Over at Fishwrap I was amused to see Michael Sean Winters go after Nicholas Hahn of the far more serious Crisis Magazine who opined that the US bishops and papal spokesman Fr. Lombardi ought to butt out of the gun-control debate. Winters chastises Hahn for disagreeing with the bishops (as Winters reads them, at least). Pretty rich.
Fishwrap defending Catholic teaching as presented by the bishops and a spokesman for the Holy See?
This when the ultra-dissenting Fishwrap thumbs their collective noses at the Church’s definitive teaching on women’s ordination, etc.
But there is a fun line in Winters piece.
More Conservative Claptrap
Michael Sean Winters | Jan. 22, 2013Over at Crisis magazine, there is an article by Nicholas Hahn in which he chastizes the bishops and Father Lombardi at the Vatican press office for daring to support common sense gun control measures. It is clear that Mr. Hahn cares more about the Second Amendment than he does about the Second Vatican Council. He cherry picks a few quotes from pope John Paul II, which were not on point to begin with, and fashions them into a core argument: Bishops, mind your own business and gins are not your business.
[…]
I beg to differ! No right-thinking Catholic would ever suggest that gins are not the bishops’ business!
This is a great opportunity to revive an old poll.
Loading ...
You have had this poll before. G and Ts are my second favourite mixed drink after Campari and soda. Aperol is also nice. As to the statement against guns, it reveals the weaknesses of the type of men in Europe who would not defend anything, much less their vineyards or distilleries…..
I always side-step the issue and call them G&Ts.
Of course, all the press have been reporting Fr. Lombardi’s comments as the ‘Official Vatican Stance’ with capital letters, rather than just the misguided opinion of Fr. Lombardi. There have been an awful lot of people and cleric’s statements being labelled as speaking officially for the Church… Another fine mess that the VII era has ushered in: confusion of authority. The bishops are also ever so eager to support Obama on a number of things, but silent when it comes to the out-and-out obvious evils that Obama and his ilk do.
Why are the bishops sticking their noses in this issue? Look what happened when they threw their full support behind Obamacare. Why would they trust this president and the motives behind his desire to disarm law abiding citizens? I would love to see every bishop in this country show up for the March for Life . That would make a statement and save more lives than Obama’s gun grab. How about the bishops standing up for the poor youth in this country and really supporting school vouchers. The kids forced to attend these public cesspools in the inner cities don’t stand a chance in todays job market. Instead of supporting tinkering with the second amendment why not give full vigorous support to overturning RoeVWade.
Why are the bishops sticking their noses in this issue?
They have a responsibility to provide moral leadership. A better question, I think, is why they are teaching contrary to the CCC and to Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae:
Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. [The quotation is from # 2265 in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.
There are three options in our family. ‘Gs & T’, ‘Tonics & Gin’ (apologies to Billy Joel), and ‘Philharmonics’.
“It is clear that Mr. Hahn cares more about the Second Amendment than he does about the Second Vatican Council.”
That little line made me chortle.
I would personally say “gin and tonics,” but I voted “gins and tonic” because the drink is British (technically Anglo-Indian) and I’m not, so I distrust my instincts. Does that make sense? And I hope not.
As for me, I hadn’t realized there was a singular for gin and tonics. Do they every come as just one? [Well… in theory.]
I beg to differ! No right-thinking Catholic would ever suggest that gins are not the bishops’ business!
LOL!
It should be just “Gin and Tonic” so for example “could we have four glasses of Gin and Tonic please” so it has no real proper plural.
I am guessing that most hierarchs prefer Scotch, at least this time of year.
Personally it’s a Jim Beam kind of evening here!
Christina has it right, of course. When referring to them in the plural, anything other than “G&T’s” should give pause to the listener, as to the ability of the speaker to make them correctly.
The drink is a “Gin and Tonic.” It’s a collective singular. Two would be “Gin and Tonic”s.
frjim4321 says:
I am guessing that most hierarchs prefer Scotch, at least this time of year.
Personally it’s a Jim Beam kind of evening here!
I would hope those trained in Rome prefer white wine.
Reading a bit on it, I see that the gin and tonic was introduced by British officers in India as an anti-malarial drink (quinine).
Ein Gin Tonic, zwei Gin Tonics, drei…dry?
Father,
since God is Order (isn’t one of the Orthodox titles for God something like the Master Geometer?), to the extent that NcR defies Him and his Church, should we not expect this chaos?
“Over at Fishwrap I was amused to see Michael Sean Winters go after Nicholas Hahn of the far more serious Crisis Magazine” – uh oh. Winters is quite full of himself and considers himself a very serious intellectual. I often read his columns for their unintentional humor.
