Recently there was a story in the Catholic press about a speech in which an Italian churchman apparently referred to things like abortion and euthanasia as "terrorism with a human face."
Now there’s this story about L’Osservatore Romano referring to an Italian commedian’s jibes at B16 and the Church as "terrorism."
The paper is quoted as saying:
"This, too, is terrorism. It’s terrorism to launch attacks on the
Church," it said. "It’s terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage
against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life
and love for man."
I don’t know what all the commedian said, but the story refers to him saying:
"The Pope says he doesn’t believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the Church has never evolved," he said.
He also criticized the Church for refusing to give a Catholic funeral to Piergiorgio Welby, a man who campaigned for euthanasia as he lay paralyzed with muscular dystrophy. He died in December after a doctor agreed to unplug his respirator.
"I can’t stand the fact that the Vatican refused a funeral for Welby but that wasn’t the case for (Chilean dictator Augusto) Pinochet or (Spanish dictator Francisco) Franco," he said between musical acts at the open-air concert.
This kind of thing leaves me scratching my head.
I’m one of the biggest B16 fans there is, but I don’t see how this kind of stuff amounts to "terrorism." Either there’s something missing from the new story that the commendian said that would qualify in this regard or there is something in Italian culture that would allow these statements to be taken as incitements to violence or the word "terrorism" means something different in Italian . . . or I don’t know what.
While people regularly talk about how hard it is to give a rigorous definition to the term, it seems to me that at the core of the idea of terrorism is using either violence or threats of violence to cause fear in order to get someone to do what you want.
If there isn’t at least the threat of violence, it isn’t terrorism. It’s something else. For example, if someone threatens to release damaging information to get someone to do what he wants, it’s blackmail.
If violence or the threat of violence isn’t being used as some kind of coercion (either on the social policy level or on the personal level) then it isn’t terrorism. Violence without the purpose of coercision is just violence. Thus murder–even mass murder–is not terrorism.
So I don’t see how abortion or euthanasia or joking (even joking badly or offensively or mean-spiritedly) about the pope is terrorism.
But like I said, maybe the press reports have left stuff out, or maybe "terrorism" means something different in Italian.
I just hope we aren’t approaching an ecclesiastical equivalent of Godwin’s Law–something to the effect of "The more sharply felt the subject matter of a dispute is, the more likely a churchman is to call it ‘terrorism.’"
That would only rob the word of its meaning.
Would that count as lexical terrorism?
The story must have left out the context which is this: Archbishop Bagnasco has received several threats– including some ominous messages spray-painted on the Genoa cathedral– since he issued a strong statement on March 31 opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriage and asserting the right of the Church to speak out on public issues.
The comedian’s comments were made in this environment. The level of rancor in Italy between the homosexual lobby and the Church is increasing.
Sorry, Michael–a comedian’s bad joke isn’t “terrorism” just because someone else made a threat, or because discussion in general is getting overheated. Talk like that makes the Church look stupid, even ridiculous. And it’s an insult to the victims of genuine terrorism.
Isn’t B16 still granting asylum to that terrorist gun-runner bishop?
How does that square with Catholic Social Teaching™?
Abortion and euthenasia – as they are practiced in modern times, with clinical detachment and industrial efficiency – simply defy categorization. They have been equated to Baal worship (wherein babies were literally fed into the burning mouth of a capricious god), to the Nazi holocaust, and now to terrorism – among other things. Truth is, they are far worse than any of the things to which they are often compared.
The holocaust comes closest, but in that instance there was at least the conceit that the Jew was an enemy, was dangerous in some way, even if everyone knew it was bunk. Abortion, on the scale we see it in the modern world, is just cultural suicide. It is the act of a culture that has decided that life is meaningless and that there is no point in going on.
In general, men – mankind – have always known unreflectively that children are a good thing, a blessing. Our culture repudiates that. Men have always understood – as an aspect of natural law – that the aged are to be venerated. That concept has been drowned in the yuppie obsession for Personal Fulfillment… people old and young are valued only in so far as they make their caregiver happy at that moment.
It is natural that people will sometimes reach for terms that will shake other people up, that will express pathos or outrage. Terrorism happens to be something current that nobody likes, and so it gets trotted out more and more. People behave this way against the Church all the time… you know, Catholic teaching on homosexuality is Hate Speech, blah, blah… it’s nonsense.
It isn’t helpful to reach for inaccurate and misleading terms simply for their felt emotional impact. With repeated use, they will lose any real impact they should have.
Calling abortion a form of terrorism is perhaps forgiveable on some level, but hollering “terrorism” at every insult is just nutty… something I would expect from left-wingers.
Billy, if I knew what you were talking about, I might respond.
