AT LEAST, DO NO HARM

Usually, I admire what Charles Pierce writes, but when he wrote about the question and answer period following Hillary Clinton's speech at the Conference of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, he was obviously still feeling the Bern. Apparently, he can't get past his Sanders love to give Hillary Clinton a break, for this is one of a series of blog posts in which he, at best, damns Clinton with faint praise, or, at worst, is outright critical, often about trivia.  Read his post; it's not long. I repost my comments to his blog post below; they are long:

Oh my gawd, Charlie. You sound like nitpicking Chuck Todd. Is this your version of bothsiderism? Clinton is who she is, and she's not going to have a personality change to suit you or anyone else before the election. Get over your issues, or at least write about something else so you do no harm.

Further, still me:

By the end of the primaries, I liked watching Clinton speak a lot more than I liked watching Sanders speak. If I chose my candidate by likability or by which one I wanted to have a beer with, Clinton would have won hands down. But, if Sanders had won the primary vote, I'd have supported him without thinking twice.

What I would not have done is suggest that if he just changed this or that about his personal style, or if he'd just say something in a different way, he'd gather more support. Sanders is who he is, and expecting him to be other than he is, would have been completely unrealistic. It's the same with Clinton. If you don't like her, vote for Trump, write in a name, or vote for Stein or Johnson, and enable a Trump victory, but stop the bloody nitpicking about style.

TV talking heads do that stuff every day on TV, and I don't understand why a usually sensible blogger would join in. This is not even a serious policy discussion, which would be different and welcome from what we see all day, every day on TV. Yeah, I'm way down in a long thread of comments in a reply, at that, and I expect few people will read what I typed, but I sure feel better for having written.

Though my comments were way down in a long comment thread, I do have a Facebook page of my own and a blog, and I thought my comments worth sharing. I share; you decide.

WHY BOTHER?

You may wonder why, since I am no longer an insider in the Roman Catholic Church, I continue to pay attention and be bothered by the church's policies and actions. In the nearly 60 years that I spent in the RCC, there was much that I loved about the church. I'm grateful for my 16 years of RC schooling, where, for the most part, I was well taught. I grew up in a seriously dysfunctional home, alcoholic father, depressed mother. I won't bore you with the details, but my RC school was my safe place, my place of refuge and peace away from the sometimes nightmarish atmosphere in my home. The nuns were, with only one exception that I can think of, good and intelligent women. Under their nurturing, my sense of self-worth and moral core were planted, cared for, and grew. Of course, we were taught a bit of nonsense, too, but on the whole my RCC schooling was a strong, positive force in my life, and I will always be grateful for those years.

The church was a force for good in other ways, such as in my years at Loyola University, I learned the evils of racism. All I knew growing up was racism. Racist attitudes were a given, not questioned, until I encountered the teachings of the Jesuits. The voices for peace in the church were instrumental in turning me against the Vietnam War. I could go on.

The first seeds of discontent with the RCC were sown when I had three babies in four years, and I had to face the fact that I must break the church's birth control rule or, very likely, end up in a mental institution, because I had what I now believe was postpartum depression after my third child, which went untreated, because the illness was not yet named at the time. The decision to use birth control was difficult. Looking back, common sense tells me that the choice should have been easy, but it was not.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I stayed with the RCC through good times and bad, more good than bad, until the sex abuse scandal broke in our diocese. The sexual abuse of children was horrific enough, but that the powers covered up the abuse and moved the priests from one parish to another to continue the abuse for years was the final straw for me, and I took my leave about 14 years ago.

But for the sake of the good that I received from the RCC, I still care about the church, and I want the institution to be better than it is. Just as I call the powers in my own church, the Episcopal Church, to account, I continue to call the powers of the RCC to account because of the many years I made my home there.

I was thrilled when Katharine Jefforts-Schori was elected Presiding Bishop, but I did not hesitate to call her to account when she asked LGTB members of the Episcopal Church to remain in "a crucified place" and when she waited far too long to speak out publicly against the draconian laws proposed in Nigeria against LGTB persons.

In the beginning of his essay, Richard Sipe writes the following words and quotes the words of Thomas Keating:

I am pursuing this discussion in the spirit of contemplative transformation espoused by Fr. Thomas Keating who challenges us to confront the biases that keep us from facing truth when we fail to ask penetrating questions: “Are you so enamored with your religion that you have a naïve loyalty that cannot see the real faults that are present in a particular faith community? Do you sweep under the rug embarrassing situations and bow to the security or esteem needs of the community?”

I end my post with the words.