Up until last night, I’ve never really gone on Twitter for any particular length of time. My impression of this medium for exchanging reasonable points of view still holds: It is a complete waste of time (It was never really meant to used this way). At any rate here are a few Tweets from the twits that I received (and wasted my time replying to)…
1. This tweet is in support of the recently released SWS survey commissioned by none other than The Forum for Family Planning and Development (Pro-RH advocacy). The article in MB states, “It revealed that 72 percent of the 1, 200 adult respondents aired their support to the measure while 77 percent of them said they believe the measure is constitutional.” (any surprises here?)
Now, for the sake of argument let us say that the results are accurate, my questions are (and it’s impossible to tweet this); Do the respondents have any knowledge of what provisions in the Law are being contested as unconstitutional? How many of the respondents have read the Law to be able to make a reasonable assessment of it? Let’s not ignore too, the fact that this was commissioned by a Pro-RH advocacy group.
If I were to make a survey of which cola is preferred by people, Pepsi or Coke, I would have to first find out if those being surveyed have at least tasted both of them. So RH lackeys like Alan Robles questions me by asking, what in the survey design/methodology was wrong. Alan, Alan, Alan, the design and method may be mostly right, SWS knows how to make surveys, that much I will concede. The problem is that the questions, even if they are the right questions, are being asked to people whom I would bet have little knowledge of the contested issues or the actual law itself. That would make that survey a farce. As I mentioned earlier, it is like asking a person if he prefers Pepsi or Coke but has tasted only one or neither of them. It is better to ask questions within specific contested provisions of the law since this would, at once, both educate them and allow them to give an educated response. In other words, the design may be correct but the results are nonetheless flawed because the respondents are not competent to respond to the questions being raised.
2. Someone cites the staunch defender (eyes rolling) of Catholic teaching Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ, as though his say-so as a constitutional expert is the Catholic Church’s position on the RH Bill (What are these people smoking?) So the twit asks me my credentials and i say that I am a baptized, confirmed and informed Catholic… but that’s not enough for him. It appears, only the words of a constitutional expert/priest can be given credence as it pertains to the Church’s teaching on Artificial Contraception, even one who engages in double-speak!
3. Of course confession of sin and determination of culpability is for a confessor to root out but that’s assuming that these people would even know that they are sinning and actually go to confession.
Notice that he agrees with HV but waters-down culpability by making it a personal thing (how many times have I heard cafeteria Catholics and Protestants say, “it’s between me and God). Goodness sake, that’s why we have the Church and her teachings, and yet they still don’t get it.
4. I don’t have to say anything more with this next one, do I?
5. CC (Catholic Church) AC (Artificial Contraception). CC didn’t “almost” change the teaching on artificial contraception. Pope Paul VI sought to be advised as to whether the Church should change her teaching and while the majority of the ADVISERS did ADVISE the Pope that perhaps he should.
As grace would have it, Paul VI didn’t capitulate and came out with the staunchly orthodox encyclical Humane Vitae which, until now, has been praised by three Popes to be a prophetic work.
6. …and from Wikipedia: “The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth‘s shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century.”… ” During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few.“
What a twit!
7. As though ordinary magisterial teaching is solely based on consensus. Divorce does not enjoy wide support either but the Church still stands by her teaching that to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery.
8. and of course no anti-Catholic tweet is complete without bringing up the old and tired clerical abuse issue.
… and that is why Tweeting against TWITS is a waste of time!
ADDENDUM: for the record, I posted this prior to any SC decision, lest I be accused of sourgraping.