We don’t have the full article as it was published in L’Osservatore Romano (and without it, it definitely seems like the T-bomb was thrown around far too casually) but if the article was referring to the death threats aimed at the Archbishop in order to scare Catholics from publicly expressing their beliefs against homosexual marriage as Michael suggests, would that rightly be called terrorism or something else?
Given the way the media usually covers the Church, I wouldn’t be surprised if they completely flipped the emphasis of an article written primarily about the death threats but merely mentioned that comedian. But then again maybe not. You would think the real threat to a Bishop would be a juicier story than someone at the Vatican spouting off over some comedian, where’s the incentive to twist it around?
My impression of Italian from friends who speak or understand the language is that a). alot of the comedic material tends to be eyepoppingly vulgar even by American standards, and b). the rhetoric tends to translate into English as very heated and extravagant, even if the native speakers don’t seem to find it excessive in the original.
Without more information, it’s hard to say, but I’d tend towards the assumption that the Pope’s full speech had an impressive lineup of ands, ifs, buts, and other qualifiers on the terrorism analogy, and that the comedian’s full spiel was fairly scatological.
Perhaps the incentive is to not encourage sympathy for the church. The media has taken sides. The Church is the enemy The culture war demand media objectify unsympathetically the enemy target.
Unfortunately, I don’t know where it was, but I recall reading that the comic apologized for stepping over the line somewhere as well. Does anybody know of this?
Would Martin Luther’s incendiary remarks about the Church spurring hatred against it and his inflammatory rhetoric which, amongst other things, provoked the German Peasants’ Revolt be considered ‘terrorism’ for the various acts of terrorism it actually inspired?
I think the following might be found to be noteworthy:
“We have to have calm and good sense,” he told reporters. “Unfortunately the rhetoric has continuously been getting harsher over recent months. This country doesn’t need it.”
This might suggest that a situation has arisen there such that tensions have been mounting and things even as seemingly benign as one’s speech against the Church (something already held with such enmity by some folks, apparently) may actually aggravate matters to the point where it may flare existing tempers.
At least, that’s what’s implied here:
Some people have even twisted (Bagnasco’s words) to start an insidious ‘war’, a new season of tension, which is inspiring those who are looking for motives to return to taking up arms,” the newspaper said.
Archbishop Bagnasco has received several threats– including some ominous messages spray-painted on the Genoa cathedral– since he issued a strong statement on March 31 opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriage and asserting the right of the Church to speak out on public issues.
—-
Interesting how those who oppose the Church are restorting to terrorism while denoucing those in the Church that compare certain evils to terrorism.
What is interesting is that people who claim to be for the Church are opposed to calling terrorism, terrorism. Look to the definition and you will see these death threats based upon a political and moral position counts.
But Jimmy really is NOT the greatest fan of the Pope; he keeps finding ways to disagree with and ridicule the Pope’s positions (Iraq, torture, et. al).
A plain English translation of A Non’s last sentence is: “Waaaaaaaah!”
If there isn’t at least the threat of violence, it isn’t terrorism.
According to my dictionary, terrorism has to do with fear and anxiety. While in some cases it may be a fear of violence, it may also have nothing directly to do with violence at all. There is no requirement that the terrorist himself threaten violence. For example, George Bush is often considered a terrorist for his regime’s efforts, whether intentional or not, to induce fear among the American populace. And the Church is also often considered a terrorist for its efforts to induce fear of God.
If you can’t use terms like “terrorism” so loosely that they have no meaning at all, then the terrorists have won.
“For example, George Bush is often considered a terrorist for his regime’s efforts, whether intentional or not, to induce fear among the American populace. And the Church is also often considered a terrorist for its efforts to induce fear of God.”
Often? Really? Sources please? I’ve never once heard the Church referred to as terrorists for trying to induce fear of God. Not ever. Maybe I need to get out more.
How does one UNINTENTIONALLY make “efforts… to induce fear”? It’s a non-sequitur.
Using the word “terrorism” to refer to any activity we don’t like is just idiotic.
“Unintentionally make efforts”. I believe that would be an oxymoron.
Maybe I need to get out more.
That would explain it.
How does one UNINTENTIONALLY make “efforts… to induce fear”?
Unintentionally as in not realizing the actual EFFECT of your behavior. The intent may have been to have a different effect.
Ed, “to induce fear” is a statement of intent. How can you have an unintentional intent?
Thanks, bill. It is indeed an oxymoron. But there is also a logical fallacy at work… or a few.
I note, Ed, that you did not produce any instances of this use of the word “terrorist” that happens so often.
Ed, “to induce fear” is a statement of intent
No it’s not Tim. I might induce many things in you, such as anger, without intending to on my part.
I note, Ed, that you did not produce any instances of this use of the word “terrorist” that happens so often.
