Hayes Panel Plays 'Celibate Men Lack Moral Authority' Card on Catholic Priest

Suffer me to begin with a suggestion: if you ever have the chance to hear the Rev. William Dailey of Notre Dame law school speak, jump on it. Dailey is a stunningly brilliant advocate, among the best I have ever encountered on any issue.

Dailey appeared on today's Up With Chris Hayes on MSNBC, where he masterfully made the case against the Obama administration's order forcing Catholic institutions to provide services that violate their moral principles. Predictably, the panel resorted to an ad hominem argument against him. Panelist Michaela Angela David implicitly, and Hayes himself explicitly, argued that celibate Catholic priests lack the moral authority to make arguments on the issues at hand. Dailey adeptly turned the tables. Video

Yeah, you are right. After actually watching the edited video clip, Davis and Hayes certainly were appealing to emotion and prejudice against the celibate male priesthood. I would rather have read a full transcript anytime to analyse the logical fallacies of a debate like this.

Every woman and many men I know, though, argue it should be implicitly conceded and accepted by men that reproductive issues cannot be understood by men, celibate or not. And no amount of argument using the rules of logic, and calling them on logical fallacies, will make any headway with them whatsoever.

Just because a priest is celibate and chaste NOW doesn't mean he is inexperienced in matters of sex and love. Many priests loved, were engaged, or had sex, in their pasts. But if God is calling, and we are listening, we can't ignore the call. I can imagine how hard it was for these priests to break with their pasts and stay faithful to their vows. I belive the Catholic priesthood is a heroic choice, and priests who honor their vows are rewarded with peace and joy. Celibacy and chastity do not necessarily mean inexperience. Bah.

Just because the stupid liberal twits interrogating the priests can't keep their pants zipped or their legs together doesn't mean other people can't.

Here is the exchange

MICHAELA ANGELA DAVIS: I was getting uncomfortable with often hearing "gravely immoral and injust" [a term Rev. Dailey had used to describe the Obama mandate] particularly around issues that women generally have to face, coming from men constantly that will never have to face this choice.

. . .

CHRIS HAYES: I want you to respond to one specific thing--two specific things. One is the argument that is made--and to me it's quite compelling--that it's a little hard, in a moral/secular conversation about a policy choice in civic society, to listen to the bishops, who are, by definition, a group of celibate men, right? There is a disconnect that I think is extremely difficult when we're having this debate for certain people who are listening to get over.

WILLIAM DAILEY: As to your first specific question, which I guess the heart of it is whether there's some kind of epistemic divide between the men who in the Church who proclaim this teaching, who are the bishops, who have the teaching office in the Church. I reject the notion that there's an epistemic divide, that the women panelists there can't talk to us and we can't talk to them, and use publicly available reasons, right? And yes, are these religious authorities? Sure. But President Obama was invoking religious authority at the prayer breakfast last week in favor of his largely liberal social agenda--the winning agenda as you would call it--and I haven't seen a hue and cry from most of the liberal side that the president shouldn't be invoking biblical principles, theological principles, principles that come from his faith, to support what are the correct means in society to achieve ends that we probably all agree are good for people: equality among men and women, equality among the races. So when the president invokes his own biblical and theological principles to do that, I say he's welcome to do so in the public square, and that's squarely within American tradition.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

Hello all, new to the forum.

I have to totally disagree with Rev. Hayes. While his first segment gave me hope, I was sorely disappointed in his response after the commercial break.

Let me say this, “family morals” mean more to me than anything. I can trace my family's linage and our involvement in the Catholic church back more than 400 years. It is probably longer, but records in Ireland over the centuries have become lost, but back to the point.

When queried about the 98% of catholic women that reportedly ( and I doubt that the figure is that high ) use some form of birth control, his response was that “the church believes in redemption” that may not be completely accurate, but that was the sentiment and what I understood his response to be.

To that, I would say, “leave it to a lawyer to equivocate so masterfully”

The path to redemption is simple and non-negotiable. First there must be confession of ones sins. Understanding that it is wrong, and admitting such is paramount. Without confession, there can be no redemption.

Then there is the willingness to atone for ones sins. To pay for ones ill-deeds. Without penance, there can be no redemption. And most importantly, is the willingness to not commit that sin again. Every catholic has heard the phrase, “go forth and sin no more” from his priest in the confessional.

To that end, if a woman confesses to using birth control, and the priest ask her if she intends to continue in the practice, and she answers in the affirmative, he WILL NOT offer penance, communion, or absolution. She is neither contrite or honestly seeking the forgiveness upon which her salvation depends. In short, if she INTENDS to continue with her sin, confessing it means absolutely nothing.

Without penance, or the sacraments, their is no redemption, and the soul is condemned to hell.

Now people may try to argue this point, but the catholic tradition in my family is long and devout, and I found father Hayes equivocation and hedging on the issue almost blasphemous.

He should have clearly stated, that if a woman is contrite, confesses her sins, and does penance, with the intent to do that sin no more, then and only then can she find redemption, and manage to save her soul from eternal damnation.

Let us leave it to the democrats and liberals to be total hypocrites, we must stand for our values, if not, then we are no better.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.