It's simple to sit at a computer and criticize those who are actually out there putting their beliefs into action. Very simple. Doesn't do the poor of India a damn bit of good, but makes you feel good about yourself at no cost to your wallet, comfort, or easy lifestyle.
Since you don't know anything about my lifestyle, my wallet, or what I do to help others, I'm not sure what you find to criticize.
What you are really asking is for her to have totally abandoned her beliefs and adopted yours.
Wrong. I'm saying that I think she should have had the courage to honestly assess the potential impact of her public positions and adjust her preaching accordingly.
None of this would matter if she hadn't become a celebrity. When people find themselves on pedestals, with resources and influence over others, they have certain obligations, and one of these is to stop parroting a party line and look at the actual effects of the policies they advocate.
As I said, I know some and know of many in the Catholic clergy who have done just that: looked at the contraception issue honestly and realized that preaching the official church line from their position of influence can do great harm to the people they are trying to serve. They can't preach against the official position, but they can refrain from supporting it. If by doing so they are stretching their vow of obedience, they can honestly say that they are placing their vow to serve their flock in the position of precedence it deserves.
That is a decision I can respect, a decision made by thinking, caring people.
There are times, you see, when beliefs come into conflict. People who serve the Catholic church, and by that service come into positions of influence over others, sometimes need to choose which is the greater good, obedience to the hierarchy or service to those who depend on them. The choice they make tells a great deal about the person making the choice. MT made her choice. It's not one I respect.
MT, like others, was essentially a religious fanatic who directed her fanaticism toward an essentially laudable end. Unfortunately, fanaticism contaminates everything it touches, and creates a dark side. Like most of us who have children, I am not in a position to devote my life to serving others; instead, a devote a significant portion of my resources to supporting those who are in such a position. I'm not at all embarrassed about that: those who serve could not do so without those of us who are productive and who direct resources created by that productivity to service.
Like those who serve, those who support must make choices. We can direct resources to those who serve out of fanatical devotion to dogma, or we can direct them to those who serve because they honestly care about those being served. (Obviously there are many more shadings than that, but there is a basic divide.) I prefer to work with those who think, and who are taking active care to see that while doing all the good they can, they also do as little harm as possible. |