Like you said before, ypu might try getting out more. Sitting your butt in front of JA blog won’t help with that.
My 11:27AM comment would seem to apply again.
“to” (in this context) means “for the purpose of”
“to induce fear” means “for the purpose of inducing fear”
If it is not done intentionally, that is, with the intention of inducing fear, you simply cannot (logically speaking) say that it is done “to” induce fear.
Ed — you are right when you say many things might be done which have the effect the effect of inducing fear. But (big but) that is simply NOT the same thing as something done TO induce fear.
Tim J. may not get out enough, but perhaps you, Ed, got out TOO much during class? This really isn’t all that complicated.
you simply cannot (logically speaking) say that it is done “to” induce fear.
Exactly. I made no claims as to intent.
that is simply NOT the same thing as something done TO induce fear.
That’s what I didn’t say it was done TO induce fear. But fear was induced as a result of the efforts of the Bush regime.
But fear was induced as a result of the efforts of the Bush regime.
Moveon.org. Move on. Nothing new here.
Ed,
in·duce /ɪnˈdus, -ˈdyus/ –verb (used with object), -duced, -duc·ing. 1. to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind: to induce a person to buy a raffle ticket
Like you said before, ypu[sic] might try getting out more. Sitting your butt in front of JA blog won’t help with that.
Dido.
to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind: to induce a person to buy a raffle ticket
I may influence a person as to some action or state of mind and yet have no conscious intent as to such. The external appearance of a beautiful woman is itself without any intent on her part often sufficient to influence other persons to various actions or state of mind.
Dido [sic]
di·do
-noun
A mischievous prank or antic; a caper.
Michael, above;
“That’s what I didn’t say it was done TO induce fear…”
Micheal, earlier;
“For example, George Bush is often considered a terrorist for his regime’s EFFORTS, whether intentional or not, TO INDUCE FEAR among the American populace.”.
If my wife bakes a cake to please a king, it may not be her intent to please me or a king but simply descriptive of the cake. Likewise, efforts to induce fear may not be expressive of anyone’s intent but simply be descriptive of the efforts themselves in the sense that they, from a historical perspective, led to fear. And it’s an effort to breathe, even when it’s not anyone’s conscious intent to breathe, because it uses energy to do so nonetheless.
Therefore, neither EFFORT nor TO are necessarily indicative of any intent.
In an effort to keep from getting annoyed by someone’s foolish mis-parsing words (rather than simply redacting them), I am going to (intentionally) ignore Ed’s posts.
Liar
Or perhaps I’m going to unintentionally make that effort.
Hmm.
You just can’t control yourself Jared. You’re like a puppet.
Better not to post and be thought a fool than to post and remove all doubt.
Only for those who haven’t accepted themselves for what they are. The truth shall set you free.
Ed, your comments are so politically charged that I’m not going to dignify them with a response.
Are you here for serious discussion on a Catholic topic or are you just trolling the waters?
When you’re ready for a serious discussion, you’ll stop being pompous.
Ah, you’re a troll. Thank you for answering my question.
Like I said, when you’re ready for a serious discussion, you’ll stop being pompous. Until then, you’re just trolling.
Ed, thank you for illustrating the behavior of a troll so clearly.
I asked you a straightforward question in a pointed but civil manner.
You did not answer my question. Instead you responded with incendiary name calling. Third, you did not take responsibility for not following discussion rules, but attempted to blame someone else.
Contrast that with another poster in recent weeks who came out with an apparently provoking post. I asked him a similar question and he very graciously answered my question and explained where he was coming from.
Notice the difference. He engaged in discussion and you avoided the question. He was civil in his response even while having a different view and you started in with name calling.
I’m perfectly civil Mary Kay. You simply don’t agree with that because you’re pompous. In other words, your glasses are tinted.
How unfortunate that the only response you can make in your first exchange with someone is to repeatedly call them pompous rather than answer the question. You still have not answered the question I asked.
Name calling does not fit in the “perfectly civil” category. Pushing the limits of civility perhaps.
Because I’m ignoring them, I didn’t read someone’s posts. However, my wife told me that a very “civil” troll just called me a liar and a puppet.
Hmm.
Well, I guess we do call it the “Civil” War.
Oh well.
“Stop wasting my time with failure child!”
Mary Kay, just be honest. One minute you say “Thank you for answering my question” and then you say “You did not answer my question” the next. Or you post how you won’t “dignify” comments with your own and then object to being described as pompous. Describing you as pompous is not “name calling.” Rather, it is an accurate description. You ride up on your high horse and demand to be served. You’ve been served, now enjoy.
Liars everywhere. Romans 3:4
Ed, you’re right in that I did say that you answered by question. Specifically that question was whether you were interested in discussion or being a troll. By your actions, the answer was troll.
