Fr. James Martin, S.J. has made himself a caricature of the progressive left secular mentality and of academics and those on the highest pedestal, scientists and what they teach in an articulate, infallible way.
He doesn’t want churches and other houses of worship to open now. Why, because we have to listen to those who know better than us, especially academics who tout themselves as all knowing scientists. How do you spell C-L-E-R-I-C-A-L-I-S-M? Not religious clericalism that defines itself by privilege and divine know-it-all-ism, but academic clericalism which does the same has speaks with such authority that only an imbecile would not take their advice.
In other words, you are stupid if you want the churches to open. You are only concerned about yourself and your wants, if you want churches to open. It is about making you look stupid compared to those who know if you dare suggest that scientists and priests like this go and jump into a lake.
Thank God that Fox’s Catholic reporter asks the common sense questions which Fr. Martin can’t answer. The one who looks stupid here is the good Jesuit.
He doesn’t want churches and other houses of worship to open now. Why, because we have to listen to those who know better than us, especially academics who tout themselves as all knowing scientists. How do you spell C-L-E-R-I-C-A-L-I-S-M? Not religious clericalism that defines itself by privilege and divine know-it-all-ism, but academic clericalism which does the same has speaks with such authority that only an imbecile would not take their advice.
In other words, you are stupid if you want the churches to open. You are only concerned about yourself and your wants, if you want churches to open. It is about making you look stupid compared to those who know if you dare suggest that scientists and priests like this go and jump into a lake.
Thank God that Fox’s Catholic reporter asks the common sense questions which Fr. Martin can’t answer. The one who looks stupid here is the good Jesuit.
18 comments:
Bee here:
The reporter points out that 99.8% of the people who catch the virus recover. Even elderly people are recovering at a good rate. At the nursing home where I volunteer (it's still on lockdown though-I can't go in) last week three of the residents who had the illness and had been in the isolation wing of the home had recovered and returned to their regular rooms.
I honestly believe government officials are taking this all too far. I didn't at first. When all we knew about the illness was that China had locked down entire cities and we suspected they were not telling the truth about the number of infections or deaths, it may have made good precautionary sense to be severe in our reaction in case the outcomes were really horrific, until we actually could determine the risk for ourselves. But now, 2 months in, we have a pretty good idea that although it can cause serious illness for some, most, almost everybody, who gets it recovers, and we don't need to act like this is Ebola.
We need to open up everywhere, even churches, while continuing to grant dispensation to those who believe the risk is too high because of their age or underlying health conditions, and let others attend again, without masks and the forced "distancing."
And may God bless and grant eternal rest to all those who have died in the armed services, fighting to keep us free.
God bless.
Bee
Bee,
You should be governor of Illinois
TJM, truer words were never spoken
The problem with Father Martin's contention that we need simply to obey "experts" is that "experts" disagree with each other in regard to this, that, and the other thing.
One expert favors a continued lockdown...additional experts disagree with said approach.
To focus upon Church-related examples of disagreements among experts:
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, an expert (he may be the expert of experts) on Vatican II, has insisted that Vatican II has blessed the Church. Additional experts in regard to Vatican II have insisted that the Council has wrecked the Church.
Emeritus Benedict XVI, a liturgical expert, has insisted that Pope Saint Paul VI's liturgical reform has blessed the Church. There are liturgical experts who believe that said liturgical reform has wrecked the Roman Liturgy.
Cardinal Burke, a canonical expert, and Cardinal Müller, a theological expert, have insisted that the SSPX is schismatic. Additional experts disagree with said assessment of the SSPX.
Father Martin: Good luck with your reliance upon by "experts" who contradict each other repeatedly.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Hopefully, the Fr. Martin oriented parishes stay closed. Easier to make it permanent. Why fight the inevitable?
Perhaps Father Martin's weakest moment during the interview regarded his comment about the risk of opening churches only to have people shake hands, as well as share the Chalice.
Ummmm...how about...we don't shake hands during Mass. We do not share the Chalice.
Problem(s) solved.
