This is a point about grammar and meaning so try to put aside your own views on the issues involved and just focus on the grammar of these two sentences.
And the thing that makes the misunderstanding weird is that she has followed the rules. The pronoun should refer back to the noun that immediately precedes it and it does here. So why the confusion?
The problem with the two sentences above is that they are convoluted. We could simplify the language and make problem disappear.
It's a peculiar notion to think that liberty means following rules. I can understand if someone said, "Follow the rules or you'll go to jail and then you won't have liberty". I can even agree with someone arguing that some liberties are well worth sacrificing as in , "The liberty that comes from being single is worth sacrificing for the fulfillment that comes with marriage". But to say that living a life proscribed by rules is liberty is Orwellian and calling it "authentic liberty" doesn't help.
The two sentences are the work of a writer named Lisa Graas who is new traditionalist Catholic. She describes herself as follows:
No, the problem is that an awful lot of Catholics can't make arguments using the same language that everyone else does. I don't think Graas is unaware of the problem. In certain contexts she might argue that it is a good thing that her language doesn't line up with the common language. Except that sometimes she wants to argue about culture and politics. And there it gets tricky.
Just think, for example, of the issues that led her to use the phrase "Most Catholics still understand". She's not sure other Catholics will be able to understand her. And her concerns are justified.
Most Catholics still understand on some level that abortion and same-sex “marriage” are opposed to true justice. As such, they are opposed to authentic liberty.The problem is the word "they" in the second sentence. It stops you dead because you initially think the author's point is that Catholics are opposed to authentic liberty. The point she wants to make is that abortion and same-sex marriage are opposed to authentic liberty.
And the thing that makes the misunderstanding weird is that she has followed the rules. The pronoun should refer back to the noun that immediately precedes it and it does here. So why the confusion?
The problem with the two sentences above is that they are convoluted. We could simplify the language and make problem disappear.
Most Catholics understand that abortion and same-sex marriage are opposed to justice and are, therefore, opposed to liberty.But now we can see another problem that the convolution was camouflaging. It's like saying, "The cat flew the window". That is a grammatically correct sentence and we all know what "cat", "flew" and "window" mean but we can't imagine any situation where we could use that sentence in our lives and actually mean something.
It's a peculiar notion to think that liberty means following rules. I can understand if someone said, "Follow the rules or you'll go to jail and then you won't have liberty". I can even agree with someone arguing that some liberties are well worth sacrificing as in , "The liberty that comes from being single is worth sacrificing for the fulfillment that comes with marriage". But to say that living a life proscribed by rules is liberty is Orwellian and calling it "authentic liberty" doesn't help.
The two sentences are the work of a writer named Lisa Graas who is new traditionalist Catholic. She describes herself as follows:
Lisa Graas is a convert and a single mom of four living chaste-for-life.And there it is again. I would guess that most Catholics would not be able to tell you what "chaste for life" means. The funny thing is that there is no reason to do so. The "for life" adds nothing at all to the word chaste in this context.
No, the problem is that an awful lot of Catholics can't make arguments using the same language that everyone else does. I don't think Graas is unaware of the problem. In certain contexts she might argue that it is a good thing that her language doesn't line up with the common language. Except that sometimes she wants to argue about culture and politics. And there it gets tricky.
Just think, for example, of the issues that led her to use the phrase "Most Catholics still understand". She's not sure other Catholics will be able to understand her. And her concerns are justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment