Monday, July 29, 2002
I can't resist these
A man walked into a doctor's office with a cucumber up his nose, a carrot in his right ear, and a banana in his left ear.
"What's wrong with me, Doc?" he asked.
The doctor took one glance and pronounced, "You're not eating properly."
b'dum BUM!
So this horse walks into a bar.
Bartender sez: "Why the long face?"
b'dum BUM!
So a priest, a rabbi, a minister, a penguin, and a dancing bear walk into the bar.
Bartender sez: "What is this, some kind of joke?"
b'dum BUM!
So this dyslexic walks into a bra...
b'dum BUM!
Thank you very much! I'm here all week! Try the veal!
A man walked into a doctor's office with a cucumber up his nose, a carrot in his right ear, and a banana in his left ear.
"What's wrong with me, Doc?" he asked.
The doctor took one glance and pronounced, "You're not eating properly."
b'dum BUM!
So this horse walks into a bar.
Bartender sez: "Why the long face?"
b'dum BUM!
So a priest, a rabbi, a minister, a penguin, and a dancing bear walk into the bar.
Bartender sez: "What is this, some kind of joke?"
b'dum BUM!
So this dyslexic walks into a bra...
b'dum BUM!
Thank you very much! I'm here all week! Try the veal!
A reader sez:
My own impression of VOTF is not of lying, but of profound confusion. Being fallen, it's certainly on the cards that they could fall to lying, just as they are already falling to muzzling those who criticize them. But I've not seen it yet. I simply see badly catechized people flailing around and saying increasingly stupid things because they don't have the foggiest idea what it is they are really trying to do. If they aren't careful (and I've seen little evidence they are) they will be rapidly co-opted by the same tired dissidents who know exactly what they want to do.
Just now reading your blogs about VOtF, I wonder why in all the VOtF deception and lying (I got some of it first hand weeks ago in an email exhange with Paul Baier of VOtF), that no one is sitting that organization down in the liar's seat. (Liar's seat? Yes, in fact I just now invented this phrase ... if you've heard it before, then I haven't except for possibly being an additional inventor of it.)
To me, intentional deception is a rather serious act. It has something to do with the Commandment about bearing false witness, or about denying the truth (idolatry, since God is truth).
So, why have the pure of heart not yet leveled the idea of lying and deception upon the advocates of corruption of the Church?
My own impression of VOTF is not of lying, but of profound confusion. Being fallen, it's certainly on the cards that they could fall to lying, just as they are already falling to muzzling those who criticize them. But I've not seen it yet. I simply see badly catechized people flailing around and saying increasingly stupid things because they don't have the foggiest idea what it is they are really trying to do. If they aren't careful (and I've seen little evidence they are) they will be rapidly co-opted by the same tired dissidents who know exactly what they want to do.
That's my son Luke!
He's the tall blond guy with the "World Youth Day" T-Shirt on.
I am delighted that news of the death of World Youth Day appears to have been exaggerated. Luke returns home tonight!
He's the tall blond guy with the "World Youth Day" T-Shirt on.
I am delighted that news of the death of World Youth Day appears to have been exaggerated. Luke returns home tonight!
Quintessential Baby Boomer Narcissism
No wonder the kids look right over the Boomer's heads with longing to the generations before them. By the way, bulletin to the Boomers: it was not you guys who passed the Civil Rights Act. It was the WWII generation. Useful rule of thumb: Constructive Civil Rights work: think Martin Luther King Jr. Boomer era civil rights work: think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Oh, and don't forget to call them "Reverend".
Perhaps no generation in the history of the world has thought more highly of itself with less grounds than my own.
No wonder the kids look right over the Boomer's heads with longing to the generations before them. By the way, bulletin to the Boomers: it was not you guys who passed the Civil Rights Act. It was the WWII generation. Useful rule of thumb: Constructive Civil Rights work: think Martin Luther King Jr. Boomer era civil rights work: think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Oh, and don't forget to call them "Reverend".
Perhaps no generation in the history of the world has thought more highly of itself with less grounds than my own.
More Truth Cancer
Watched "Cromwell" last night. A very interesting portrayal of the process of Truth Cancer. Cromwell begins by opposing the tyrannical power of King Charles (who dissolved Parliament and ruled by "divine right"--until he needed money). When he recalls Parliament, Cromwell gives many sincere speeches about the rights of "the people" and winds up fighting Charles, who gets it in the neck in the end. Cromwell eventually...dissolves Parliament because they aren't up to his levels of righteousness and rules as Lord Protector till his death.
It somehow made me think of VOTF. David Alexander has sent VOTF the link to Dom Bettinelli's story that I posted below. Their response:
Bettinelli is not a "reliable source."
Is this not perfect? Does it not sound exactly like a stonewalling press release from the Archdiocese of Boston or LA?
Amazing how quickly VOTF is coming to sound like a bunch of butt-covering "Deny, deny, deny" flaks from Cdl Mahony's office, denying stories that the LA New Times has beaucoup documentation on. Similarly, Dom has the documentation on the "Sex for Kids!" advocacy of SIECUS right on his site in SIECUS' own words. He likewise has documentation that VOTF has given SIECUS pride of place in their conference on "reforming" the Church.
If they are really open to the voice of the faithful then they had better learn to to deal with it when the faithful point out their folly and stop talking like an abusive bishop covering his derriere when confronted with the facts.
Watched "Cromwell" last night. A very interesting portrayal of the process of Truth Cancer. Cromwell begins by opposing the tyrannical power of King Charles (who dissolved Parliament and ruled by "divine right"--until he needed money). When he recalls Parliament, Cromwell gives many sincere speeches about the rights of "the people" and winds up fighting Charles, who gets it in the neck in the end. Cromwell eventually...dissolves Parliament because they aren't up to his levels of righteousness and rules as Lord Protector till his death.
It somehow made me think of VOTF. David Alexander has sent VOTF the link to Dom Bettinelli's story that I posted below. Their response:
Bettinelli is not a "reliable source."
Is this not perfect? Does it not sound exactly like a stonewalling press release from the Archdiocese of Boston or LA?
Amazing how quickly VOTF is coming to sound like a bunch of butt-covering "Deny, deny, deny" flaks from Cdl Mahony's office, denying stories that the LA New Times has beaucoup documentation on. Similarly, Dom has the documentation on the "Sex for Kids!" advocacy of SIECUS right on his site in SIECUS' own words. He likewise has documentation that VOTF has given SIECUS pride of place in their conference on "reforming" the Church.
If they are really open to the voice of the faithful then they had better learn to to deal with it when the faithful point out their folly and stop talking like an abusive bishop covering his derriere when confronted with the facts.
Sunday, July 28, 2002
More ICEL Translation Entries from readers!
Smile and the world smiles with you:
Become celebration in a world that celebrates your becoming.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence: Creator of all that is good, help us learn to respect boundaries and gift you with gratefulness for our fair share.
Onward Christian Soldiers
ICEL translation:
Diversity brings peace to all nations
Smile and the world smiles with you:
Become celebration in a world that celebrates your becoming.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence: Creator of all that is good, help us learn to respect boundaries and gift you with gratefulness for our fair share.
Onward Christian Soldiers
ICEL translation:
Diversity brings peace to all nations
Voice of the Fuddled Sinks Deeper Into Stockholm Syndrome
Dom Bettinelli reports:
"To oppose all forms of sexual oppression including notions of.... the innocence of children."
Do not misunderstand this. SIECUS is not talking about the dangers of oppressing the innocence of children by sexual abuse. It means that the "notion of the innocence of children" is a form of oppression that keeps children from enjoying sex with people like Paul Shanley. These are the cretins that VOTF is turning to in its "response" to sexual abuse of children. Tutored by men like Shanley for 20 years, VOTF is now naturally turning to people with his ideas (it's all they know or understand) in order to resolve the crisis prompted by his betrayal. How pitiable. How stupid. How contemptible. This has to be a world record example of Truth Cancer metastasizing into its opposite. Scant months ago, VOTF began by saying we must reject the Tradition in order to exalt one piece of it [in this case, the need to protect children]. Already, they are embracing creeps who are now calling for more freedom to have sex with children as they cling to the rejection of Tradition but forget what they were trying to save.
Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that hates children. God bless David Alexander (and send him speedy help from other orthodox Catholics (hint! hint!) as he tries to keep VOTF from running headlong off the cliff their neglectful shepherds have steered them toward.
Dom Bettinelli reports:
Deborah Hafner was one of the honored guests at the recent "Voice of the Faithful" confab at the Hynes.
You know about SIECUS. That's the group that, back in Y2K, instigated "A Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing." The "declaration" called on all faiths to bless same-sex couples; to allow gay men and lesbians to be ministers; to provide open access to abortion and sexual education; and to oppose all forms of sexual oppression, including notions of marital status and the innocence of children.
Ms. Hafner's reported comments include such pearls as:
"It's not 'anything goes.' It's just that no matter what gender orientation you have -- bisexual, transgender -- no matter what sex you are, no matter what age you are, no matter what marital status you are, no matter what sexual orientation you are, you have a right to sex."
No matter what age you are, says VOTF invitee Hafner, you have a right to sex. Kind of Shanley-esq, in my mind anyway.
"To oppose all forms of sexual oppression including notions of.... the innocence of children."
Do not misunderstand this. SIECUS is not talking about the dangers of oppressing the innocence of children by sexual abuse. It means that the "notion of the innocence of children" is a form of oppression that keeps children from enjoying sex with people like Paul Shanley. These are the cretins that VOTF is turning to in its "response" to sexual abuse of children. Tutored by men like Shanley for 20 years, VOTF is now naturally turning to people with his ideas (it's all they know or understand) in order to resolve the crisis prompted by his betrayal. How pitiable. How stupid. How contemptible. This has to be a world record example of Truth Cancer metastasizing into its opposite. Scant months ago, VOTF began by saying we must reject the Tradition in order to exalt one piece of it [in this case, the need to protect children]. Already, they are embracing creeps who are now calling for more freedom to have sex with children as they cling to the rejection of Tradition but forget what they were trying to save.
Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that hates children. God bless David Alexander (and send him speedy help from other orthodox Catholics (hint! hint!) as he tries to keep VOTF from running headlong off the cliff their neglectful shepherds have steered them toward.
Saturday, July 27, 2002
This weekend's piece is up on Catholic Exchange
Me, I'm going to see steamer trains with my guys!
Till next we meet, toodleoo! Oh, and remember, wouldn't this be an excellent weekend to learn more about the Eucharist, discover Sacred Tradition, explore the Bible, come to love and appreciate the Blessed Virgin, or educate yourself on a faithful lay response to the Situation? Of course it would! And you can do so (and help feed this ox of a writer and his family as he treads out an extremely modest income of grain) by buying any or all of my books and tapes.
Me, I'm going to see steamer trains with my guys!
Till next we meet, toodleoo! Oh, and remember, wouldn't this be an excellent weekend to learn more about the Eucharist, discover Sacred Tradition, explore the Bible, come to love and appreciate the Blessed Virgin, or educate yourself on a faithful lay response to the Situation? Of course it would! And you can do so (and help feed this ox of a writer and his family as he treads out an extremely modest income of grain) by buying any or all of my books and tapes.
Friday, July 26, 2002
Bravo Bishop Robert Vasa, Diocese of Baker, Oregon!
"Perhaps our laxity in not more strongly proclaiming and enforcing the teachings of the church about the necessity of chastity before marriage, the sinfulness of contraception within marriage, the evil of adultery, the evil of homosexual acts, the horror of abortion and the necessity of Sunday Mass has been an abdication of leadership. Our failure to act more effectively relative to moral decadence within the clergy is certainly a sign of a lack of moral leadership and we will work to remedy this defect. I am pleased to see so many of the Faithful rallying for Bishops to speak out more directly against evil, insisting on stricter 'moral standards' for those (clergy and laity) involved in ministry. This provides a perfect opportunity for Bishops to teach much more strictly and forthrightly, not only about the evil of child sexual abuse by clergy or anyone else but about many other pressing moral issues in our society at large. The laity have asked for a stronger moral voice from their Bishops and I hope we have the courage to respond."
Blessed Father in the faith, your words are like cold water to people in the desert. Keep it up! Readers interested in praising good bishops (which is vastly more effective than flailing at bad ones) can email their kudos to the Chancellor of the Diocese.
"Perhaps our laxity in not more strongly proclaiming and enforcing the teachings of the church about the necessity of chastity before marriage, the sinfulness of contraception within marriage, the evil of adultery, the evil of homosexual acts, the horror of abortion and the necessity of Sunday Mass has been an abdication of leadership. Our failure to act more effectively relative to moral decadence within the clergy is certainly a sign of a lack of moral leadership and we will work to remedy this defect. I am pleased to see so many of the Faithful rallying for Bishops to speak out more directly against evil, insisting on stricter 'moral standards' for those (clergy and laity) involved in ministry. This provides a perfect opportunity for Bishops to teach much more strictly and forthrightly, not only about the evil of child sexual abuse by clergy or anyone else but about many other pressing moral issues in our society at large. The laity have asked for a stronger moral voice from their Bishops and I hope we have the courage to respond."
Blessed Father in the faith, your words are like cold water to people in the desert. Keep it up! Readers interested in praising good bishops (which is vastly more effective than flailing at bad ones) can email their kudos to the Chancellor of the Diocese.
Nope, Calvinism is not somehow uniquely subject to corruption
And I certainly didn't mean to suggest it is. Indeed, each religious tradition has its peculiar forms of sanctity and corruption. A Calvinist saint (and there are some such as Francis Schaeffer) doesn't look like a Catholic, Orthodox, or Baptist saint. Indeed, none of them look like each other. But there is a secret bond which still unites them all. C.S. Lewis talks about this and even notes that it extends to non-Christian traditions. He much preferred talking to a real Jew or Muslim than to the vague, watery, homogenous adherents of religious traditions, people "not exactly obedient" to any religious faith. He believed this was because at the core of what was best in each tradition, Christ was secretly at work. I believe the same.
Conversely, when different traditions go to rot, they stink differently. Baptists can't produce a Rasputin or a Stalin odor. These have a distinct stench of rotting Orthodoxy to them. Likewise, the Orthodox could never give us Robert Tilton, nor does John Shelby Spong smell like anything but decayed Anglicanism. As to rotten Catholic faith, there seems to be a shift. It used to be that bad Catholics smelled like Hitler or (Jesuit schooled) Heinrich Himmler. Since Vatican II, bad Catholics typically smell more like Frances Kissling. The point is, any religious tradition can go to rot, not just Calvinists. But all the traditions have their glories too.
And I certainly didn't mean to suggest it is. Indeed, each religious tradition has its peculiar forms of sanctity and corruption. A Calvinist saint (and there are some such as Francis Schaeffer) doesn't look like a Catholic, Orthodox, or Baptist saint. Indeed, none of them look like each other. But there is a secret bond which still unites them all. C.S. Lewis talks about this and even notes that it extends to non-Christian traditions. He much preferred talking to a real Jew or Muslim than to the vague, watery, homogenous adherents of religious traditions, people "not exactly obedient" to any religious faith. He believed this was because at the core of what was best in each tradition, Christ was secretly at work. I believe the same.
Conversely, when different traditions go to rot, they stink differently. Baptists can't produce a Rasputin or a Stalin odor. These have a distinct stench of rotting Orthodoxy to them. Likewise, the Orthodox could never give us Robert Tilton, nor does John Shelby Spong smell like anything but decayed Anglicanism. As to rotten Catholic faith, there seems to be a shift. It used to be that bad Catholics smelled like Hitler or (Jesuit schooled) Heinrich Himmler. Since Vatican II, bad Catholics typically smell more like Frances Kissling. The point is, any religious tradition can go to rot, not just Calvinists. But all the traditions have their glories too.
I'm having way too much fun on HMS Blog
Inspired by a reader on this blog, I've proposed a new contest over there. Sadly, HMS Blog has no comments box. But by all means, please offer your translations in the comment box here!
Inspired by a reader on this blog, I've proposed a new contest over there. Sadly, HMS Blog has no comments box. But by all means, please offer your translations in the comment box here!
More of that fine-tuned sense of Arab morality
Once a man commits the venial sin of mass murder, it's only a matter of time before he does something serious like embezzle.
Once a man commits the venial sin of mass murder, it's only a matter of time before he does something serious like embezzle.
Exhibit #4098343598 in the "Why Amy Welborn is a National Treasure" Display
Authentic reconciliation is only achieved by fidelity to honesty, not by hitting the snooze button.
Authentic reconciliation is only achieved by fidelity to honesty, not by hitting the snooze button.
An offended Calvinist writes about my cracking wise concerning the "fumes of Calvinism":
Concepts highly prized by Puritans still exist in debased form in American mass culture. We're still a city on a hill, though we now use the hill to broadcast Planned Parenthood messages written by comfortable white Rockefeller Foundation types to all those charming little brown-skinned people who need our ministrations in order to make sure there aren't too many of them. We're still certain we're Elect, even though we've been elected to bring the blessings of MTV to the world. Total depravity is true--of Republicans. We're still predestined, but it's predestination by the Forces of History, and its goal is Total Conformity to the Image and Likeness of the Editorial Board of the New York Times. It's not an accident that places like Boston have long been centers of this sort of thinking. Calvinism mutated to Unitarianism and, when it died and rotted in a shallow secular grave, gave off fumes of self-righteous liberalism than you can still smell. Sure there are still a few diehards who truly believe in Calvinism as it was in the 16th Century. They live, for the most part, in a compound in Moscow Idaho and are confidently awaiting the mass conversion of American society to their way of thinking as they invoke the spirit of Rushdoony. They will wait long. Likewise, Calvinism is not quite the driving force it once was in England. As C.S. Lewis once observed, "I am a converted pagan living among apostate Puritans."
For a lengthier treatment of the curious way in which cultures can die of Truth Cancer (and the way in which the gospel can redeem us from such a fate) see my essay "Truth Cancer and the Redemption of Rebellion".
Huh?
Would you elaborate? Taken at face value it is an utterly fatuous statment.
Concepts highly prized by Puritans still exist in debased form in American mass culture. We're still a city on a hill, though we now use the hill to broadcast Planned Parenthood messages written by comfortable white Rockefeller Foundation types to all those charming little brown-skinned people who need our ministrations in order to make sure there aren't too many of them. We're still certain we're Elect, even though we've been elected to bring the blessings of MTV to the world. Total depravity is true--of Republicans. We're still predestined, but it's predestination by the Forces of History, and its goal is Total Conformity to the Image and Likeness of the Editorial Board of the New York Times. It's not an accident that places like Boston have long been centers of this sort of thinking. Calvinism mutated to Unitarianism and, when it died and rotted in a shallow secular grave, gave off fumes of self-righteous liberalism than you can still smell. Sure there are still a few diehards who truly believe in Calvinism as it was in the 16th Century. They live, for the most part, in a compound in Moscow Idaho and are confidently awaiting the mass conversion of American society to their way of thinking as they invoke the spirit of Rushdoony. They will wait long. Likewise, Calvinism is not quite the driving force it once was in England. As C.S. Lewis once observed, "I am a converted pagan living among apostate Puritans."
For a lengthier treatment of the curious way in which cultures can die of Truth Cancer (and the way in which the gospel can redeem us from such a fate) see my essay "Truth Cancer and the Redemption of Rebellion".
The answer is "No."
Zero Tolerance policies are stupid and simply another way of avoiding the task of being a bishop. Rome, I predict, will reject the Policy for this reason. At this point, American bishops will have a choice: 1) deal with the fact that their task is to govern their Churches and begin the difficult process of finally learning how to do it, or 2) turn to the cameras and say "We tried. Lord knows we tried. But Rome will not permit reform. Don't blame us. Blame Rome." God grant them the grace of the sacrament of Holy Orders to do the former and shun the latter course.
Zero Tolerance policies are stupid and simply another way of avoiding the task of being a bishop. Rome, I predict, will reject the Policy for this reason. At this point, American bishops will have a choice: 1) deal with the fact that their task is to govern their Churches and begin the difficult process of finally learning how to do it, or 2) turn to the cameras and say "We tried. Lord knows we tried. But Rome will not permit reform. Don't blame us. Blame Rome." God grant them the grace of the sacrament of Holy Orders to do the former and shun the latter course.
More Weird Choices for the Bishop's Oversight Board
You've never heard of most of these people have you? Neither have I. Greg Popcak talks about why yet another of these guys is a remarkably dubious candidate for dealing with sexual abuse. He also links to Domenico Bettinelli's piece on board member Pamela Hayes, who's given $18,000 to various pro-abort candidates and is a big supporter of the Ice Queen Senator from New York, Lady Macbeth Clinton. (And what's up with the aviation company guy on the board? What's he know about Catholic theology, pastoral care, or, well...anything?) Happily, the board looks like it's fixing to become cocooned in administrative chaos rather than metastasize into some destructive Frankenstein, but we're not out of the woods yet.
A much simpler solution would be for the bishops to learn what their office is and live it. Then they would need no board.
You've never heard of most of these people have you? Neither have I. Greg Popcak talks about why yet another of these guys is a remarkably dubious candidate for dealing with sexual abuse. He also links to Domenico Bettinelli's piece on board member Pamela Hayes, who's given $18,000 to various pro-abort candidates and is a big supporter of the Ice Queen Senator from New York, Lady Macbeth Clinton. (And what's up with the aviation company guy on the board? What's he know about Catholic theology, pastoral care, or, well...anything?) Happily, the board looks like it's fixing to become cocooned in administrative chaos rather than metastasize into some destructive Frankenstein, but we're not out of the woods yet.
A much simpler solution would be for the bishops to learn what their office is and live it. Then they would need no board.
And on a happy note
Rome has told the little liturgical fidgets at the International Commission on English in the Liturgy that their cute improvements on the Mass will not be needed anymore
Word is that Vox Clara will be doing the translation.
Rome has told the little liturgical fidgets at the International Commission on English in the Liturgy that their cute improvements on the Mass will not be needed anymore
Word is that Vox Clara will be doing the translation.
My apologies
I've been thinking about what I've written the last couple of days and I'm not happy with all of it. I think I've been very quick to be cynical about our bishops and to stoke the fires of despair. Therefore, I want to apologize if I've prompted any reader toward more cynicism too. What got me thinking about this was the piece by Fr. Michael Sweeney (which, if you haven't read it, you should immediately do). He writes:
So, instead of me making snide remarks about how hopeless our bishops are, I should be about the business of trusting that God means to and will bring about repentance and genuine holiness. I should act on this by extending reconciliation to them, even if they are not yet capable of trusting (and, in some cases, deserving) it. This does not mean turning a blind eye when they do something absurd (like putting partial-birth abortion booster Panetta on a panel created in response to child abuse). Nor does it mean not being living the prophetic office of baptism, being "wise as a serpent" and making noise when one of them (like McCormack or Mahony) gives strong indications he is returning to old habits once the heat is off. But it does mean refusing to adopt a mental outlook of settled cynicism, as though God does not exist and cannot act. It means living my vocation as a layperson and doing my priestly office, also given in baptism, to offer reconciliation as Christ does. Such grace is not offered to those who earn it, but to those who need it, just as Christ offered mercy to the people who were executing him. For my failure to do this, I offer my profound apologies to my readers, my exhortation to do likewise, and the continued hope that our shepherds will take up the cross of Christ and find in it his mercy and the grace to do their office.
I've been thinking about what I've written the last couple of days and I'm not happy with all of it. I think I've been very quick to be cynical about our bishops and to stoke the fires of despair. Therefore, I want to apologize if I've prompted any reader toward more cynicism too. What got me thinking about this was the piece by Fr. Michael Sweeney (which, if you haven't read it, you should immediately do). He writes:
Priests and bishops have failed to take seriously the lay faithful they serve and with whom they are called to collaborate in the mission of the Church. They have covered up the actions of certain priests, fearing that Christ’s people would falter in their faith if they became aware of such transgressions. They did not trust that the laity were as capable of faithfulness as they themselves, and that their faith—a gift of God—does not depend upon the witness of the hierarchy.
Reconciliation does not mean inaugurating administrative reforms or democratizing the Church. Indeed, such measures presume that no reconciliation is possible and that therefore drastic steps are in order. Reconciliation means that we of the hierarchy must recognize the dignity of the laity’s faith and apostolate and rely upon their support and judgment. It means trusting that they will respect our ordination and the role we have been given in the community, even as they insist upon the apostolic roles they possess for the sake of the mission of the Church to the world.
