE.
“I do not feel that your first post made any effort to refute those charges.”
That’s because he was not TRYING to refute the charges, but was pointing out that the charges were baseless and did NOTHING to move the argument about immigration one way or another. That was the point of his post. He needn’t defend himself against every empty ad hominem attck that is thrown his way.
Saying to someone, “Prove you are not a racist” is very much like asking them if they have stopped beating their wife.
“Basically all the post said to me was, “Don’t call me a racist, or the Church will be mad at you.”
There are two possible explanations for such a response: ignorance of astronomical proportions, or a desire to get attention. Either way, it’s too bad.
Jimmy you wrote, “What these people were doing was making a personal attack on me by publicly suggesting that I’m a closet racist with a guilty conscience. It was an attempt to embarrass me in public and thus an attempt to hurt me emotionally. It wasn’t an attempt to engage in rational discussion. It was an attempt to shut down rational discussion by making an interpersonal attack.
That’s vile.
Jimmy, you’re right it is vile.
But, believe me, you shouldn’t feel the least bit embarassed. Not even for a microsecond.
Most people with half a brain in the heads recongnize these name-calling-shut-down-the-discussion tactics for what they are. . .
. . . attempts by intellectual incompetents to bully others into silence.
People who do this know deep down that they don’t have the brain power to marshall a real argument that might actually, you know, convince anybody.
So that avenue is closed to them.
But they don’t want to lose the opportunity to win an argument about a topic they happen to feel passionately about.
So out from the mouths spews “fascist-racist-Nazi-yadda-yadda-yadda.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
BO-RING!
Their lameness is exceeded only by their bogosity.
Jimmy, your readers are totally on to these incompetents. You have NOTHING to feel embarassed about.
They are the ones who are an embarassment . . . to themselves. And deep down, they know it.
No, Meretrice is not my real name. It is my long standing internet handle.
Tim… maybe his first post on the matter wasn’t meant to refute the racism charges directly, but it came off as a schoolboy yelling at his tormentors, “Don’t call me names!” with some sanctimonius, “The Church doesn’t approve of name calling” stuff thrown in.
Then he followed it up with crude name calling of his own which only reinforces my opinion.
“Jimmy, your readers are totally on to these incompetents. You have NOTHING to feel embarassed about.
They are the ones who are an embarassment . . . to themselves. And deep down, they know it.”
Does no one see that Jimmy should be embarrassed for calling his readers who don’t agree with him “asses?” Its hardly becoming for a person of his calling, or for anybody in general, actually…
I want to reinforce again that my original comment had nothing to do with whether or not Jimmy is a racist. It was a criticism of how he framed his refute. I wasn’t vile then, I am not vile now, nor am I embarrassed.
Meretrice
Huh. Because your arguments are plausible but false or insincere and specious? Or because of some connection with prostitution?
Since Jimmy hasn’t called anyone an “ass” merely for disagreeing with him, as opposed to for meretricious misrepresentation, your question is irrelevant.
More to the point, no, I don’t think merely referring to people as “asses” is a matter for embarrassment, unless you want to indict Lewis and Chesterton for conduct unbecoming. And St. Paul and Jesus, for that matter, considering some of the language they use.
SDG said:
‘Or because of some connection with prostitution?’
though I back you up 100%, that sounds like name-calling to me. that’s what happens when jersey boys stay up this late.
(tongue firmly in cheek.)
David B, I’m just asking. ;-|
Are you upset?
Say not! 😉
Not.
Just baffled. 🙂
I gotta get some shut I. See y’all tomorrow!
God Bless! Shalom! Goodbye!
April –
No hablaba con usted especÃficamente pero a cualquier persona que implicó Jimmy era un racisto.
(Si el zapato no cabe no intente ponerlo encendido)
FYI, Meretrice is italian, not spanish. I have used it since I was 19. It is my blog’s domain name (http://www.meretrice.com). My internet handle has nothing to do with this discussion.
“Since Jimmy hasn’t called anyone an “ass” merely for disagreeing with him, as opposed to for meretricious misrepresentation, your question is irrelevant.”
Someone please show me where I said or implied that Jimmy is a racist, in any language.
It is amazing to me that you guys are sticking up for a person who completely miscontrued what I wrote and replied with vitriolic words (in two languages!).
Yet you all insist that I am the vile one.
I really feel that Jimmy owes his readership and me an apology. Perhaps he and his readers should go back and read those church rules that he quoted in his first post. I’m pretty sure calling me an ‘ass’ violates the letter and spirit of them.
Let me quote, per Jimmy, one of them:
“2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.”
I especially like this one, again, per Jimmy:
“He becomes guilty of calumny … who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.”
Meretrice
Since meretricious misrepresentation on points other than racism is possible, I’m not sure why you are only concerned to clear yourself of having advanced accusations of racism.
You would like your posts to be construed fairly and reasonably, and rightly so, but you seem to feel no obligation to extend the same courtesy to the host of this blog, or to others.
From the outset you’ve brought a caustic, jaundiced perspective to this discussion, starting with your blinkingly inappropriate and inaccurate initial characterization of Jimmy’s earlier post.