The liberals are such masters at the misuse of language – “common sense gun control measures” – (like the “scary looking gun ban” (a.k.a assault weapons ban) which we already had and didn’t do anything). In other words actions that have no basis in common sense but make politicians feel good.
I know – in keeping with the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, would the Fishwrap support “common sense abortion restrictions” – parental notification, required ultrasounds, no partial birth abortions? Probably not.
I voted “Gin and Tonics”.
The one that used to get me was the plural of a cappuccino. In Italy, they say “cappuccini” which I always think sounds like a different drink to a cappuccino!
Gin . . . blech. Tastes like a pine tree. Wait, it is a pine tree! Reminds me of Euell Gibbons: “Ever drink a Juniper tree? Many parts can be distilled.”
One could ask the committee of Bishops who proposed that ‘some gun control won’t violate anyone’s rights’ this question:
“What is ‘some'”? And how do you define “rights’?
But that would require thought from the Bishops.
http://www.examiner.com/article/apol…alerts_article
Another, decidedly anti-Catholic IMO, take on the Father Lombardi flap.
Preprandially prelates prefer pink gin: neat Plymouth gin with a dash of Angostura bitters.
I choose “Many a gin and tonic”
Since the drink should, properly, be spelled gin-and-tonic, since the two ingredients are coupled together (gin was the transport liquid for quinine tonic water), or tonic-with-gin, the proper way to pluralize the drink, in my opinion, should be, “gin-and-tonic.” In otherwords, the singular and plural would be the same. So, two gin and tonic. This is not an option provided in the poll.
The Chicken
And for musicians in the Arab desert, I suggest jin-and-tonic for major and minor keys.
For those in the Arabian nights, that would be jinn-and-tunics, of course.
The Chicken
Gin was discovered by 11 th-century monks:
“By the 11th century, Italian monks were flavoring crudely distilled spirits with juniper berries. During the Black Death, this drink was used, although ineffectively, as a remedy. As the science of distillation advanced from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance period, juniper was one of many botanicals employed by virtue of its perfume, flavour, and purported medicinal properties.”
From there, we get gin.
The Chicken
Chicken,
“jinn-and-tunics”, LOL!
I’m surprised that they haven’t corrected that yet. Just visited the page and it still reads as ‘gins’. Maybe after they take away our guns they’ll take away alcohol again.
torch621,
I don’t think its so much “anti-Catholic” as anti-feigned ignorance. I get tired of the Ultramontanist types always trying to cover for papal or “Vatican” (which covers a lot of authoritative and non-authoritative things and people) ignorance. Those stories of Pope Paul VI being “duped” by the modernists (like the green vestments for the Octave of Pentecost and the St. Mary Major canons wearing the new ugly gray mozzettas) are garbage-if his signature is on them or that of one of his underlings, he needs to keep afront of it. You should not be asleep at the wheel of the Barque of Peter and if there is too much going on, then go back to being properly conservative and take it easy. There is no need to rush through any change large or small.
As to the gun issue, when have the news organs of the Vatican or the USCCB not trumpeted some stupid liberal meme or another, seeming for PR golf-clap approval? Read Iota Unum about some of the absolute garbage that Osservatore Romano has put out over the last 40 some years.
There is never peace or middle ground with a “progressive” government. History has shown time and time again the kind of lying scum they are. The Church would do well to not give the current U.S. government any support for their despotic programs whatsoever. The current apparatchiks in charge could give a hoot about the lives of school children when they preside over and legislate in favor of (from the bench too) the murder of millions.
GIN Bishops’ business? Catholic , most certainly!
cf Anticatholic Gordon riots in London , a touch after 13 colonies broke away, Brit catholics much dhimmified (a scattering of rich and nobs, the rest dirtpoor and dispirited, nowt inbetween, similar to Egyptian Christians but recently. ) but some sucessfully made gin , and made it well! and the anti-catholic mob sacked and set fire to their destilleries and warehouses and became the drunker! Dickens is good , read “Barnaby Rudge,
(historical details:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06649c.htm.
Sadly the very erudite Monsignor Gordon passed away some years back before I had made his better aquaintance- he was of the Gordon’s gin founding family), which I believe no longer is hands in nor hands-on, Ginwise, tho their name persists, )And who mysteriously both needed, and, more mysteriously, obtained ,from the highest levels, way back when, permission to say Mass in the “Atheneaum”(Gentleman’s club in London).
I am unsure whether stateside jounalists and journals akin to UK Tablet stand in more need of gin, and antmalarials, poteen, coffee, or southern comfort, but, it’s worth a try. Try the lot, at once.
Cousins! stick to your guns, in every sense!