So, instead of me making snide remarks about how hopeless our bishops are, I should be about the business of trusting that God means to and will bring about repentance and genuine holiness. I should act on this by extending reconciliation to them, even if they are not yet capable of trusting (and, in some cases, deserving) it. This does not mean turning a blind eye when they do something absurd (like putting partial-birth abortion booster Panetta on a panel created in response to child abuse). Nor does it mean not being living the prophetic office of baptism, being "wise as a serpent" and making noise when one of them (like McCormack or Mahony) gives strong indications he is returning to old habits once the heat is off. But it does mean refusing to adopt a mental outlook of settled cynicism, as though God does not exist and cannot act. It means living my vocation as a layperson and doing my priestly office, also given in baptism, to offer reconciliation as Christ does. Such grace is not offered to those who earn it, but to those who need it, just as Christ offered mercy to the people who were executing him. For my failure to do this, I offer my profound apologies to my readers, my exhortation to do likewise, and the continued hope that our shepherds will take up the cross of Christ and find in it his mercy and the grace to do their office.
One Last Thing on Lefty Puritanism
One common critique of Christianity (and Judaism) is the curious biblical idea of corporate personality. Jewish prophets frequently tend to conflate a people with their patriarch so that "Israel" refers both to the man Jacob and to his progeny or "Edom" to Esau or his heirs. The actions of the individual and the destiny of the people are often oddly overlapped in the Old Testament. The apotheosis of this way of thinking is found in Paul, who sees the sin of Adam as affecting the entire human race so that for the one sin, all die "in" Adam. Likewise, he sees the redemption of Christ as redeeming all "in" Christ.
Not surprisingly, many moderns are turned off by this. They think that "original sin" means we get the blame for what Adam did and protest Christianity as a "religion of guilt". As one angry professor of mine once derisively sneered about the doctrine of original sin: "If your grandfather was a horse thief, does that make you a horse thief?" Like Pilate, he did not stay for an answer. Village Atheists never seem to have time for that.
Many such people wind up in Seattle, the least churched city in the least churched state in the nation. A couple of years ago, some girl band guitarist (call her "Suzie Q", I can't remember her name) killed herself on heroin here in Seattle. So what does the headline in the local Arts Elite mag say the next day?
"Did Seattle Kill Suzie Q?".
The whole article was aimed at indicting "Seattle"--all of us--for the collective guilt of having a big heroin subculture. It aimed to blame every citizen for their hand in her death. And, of course, once blamed, that's it. Article over. No possibility of redemption. Just guilt. Boy, what a step up from that religion of guilt, Christianity. Like Mick Jagger says, "Who killed the Kennedys? After all, it was you and me."
No. I did not kill the Kennedys. I didn't kill Suzie Q. I never owned a slave, nor did any ancestor of mine (poor Irish that they were). I am guilty of no collective Euroguilt "in" Columbus and don't much feel like making reparations to people who don't even have grandparents who were slaves. I do not feel a sense of responsibility for the Holocaust, particularly since my father stayed awake for three solid days servicing the bombers that provided air cover for D-Day.
Now, I did share in the common affliction of original sin (until I was baptized and received the missing life of the Blessed Trinity in my soul), but that does not mean I was "blamed" for Adam's sin. It means that Adam and Eve lost the life of communion with God they *should* have passed on to us and so I was, like everybody else, born with a spiritual "birth defect", a hole in my soul where the divine life should have been. Not surprisingly, I acted in accord with my wound and sinned like they did, selfishly trying to suck in any and every creature to fill the hole and trampling over plenty of people in the process. I still sinfully give in to that weakness (it's called concupiscence) and need to go to confession and try to live a better life afterwards by the grace of Christ.
But, unlike the Leftist Puritan's hopeless refrain, "You are guilty of murder because you live in Seattle and there is no mercy for you", I found that Christ could do more than point out real (not imaginary) sin. He could forgive it and take it away.
One common critique of Christianity (and Judaism) is the curious biblical idea of corporate personality. Jewish prophets frequently tend to conflate a people with their patriarch so that "Israel" refers both to the man Jacob and to his progeny or "Edom" to Esau or his heirs. The actions of the individual and the destiny of the people are often oddly overlapped in the Old Testament. The apotheosis of this way of thinking is found in Paul, who sees the sin of Adam as affecting the entire human race so that for the one sin, all die "in" Adam. Likewise, he sees the redemption of Christ as redeeming all "in" Christ.
Not surprisingly, many moderns are turned off by this. They think that "original sin" means we get the blame for what Adam did and protest Christianity as a "religion of guilt". As one angry professor of mine once derisively sneered about the doctrine of original sin: "If your grandfather was a horse thief, does that make you a horse thief?" Like Pilate, he did not stay for an answer. Village Atheists never seem to have time for that.
Many such people wind up in Seattle, the least churched city in the least churched state in the nation. A couple of years ago, some girl band guitarist (call her "Suzie Q", I can't remember her name) killed herself on heroin here in Seattle. So what does the headline in the local Arts Elite mag say the next day?
"Did Seattle Kill Suzie Q?".
The whole article was aimed at indicting "Seattle"--all of us--for the collective guilt of having a big heroin subculture. It aimed to blame every citizen for their hand in her death. And, of course, once blamed, that's it. Article over. No possibility of redemption. Just guilt. Boy, what a step up from that religion of guilt, Christianity. Like Mick Jagger says, "Who killed the Kennedys? After all, it was you and me."
No. I did not kill the Kennedys. I didn't kill Suzie Q. I never owned a slave, nor did any ancestor of mine (poor Irish that they were). I am guilty of no collective Euroguilt "in" Columbus and don't much feel like making reparations to people who don't even have grandparents who were slaves. I do not feel a sense of responsibility for the Holocaust, particularly since my father stayed awake for three solid days servicing the bombers that provided air cover for D-Day.
Now, I did share in the common affliction of original sin (until I was baptized and received the missing life of the Blessed Trinity in my soul), but that does not mean I was "blamed" for Adam's sin. It means that Adam and Eve lost the life of communion with God they *should* have passed on to us and so I was, like everybody else, born with a spiritual "birth defect", a hole in my soul where the divine life should have been. Not surprisingly, I acted in accord with my wound and sinned like they did, selfishly trying to suck in any and every creature to fill the hole and trampling over plenty of people in the process. I still sinfully give in to that weakness (it's called concupiscence) and need to go to confession and try to live a better life afterwards by the grace of Christ.
But, unlike the Leftist Puritan's hopeless refrain, "You are guilty of murder because you live in Seattle and there is no mercy for you", I found that Christ could do more than point out real (not imaginary) sin. He could forgive it and take it away.
Speaking of post-modern Puritanism
Years ago my pal Dave listened to a long piece NPR did on "How to have a Green Vacation". Listeners were urged for half an hour to only have environmentally friendly vacations. But the best part came at the end, when the host furrowed his brow and asked the Big Moral Question: "But... can we really be justified in having any vacation as long as there is environmental damage going on anywhere in the world?"