Now, instead of backtracking or apologizing, you seem hung up on Jimmy’s use of a disdainful word, a word unblushingly used by Wodehouse, Austen, Shakespeare, Chesterton and Lewis. This is why Jesus told stories about motes and planks.
Jimmy –
I hope this was clear from my comments on your earlier post, but I just wanted to reiterate: I absolutely agree that a committment to securing American borders on its own should not be enough to warrant an accusation of racism. I apologize if any comment I made suggested that I suspect you of racism; I don’t suspect you of any such thing, and it was not my intention to communicate otherwise. My (strong) disagreement was directed only at your statement that race has nothing do with the question of illegal immigration in this country. Also, allegations of racism are not always ad hominem arguments. Sure, some groups of people overuse the term racism (the most common abuse, I think is confusing prejudice with racism; they are not the same thing). But abuse of the term does not mean that racism has nothing do with American attitudes towards a number of issues, including illegal immigration.
Jimmy,
Please do not waste time on these silly allegations.
Just keep putting out the truth on immigration, especially illegal immigration.
It is truly destructive of Mexico and the United States and has nothing to do with racism, but rather justice.
April says:
“Meretrice is italian, not spanish. I have used it since I was 19. It is my blog’s domain name…”
Well, I looked it up in my Mondadori Pocket Dictionary and “meretrice” is translated as “prostitute.” Sorry, April, but that’s a heckuva screen name to pick for yourself. What are your readers supposed to think?
Can we get over the handle a particular commenter chooses to use and get back on topic? Regardless of its meaning, it isn’t germane to the discussion at hand.
Thanks for the link, SDG. My vocabulary has now increased.
Jimmy, I second Ann’s post above.
“Well, I looked it up in my Mondadori Pocket Dictionary and “meretrice” is translated as “prostitute.” Sorry, April, but that’s a heckuva screen name to pick for yourself. What are your readers supposed to think?”
My readers can think whatever they want about the handle, if they even think about it at all. From the responses I have gotten on my blog, I think it is fair to say that they have an understanding of who I am and what I am about. Do I really need to explain to internet savvy folks such as yourself that handles are pseudonyms and rarely have much to do with who a person really is? Again, my handle is irrelevent to this discussion.
“Now, instead of backtracking or apologizing, you seem hung up on Jimmy’s use of a disdainful word, a word unblushingly used by Wodehouse, Austen, Shakespeare, Chesterton and Lewis.”
Yes, but Wodehouse and the others did not personally call ME an ass. That’s the difference. I will apologize when I have something to apologize for.
Given that no one has taken me up on my challenge to show where I accused Jimmy of being a racist (or made “meretricious misrepresentation on points other than racism”), I think my point has been proven. Although it seems that no one is charitable enough to acknowledge it.
And to Jimmy: I guess even apologists sometimes don’t have the courage to apologize when they are wrong, huh?
Best of luck to you all,
Meretrice
April, Jimmy didn’t call you an ass; he said you were behaving like one. He was right.
Come on, April. This all stems from your snide and sneering first post, completely misrepresenting what Jimmy said and closing with;
“Honestly Jimmy, if you want to debate whether or not you are racist, you can do better than threaten Catholics with church laws. You might try actually discussing the issue.
Respectfully,
…
You can’t undo a disrespectful post
bill912:
“My conclusion is thus that there are simply asini in the world who will behave in a vile manner no matter what you do, and as a general matter it is better to ignore the tea-leaf reading that the donkeys will try to do and just stick to the issue.” [emphasis added]
And just who do you think Jimmy was referring to here? If you have any questions, read his entire post again.
I seriously doubt you guys have put any thought into what I wrote that Jimmy responded to with petty and hypocritical name-calling; outside of course, what Jimmy told you to think about it.
What I originally wrote had nothing to do with racism, illegal immigration, my internet handle, C.S. Lewis or Shakespeare. It was a humorous criticism of his rhetoric in the post “The Race Card Continues to Wear Thin.” Calling me an ass was inappropriate because it was based on a completely twisted perception (Jimmy’s own tea leaves) of what I originally wrote. That is what upset me and continues to upset me.
Look, you guys obviously hold up Jimmy as your personal hero, and you will never stand to have it pointed out that he has done something wrong. Can’t let him slip off that lovely pedestal or your faith would be shattered, I suppose. That’s fine. I’ll go away now. A parting word of advice: be careful what you say on here in the future. Don’t dare to criticize Mr. Akin on anything or be prepared to face Jimmy and his peanut gallery’s wrath.
Peace,
Meretrice
“…who is similarly *behaving* like an asina…”
Sorry. Posted accidentally in the middle of my thought.
I was saying that you can’t “undo” a disrespectful post by signing it “respectfully”.
Jimmy was, in fact, trying NOT to get into a debate about whether or not he is racist. That was kinda the point.
You were just wrong in your first comment, and were rude to boot. Jimmy called you on it. It happens. People mouth off online.
As for Jimmy quoting Church law at people… that is sort of what he does. It’s a Catholic Apologetics blog… strange as this may seem to you, that’s his job.