Diogenes’ most recent post is only 35 words long:
“If you can read this
NSW Premier Kristina Keneally is in ‘utter agreement’ with the teachings of the Catholic Church but wants female priests, the vow of celibacy relaxed and supports abortion.
thank a catechist.”
To which I would would add:
“A devout Catholic, Nickoloff is also a self-affirming gay man who is legally married in the state of Massachusetts.”
Does “devout Catholic” in “utter agreement” with the Church mean anything anymore? Or is it just a linguistic cue for “we think heretics are just as Catholic as Catholics”? GetReligion argues that it’s just a journalistic filler word that needs to be disposed of. I’d be fine (pleased, even) with its use, if it wasn’t used in such a NewSpeak way by “progressives” to signal that the person in question is a non-devout Catholic in anything but “utter agreement” with his or her Church.
Assuming that these uses are simply accidental (which I don’t think that they are), speakers and writers need to learn how to use the terminology correctly, or stop using it. Assuming that they’re intentional (to subtly persuade the reader that one can be a “good Catholic” while opposing Catholicism in all its forms), readers should be aware that they’re being lied to.