This is precisely the excuse Lake Wobegon Pastor Ingqvist's parishioners give him for not underwriting any vacation time. "How can you feel right about taking a vacation as long as there is sin and suffering anywhere on earth?" At least Pastor Ingqvist believes in heaven. Leftism is puritanism without any of the consolations of the Puritans. All the guilt and no sacrament of reconciliation.
Years ago my pal Dave listened to a long piece NPR did on "How to have a Green Vacation". Listeners were urged for half an hour to only have environmentally friendly vacations. But the best part came at the end, when the host furrowed his brow and asked the Big Moral Question: "But... can we really be justified in having any vacation as long as there is environmental damage going on anywhere in the world?"
This is precisely the excuse Lake Wobegon Pastor Ingqvist's parishioners give him for not underwriting any vacation time. "How can you feel right about taking a vacation as long as there is sin and suffering anywhere on earth?" At least Pastor Ingqvist believes in heaven. Leftism is puritanism without any of the consolations of the Puritans. All the guilt and no sacrament of reconciliation.
Sandra Miesel (rhymes with "diesel") comments on the Jesuits sadistically martyred at the hands of the Iroquois:
One of the curious holdovers of Puritanism in the PC Left is the insistence that only Christians and Europeans should really be held accountable as adults and full moral agents for their actions. From excuse-making for Iroquois (but full moral accountability for white settlers), to the ceaseless overlooking of the grossness of men like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson (but full blame for the stupid statements of Jerry Falwell on 9/11), to the constant willingness to call for "contextualization" of every heinous thing the Aztecs did (but full accountability for Cortez), this pattern plays out. The PC Left betrays all the high-handed contempt that Cotton Mather felt for the heathen in its insistence on infantilizing non-Christian/non-European evildoers while simultaneously regarding Christians and Europeans (this would include Euro-Americans of course) as full moral agents accountable for their actions. I agree that Christians and Europeans should be held accountable. I merely suggest that the world would be a far better place if slimes like Al Sharpton were treated as the disgusting wretches they are and not persistently lionized as respected leaders whose little foibles are excusable because, well, he and his community must be infantilized since the heathen can't be expected to live up to the standards of the Elect.
Amazing how the fumes of Calvinism linger on long after the theology is dead.
I'm not making this up: several years ago our state museum had a show on Jesuit Fr. deSmet and the Rocky Mountain Indians, called SACRED ENCOUNTERS. The catalog had a picture of the Iroquois torturing Jesuits with the caption that they killed them that way to honor them!!
One of the curious holdovers of Puritanism in the PC Left is the insistence that only Christians and Europeans should really be held accountable as adults and full moral agents for their actions. From excuse-making for Iroquois (but full moral accountability for white settlers), to the ceaseless overlooking of the grossness of men like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson (but full blame for the stupid statements of Jerry Falwell on 9/11), to the constant willingness to call for "contextualization" of every heinous thing the Aztecs did (but full accountability for Cortez), this pattern plays out. The PC Left betrays all the high-handed contempt that Cotton Mather felt for the heathen in its insistence on infantilizing non-Christian/non-European evildoers while simultaneously regarding Christians and Europeans (this would include Euro-Americans of course) as full moral agents accountable for their actions. I agree that Christians and Europeans should be held accountable. I merely suggest that the world would be a far better place if slimes like Al Sharpton were treated as the disgusting wretches they are and not persistently lionized as respected leaders whose little foibles are excusable because, well, he and his community must be infantilized since the heathen can't be expected to live up to the standards of the Elect.
Amazing how the fumes of Calvinism linger on long after the theology is dead.
Thursday, July 25, 2002
Okay, so Amrhine's a "Fredneck"
A reader sez:
A reader sez:
I'm not sure writing for the Free-Lance Star qualifies as being a "distinguished columnist." Have you ever *been* to Fredericksburg? I lived there for a year, and it's one big strip mall surrounded by memorials to people who were traitors to the United States. The carpetbaggers from DC (like me) knew the bigotted locals as "Frednecks" (as opposed to the locals who just didn't like Yankees; they were generally nice people, if a little lost in the past).
On the whole, I worked with a few wonderful folks, and had a few friends in the town (mostly, but not exclusively, from other places), but don't miss living there in any way shape or form.
1492: The Conquest of Paradise and All That
Those who are enthusiasts for the myth that the world is neatly divisible into Evil Christian European Environmental Rapists vs. Happy Matriarchal Earth-Affirming Pagans in Touch with their Sexuality and the Rhythms of Mother Gaia should contemplate this little vignette from the martyrdom of St. John Brebeuf:
Turns out that even non-Christians are fallen. Whaddaya know. (Though I'm sure there are a few fringe Christian haters out there who will tell you, like a Wahoobi moron blaming a rape victim, that the victim was asking for it and secretly enjoyed it. These people are about as rare as academics at Ivy League schools in the general population. In fact, they *are* academics at Ivy League Schools for the most part.)
Those who are enthusiasts for the myth that the world is neatly divisible into Evil Christian European Environmental Rapists vs. Happy Matriarchal Earth-Affirming Pagans in Touch with their Sexuality and the Rhythms of Mother Gaia should contemplate this little vignette from the martyrdom of St. John Brebeuf:
Brébeuf's death, as described by witnesses, was not likely to be lost to history even without a shrine. His flesh was apparently stripped from the bone, his skin blistered by boiling water in derision of the baptisms he had conducted among the Huron, his body burned by pitch and resin-drenched bark and heated stones, his lips cut off when he would not stop praying and, finally, his heart ripped from his chest during his final conscious moments.
Turns out that even non-Christians are fallen. Whaddaya know. (Though I'm sure there are a few fringe Christian haters out there who will tell you, like a Wahoobi moron blaming a rape victim, that the victim was asking for it and secretly enjoyed it. These people are about as rare as academics at Ivy League schools in the general population. In fact, they *are* academics at Ivy League Schools for the most part.)
Fr. Rob Johansen's Take on our Hapless Bench of Bishops
or "the Democratic Party at Prayer" as Sandra Miesel tartly describes them.
"Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints." Revelation 13:10
None of this--I repeat, none of this--is a reason to give up on the Church (as some of my readers have toyed with). The Church is more than our hapless bench of bishops--and they are not eternal. The answer to spineless, clueless bishops is not to give up and go but to stay and soldier on. Christ is still Lord of the Church and we are called to love Her now above all.
or "the Democratic Party at Prayer" as Sandra Miesel tartly describes them.
"Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints." Revelation 13:10
None of this--I repeat, none of this--is a reason to give up on the Church (as some of my readers have toyed with). The Church is more than our hapless bench of bishops--and they are not eternal. The answer to spineless, clueless bishops is not to give up and go but to stay and soldier on. Christ is still Lord of the Church and we are called to love Her now above all.
Go. Read. This.
Fr. Michael Sweeney of the St. Catherine of the Siena Institute gives an incredibly insightful take on the Situation titled "Putting our Past In Front: Redeeming the Scandal". You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 to view the document. You can download Adobe for free here. If you read nothing else today. Read this article. Written by a man who along with Sherry Weddell, the other director of the Siena Institute, understands the *real* (and thrilling) Catholic theology of the laity better than virtually anybody in the world.
Fr. Michael Sweeney of the St. Catherine of the Siena Institute gives an incredibly insightful take on the Situation titled "Putting our Past In Front: Redeeming the Scandal". You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 to view the document. You can download Adobe for free here. If you read nothing else today. Read this article. Written by a man who along with Sherry Weddell, the other director of the Siena Institute, understands the *real* (and thrilling) Catholic theology of the laity better than virtually anybody in the world.
What the difference between Alberto Fujimori and Richard Amrhine?
One's a disgraced former president, the other is a distinguished columnist.
One's a disgraced former president, the other is a distinguished columnist.
Now this is News!
According to Greg "Scoop" Popcak, eight courageous members of our largely hapless bench of bishops sent a letter to all the bishops in the United States. The letter calls for the creation of a Plenary Council to address the issues of homosexuality and dissent which serves as the foundation for this present crisis in the Church. More bishops have signed onto the letter since Thursday.
My hope springs eternal.
According to Greg "Scoop" Popcak, eight courageous members of our largely hapless bench of bishops sent a letter to all the bishops in the United States. The letter calls for the creation of a Plenary Council to address the issues of homosexuality and dissent which serves as the foundation for this present crisis in the Church. More bishops have signed onto the letter since Thursday.
My hope springs eternal.
Multiplying Clintonoids and the Bishops Who Need Them
First it was Robert Bennett, Clinton's lawyer. Now it's Leon Panetta, stalwart defender of partial birth abortion. These are the sort of people our shepherds have put on the "Stop Me Before I Let a Child be Raped Again" panel that's supposed to make sure they are doing the elementary work that a moral being should be capable of doing.
How on earth do these guys expect to be taken seriously?
First it was Robert Bennett, Clinton's lawyer. Now it's Leon Panetta, stalwart defender of partial birth abortion. These are the sort of people our shepherds have put on the "Stop Me Before I Let a Child be Raped Again" panel that's supposed to make sure they are doing the elementary work that a moral being should be capable of doing.
How on earth do these guys expect to be taken seriously?
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
As readers of this blog know...
I think it fitting to use vile words to describe vile things and beautiful words to describe beautiful things. I think it vile to use beautiful words to describe vile things and vile words to describe beautiful things. I also think it vile to used anesthetized words to describe evil things. Josh Claybourn's blog is debating the vile language question. Christians often strain at gnats and swallow camels. It bothers them more to be told what yer average rap "singer" has to say than the fact that they do, in fact, say it.
I think it fitting to use vile words to describe vile things and beautiful words to describe beautiful things. I think it vile to use beautiful words to describe vile things and vile words to describe beautiful things. I also think it vile to used anesthetized words to describe evil things. Josh Claybourn's blog is debating the vile language question. Christians often strain at gnats and swallow camels. It bothers them more to be told what yer average rap "singer" has to say than the fact that they do, in fact, say it.
In case you'd forgotten it, Rev. Sun Myung Moon is still a royal kook and so are his disciples
I especially like the unsolicited testimonials from various denizens of the netherworld to supplement the unanimous chorus of endorsement for Moon from the founders of the Great Religions. Here's a product endorsement from Karl Marx and channelled through some Moonie seer or other:
We now know Marx is in hell. Where else would you spend an eternity listening to Godism lectures?
I especially like the unsolicited testimonials from various denizens of the netherworld to supplement the unanimous chorus of endorsement for Moon from the founders of the Great Religions. Here's a product endorsement from Karl Marx and channelled through some Moonie seer or other:
Karl Marx (1818-1883, The founder of Marxism; born in Trier, Germany.): I, Marx, affirm God's existence and that He is the Parent of all humankind. I denied God and shouted loudly with confidence to the extent that people believed me more than God. Now I'd like to reveal my experience with God to the whole world. I felt that my theoretical paradigm was crumbling as I listened to the Godism lecture. At the same time my pride was damaged severely. When I listened to Godism, I thought it was a dream, but it was not. Then a beam of light came into my heart like a red-hot bullet.
I, Marx, have met God. I have found that He is the Parent of humankind. I have felt the greatness of God's love. I clearly convey to you who God is. He is the Parent of humankind. Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who is on the Earth, brought this fact to light. The Divine Principle and Unification Thought express the original standards that open the way to salvation, so you must read them. I ask this of you seriously. I clearly say that I apologize for my past to God and True Parents and love them and am proud of them. Marx, April 18, 2002
We now know Marx is in hell. Where else would you spend an eternity listening to Godism lectures?
Greg Krehbiel Explains it all for you!
The puckish Mr. Krehbiel sez:
Where's Kirk Cameron when you need him?
The puckish Mr. Krehbiel sez:
I've figured out the next Dispensationalist end of the world scenario. See this.
When Palestinians take their accusations of war crimes to the U.N. tribunal, it will find Israel guilty and therefore set the entire world against Israel. Then believers will be raptured, the tribulation will begin (or the other way around, depending on your flavor of dispy-ism), Israel will turn to Jesus en masse, etc.
Where's Kirk Cameron when you need him?
Sean Gallagher notes that Richard Land of the Southern Baptists is discussing the Death Penalty
I have no argument with Land's basic thesis. Romans 13 is crystal clear. Caesar has a right to his sword. However, as Sean points out, the question of when and under what circumstances Caesar should use it is a matter for prudential judgment, informed by the teaching of the Church. Land doesn't really go into this. Granting Caesar his sword, it remains to be asked, "Should Caesar wield it as often as humanly possible. If not, then how do we determine when he should. It is to that question the Pope speaks in Evangelium Vitae.