The interview was not Father Martin's finest moment.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
As much as I would like to believe that 99.8% of those who contract Covid-19 recover, I fear that this belief would not be justified (at least not yet). It seems that the Fox News reporter, or those providing her with the information, are confusing two different things. The 99.8 % figure seems to refer to the percentage of recovered patients who tested positive for antibodies, not the percentage of Covid-19 patients who recovered from the infection:
https://www.businessinsider.com/immunity-to-the-coronavirus-what-we-know-and-dont-know-2020-4
Of course, the percentage of patients who actually have recovered could be that high but we won’t know until we are able to test widely enough to get a sufficiently representative sample of those who have contracted the disease, and can then compare that number with mortality rates within the sample, but it seems we are not there yet.
I believe the above makes Father Martin look a bit less stupid and Fox News a bit more uninformed. This said, I would be very happy to stand corrected with actual facts, not political responses—facts are neither Democrat not Republican; they are apolitical.
While I may therefore take issue with Bee’s endorsement of the Fox reporter’s factual claim, her instinct to distinguish between groups with differing degrees of vulnerability seems like a good one, and it is reflected in the following nuanced approach advocating a targeted, apolitical public health response:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/covid-targets-the-elderly-why-dont-our-prevention-efforts.html
Anonymous 2,
It was reported that Johns Hopkins said the United States was the country best prepared for the China Flu. I know the faculty lounges will be livid.
Fox News is far more accurate and less hysterical than CNN and MSNBC which simply just lie all of the time. Still waiting for your comments on their Russia, Russia hoax perpetrated by them, the persecution of General Flynn and the antics of Judge Sullivan.
TJM:
I agree about Johns Hopkins—people are livid because, despite being so prepared, the United States failed so abysmally to act on that preparedness, and because this failure makes the public health and economic devastation, which was quite avoidable, all the more tragic.
I happen to like Fox News—the News Division that is, not the screaming loonies who inhabit Prime Time (between whom and the News Division I understand there is little love lost). The News Division has real journalists, like Chris Wallace (one of the best journalists on TV, IMHO). Of course, now people like Chris Wallace and Neil Cavuto are in the Great Leader’s bad graces too. Why? Because they have dared to challenge his lies and fabrications and instead report on things like, you know, facts and that.
As for Russia, etc., I will leave the comments to history and I advise you to do the same, or else at least one of us will end up with egg on his face.
Bee here:
TJM and rcg: :-)
God bless.
Bee
Anon 2: the percentage of people with antibodies versus the percentage that recovered from disease is a distinction without a difference. Do you mean from full blown symptoms? Even then my quibble is that it is the individual that makes the difference. My disappointment with the general leadership and counsel (doctors and scientists) has been that they have followed the fool’s errand of seeking the right answer rather than the right preparedness. The goal of “flattening the curve” acknowledges that the liability is in our ability to manage the most severe cases concurrently with all of the other medical issues in the population. I don’t know if we can ever train the general population to follow a proper personal hygiene more complex pressing a flush lever, but that is the key to success until our treatments of the symptomatic patient be become more successful. Only later will any vaccine be helpful.
Rcg:
Regrettably I must beg to differ regarding interpretation of the 99.8% figure. The article I linked explains that
“The research, published online this week but not yet peer-reviewed, found that 99.8% of recovered coronavirus patients studied tested positive for antibodies. It's the largest study of recovered patients to this point and used the most sensitive antibody test available, and the results suggest recovered patients are protected against future infection.”
The 99.8% figure concerns patients with confirmed Covid-19 who recovered. The study was not concerned with patients who had died. The fact that 99.8% of confirmed Covid-19 patients who recovered had antibodies tells us nothing about the percentage of Covid-19 patients who died versus those who recovered, among the total number of those infected with the virus or even among the total number of those with confirmed Covid-19 infections. That wasn’t the purpose of the study, which was instead to determine whether recovered patients have immunity.