When I said in the later post that you didn’t answer my question, I was referring to discussion on a Catholic topic. I had a momentary lapse in the misguided notion that you might actually be interested in a discussion on a Catholic topic.
You said that pompous is not name calling. So the next time you meet someone in business, try calling him or her pompous and see how far you get.
It’s a well-known observation that those who can’t answer a question resort to name calling. You’ve demonstrated that quite clearly tonight.
btw, if you think that a one-liner out of Romans of all places says anything, you’re mistaken.
You’ve been amusing, but I’ll have to end this as I do have other things to finish tonight.
Jared, 🙂
It is very much like terrorism.
The muslim terrorists want what? (apart from serving the Devil and going to Hell with 70 something virgins and a demon called Allah that can’t see in the dark during Ramadan)
To either get you to get on their side, or they’ll cause chaos which results in your death.
Now terrorism is hardly unorganized. Even evil must service itself of organization. So evil evidently organizes islamic terrorism for their goals.
But the worst type of attack on society is not of nuclear weapons and planes. It is that of immorality.
So with the same principles of physical terrorism, it aims to either convince you of their evils, or cause at least confusion and chaos in the souls.
So maybe it is not the best term, but it is applicable.
I’d just call it another tactic of evil, who in all realms and species are ultimately enemies of the Church.
“I may influence a person as to some action or state of mind and yet have no conscious intent as to such. The external appearance of a beautiful woman is itself without any intent on her part often sufficient to influence other persons to various actions or state of mind.”
Ed, Induce has never been used to mean unintentionally encouraging someone to do something. If you want to say it, say it, don’t argue over the meaning of “induce” forever.
“Dido [sic]”
Ah, a clear attempt to ‘get back’ at me for pointing out your spelling error. Childish. DIDO is the word a meant to use.
Ed, Induce has never been used to mean unintentionally encouraging someone to do something… don’t argue over the meaning of “induce” forever
It has, as I’ve already shown. But maybe you want to pretend you control the language just like you vainly seek to control the conversation.
DIDO [sic] is the word a meant to use.
Indeed. As I’ve already noted.
Ed, Induce has never been used to mean unintentionally encouraging someone to do something… don’t argue over the meaning of “induce” forever
It has, as I’ve already shown. But maybe you want to pretend you control the language just like you vainly seek to control the conversation.
DIDO [sic] is the word a meant to use.
Indeed. As I’ve already noted.
To get the conversation back on track, I will point out that throwing around words like “terrorist” and “terrorism” when they do not really apply is asinine. It renders the language worse than useless.
Ed,
It has, as I’ve already shown.
Um, when was that?
But maybe you want to pretend you control the language just like you vainly seek to control the conversation.
I was merely suggesting that “sitting on your butt” all day (your words) while arguing over the meaning of ‘induce’ was not productive. Mary Kay is right. You are a troll.
BTW, DIDO means “Day In, Day Out.” It’s is not a mispell. You are truly the pompous one.
BTW, DIDO means “Day In, Day Out.”
I thought Dido was the lover of Aeneas.
Or it could be taken as a reference to the singer as well.
Um, when was that?
Your attitude blinds you.
BTW, DIDO means “Day In, Day Out.” It’s is [sic] not a mispell [sic]. You are truly the pompous one.
Mispell [sic]? Do you mean misspell? One, you originally said “Dido”, not “DIDO.” And two, the word “sic” is also used to indicate that an uncommon or archaic usage has been reported faithfully -OR- that errors have been reported faithfully.
I thought Dido was the lover of Aeneas.
Yes, Dido was also the queen of Carthage, who fell in love with Aeneas and killed herself when he abandoned her. It’s anyone’s guess what David really meant.
I have nothing new to say. I just didn’t want the Civil One to have the last word.
One of the few Anonymous posts that makes sense to me 🙂
“Mispell [sic]? Do you mean misspell?”
This is a blog. Not skool.
“And two, the word “sic” is also used to indicate that an uncommon or archaic usage has been reported faithfully -OR- that errors have been reported faithfully.”
You used to point out misspellings.
“It’s anyone’s guess what David really meant.”
Here’s what I meant ed: You said that Tim J. shouldn’t waste his time on Jimmy’s blog arguing with someone over the meaning of “induce”. I was suggesting that you take your own advice. Someone who argues over the meaning of induce, attacks the person (Tim J.) who disagrees with him, and who thinks that calling someone pompous is civil shouldn’t be doing childish things like being the grammar police for this blog. Get over yourself.
David B.,
Is this guy really worth it?
Wee shood jusst ignaw da rood gye.
Esau,
Worth it? nope. I’m joost tying to sit th’ record straight.