I press the point because, if my understanding is correct, it is dangerous misinformation to suggest that the recovery rate is 99.8% and the mortality rate 0.2% among confirmed Covid-19 patients when the figures for confirmed cases show the mortality rate is much higher than that.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Anon 2, I see your point but I think that misinterpreted the data. Testing for antibodies seems to indicate that far more people have been exposed to and recovered from the disease than reported symptoms AND tested positive for it. Mortality among those who have, so far, tested positive and develop symptoms is very high, but that population is not as comprehensive all of the people who have been exposed because some didn’t develop symptoms severe enough to report. Remember that for several reasons testing was restricted for a while to only people actively expressing symptoms. It appears, FWIW, that an exposure of about 1000 particles is possibly enough to cause infection. We can easily get 1,000X that dose from one drop of another person’s cough or sneeze. But the dose can be far lower due to time, surfaces, etc. for a number of reasons. So although we are social distancing we are are not antiseptic. So it appears that a large number of people may have been inoculated with low doses. Additionally, it could be that related COVID family virus may have also developed immune responses close enough to this COVID that their bodies can deal with it similar to a booster shot. While that is speculation, it does offer a model for testing why, as we test more people, we find more People with antibodies than were previously known to have the disease.
Rcg:
I agree with all of your points except the first, that I have misinterpreted the data in the study. So, you may well correct that the actual mortality rate is far lower than currently appears. I certainly hope you are. But we won’t know that until we can accurately test a sufficiently representative sample to determine the actual infection rate and compare it with previously confirmed cases within the sample.
I did check the study itself before my previous post. Here is a link:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.30.20085613v1.full.pdf
There are a lot of figures and technical data but the essence is that the researchers conducted antibody tests on 1,343 people with previously confirmed or suspected Covid-19 infection. Of this total number 57% were antibody positive, 5% were weakly positive, and 39% were negative. Of the 624 people with confirmed infection, all but 3 of them were antibody positive (which I think equals 99.8%). Of the suspected infections, only 37% were antibody positive. Regarding this latter result, the researchers state that
“This finding suggests that a majority of participants suspected of having Covid-19 actually were not infected with SARS-CoV-2; however, it may also include a false negative rate of our assay (which has a 92% sensitivity) or insufficient time for participants to mount an IgG antibody response.”
Rcg:
Some additional points: The study defined those suspected of having Covid-19 as follows:
“[T]hey were symptomatic with suspected SARS-CoV-2 and lived with someone with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, had been told by a physician that they had symptoms consistent with SARS-CoV-2, or were healthcare workers.”
The best case scenario for mortality rate—extrapolating from considering just this group—is that all of them were in fact infected, even though only 37% were antibody positive. This would reduce the morality rate by about half because roughly another 700 people were infected in addition to the 600 or so confirmed cases. So, one would be assuming twice as many are infected than the number of confirmed cases. But if indeed the 37% figure is close to accurate, then it reduces the morality rate by about 25%, if I have my arithmetic right, because roughly another 200 people would have been infected
Does that sound more or less right (math really isn’t my strong suit)?
My basic point is that we should leave it to the “experts” to make these sorts of determinations—not Fox News, politicians, or laypeople like me (or you too?). Anything else risks being dangerously misleading. In the meantime, we can certainly hope, and pray, for the best; and watch as the “experts” duke it out with one another, as in for example:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feud-over-stanford-coronavirus-study-the-authors-owe-us-all-an-apology/
Anonymous 2,
Still avoiding reality, I see. The General Flynn case is just one example of the lawlessness of the Obama administration. You probably have already forgotten how his IRS targeted conservative groups. I recall the New York Slimes went wild when President Trump stated his campaign was spied upon by the Obama administration. When it became apparent it was, the Slimes said well it was necessary without seeing the disconnect between that statement and its previous position. Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley will be grieved that you cannot see what they can.
Chris Wallace is a hack. He gives Democrats softball questions and is in full attack mode when interviewing a Republican. None are so blind that will not see.
TJM:
Still projecting, I see.
As I said in my earlier response to you, I will leave Trump and Russia (and Dershowitz and Turley) to history. And as you can probably surmise from that response, I do not believe I will be the one ending up with egg on his face.
I would try to respond to you as a fellow lawyer but you seem to have no interest in behaving as a lawyer with impartiality and objectivity when it comes to Trump.
I would also try to respond to you as a fellow Catholic, but here again it seems you have no interest in behaving as a Catholic with a distaste for lies and a delight in the truth when it comes to Trump.
The Liar-in-Chief is becoming more and more unhinged and more and more dangerous to the well-being of the Republic and still you defend him and attack decent people with integrity like Chris Wallace and Mitt Romney. Sad.
TJM:
I just read on another thread where you mention having had a heart attack a couple of weeks ago. I am sorry to hear about that and wish you a speedy and full recovery.
Post a Comment