I am gratified to hear that other Christians are beginning to realize that urging the sword upon Caesar and encouraging him to use it with abandon is, perhaps, not the smartest thing Christians living in a rapidly dechristianizing culture have ever done.
I have no argument with Land's basic thesis. Romans 13 is crystal clear. Caesar has a right to his sword. However, as Sean points out, the question of when and under what circumstances Caesar should use it is a matter for prudential judgment, informed by the teaching of the Church. Land doesn't really go into this. Granting Caesar his sword, it remains to be asked, "Should Caesar wield it as often as humanly possible. If not, then how do we determine when he should. It is to that question the Pope speaks in Evangelium Vitae.
I am gratified to hear that other Christians are beginning to realize that urging the sword upon Caesar and encouraging him to use it with abandon is, perhaps, not the smartest thing Christians living in a rapidly dechristianizing culture have ever done.
98% Failure Rate
That, according to Mary Beth Bonacci, is what a government study determined last year concerning the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STDs. Imagine any other product promoted as "safe" operating under a 98% failure rate.
Safe! Only 98 out of 100 children slowly strangle to death on this toy!
Experts applaud new "safe" fireworks for keeping 2 out of 100 users from blowing their hands off!
IBM proudly unveils its new energy-efficient Electrocute 333 computer today, which only delivers a deadly twelve amp shock to 98 out of 100 users.
Now the real headline: UN acknowledges condoms don't work.
That, according to Mary Beth Bonacci, is what a government study determined last year concerning the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STDs. Imagine any other product promoted as "safe" operating under a 98% failure rate.
Safe! Only 98 out of 100 children slowly strangle to death on this toy!
Experts applaud new "safe" fireworks for keeping 2 out of 100 users from blowing their hands off!
IBM proudly unveils its new energy-efficient Electrocute 333 computer today, which only delivers a deadly twelve amp shock to 98 out of 100 users.
Now the real headline: UN acknowledges condoms don't work.
A non-Catholic reader complains of the loopy new Archbishop of Canterbury...
I have no problem with women "ministers", merely with women priests. A woman can minister (i.e. "serve") as well as a man. She simply can't confect the Eucharist or celebrate Holy Orders, Confirmation or Anointing.
It's certainly not my place to tell other denominations how to order their internal affairs (though I am endlessly fascinated by the many non-Catholics I meet who very much want to tell the Catholic Church how to order Hers), but, from a Catholic perspective, the only thing the Church makes clear is that women cannot be ordained to the sacerdotal priestly office. She makes no claim that women cannot participate in governance or teach. That is why we have abbesses in our tradition, as well as female doctors of the Church (not to mention queens).
One of the ticking time bombs left by this papacy (which no one has noticed yet) is that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in making it clear the priestly office is all we are talking about with respect to women, is that there is now a much clearer possibility for a lay woman to be made a cardinal. We've had lay cardinals in the past. So there's no particular reason we couldn't have them again--and that some of them could be women. I'd be in favor of it, so long as they are orthodox.
He supports women ministers, so he should be shunned by all right-thinking Christians.
I have no problem with women "ministers", merely with women priests. A woman can minister (i.e. "serve") as well as a man. She simply can't confect the Eucharist or celebrate Holy Orders, Confirmation or Anointing.
It's certainly not my place to tell other denominations how to order their internal affairs (though I am endlessly fascinated by the many non-Catholics I meet who very much want to tell the Catholic Church how to order Hers), but, from a Catholic perspective, the only thing the Church makes clear is that women cannot be ordained to the sacerdotal priestly office. She makes no claim that women cannot participate in governance or teach. That is why we have abbesses in our tradition, as well as female doctors of the Church (not to mention queens).
One of the ticking time bombs left by this papacy (which no one has noticed yet) is that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in making it clear the priestly office is all we are talking about with respect to women, is that there is now a much clearer possibility for a lay woman to be made a cardinal. We've had lay cardinals in the past. So there's no particular reason we couldn't have them again--and that some of them could be women. I'd be in favor of it, so long as they are orthodox.
Speaking of Rod...
As this blog notes, Andrew Sullivan is pretty good on the war and Bush. He was one of the first voices of moral clarity out of the gate after 9/11 and performed invaluable services to humanity by carefully documenting (and exploding) the stupidity and evil of the "We hate life, ourselves, and you" Left which couldn't articulate an intelligent response to Islamofascism to save its soul. For that, I will always be grateful. But when it comes to sex and the Catholic Faith, Sullivan is a fool. And he is so, not by a failure of the intellect, but by a failure of the will. His demand is that Catholic moral teaching justify his sex life and he tortures himself and the faith into an intellectual pretzel in the attempt to make it do so. He's a walking, talking illustration of the fact that, for moderns, heresy typically begins in the groin. (Interestingly, for ancients, this is often not the case, but that's grist for another blog.) Rod Dreher highlights this in a blog today, but it is evident everytime Sullivan opens his mouth concerning Catholic moral teaching. In Catholicese, the latinate phrase is "concupiscence darkens the intellect". In plain English, sin makes you stupid. Or as C.S. Lewis said, "The trouble with trying to be stupider than you really are is that you can often succeed."
As this blog notes, Andrew Sullivan is pretty good on the war and Bush. He was one of the first voices of moral clarity out of the gate after 9/11 and performed invaluable services to humanity by carefully documenting (and exploding) the stupidity and evil of the "We hate life, ourselves, and you" Left which couldn't articulate an intelligent response to Islamofascism to save its soul. For that, I will always be grateful. But when it comes to sex and the Catholic Faith, Sullivan is a fool. And he is so, not by a failure of the intellect, but by a failure of the will. His demand is that Catholic moral teaching justify his sex life and he tortures himself and the faith into an intellectual pretzel in the attempt to make it do so. He's a walking, talking illustration of the fact that, for moderns, heresy typically begins in the groin. (Interestingly, for ancients, this is often not the case, but that's grist for another blog.) Rod Dreher highlights this in a blog today, but it is evident everytime Sullivan opens his mouth concerning Catholic moral teaching. In Catholicese, the latinate phrase is "concupiscence darkens the intellect". In plain English, sin makes you stupid. Or as C.S. Lewis said, "The trouble with trying to be stupider than you really are is that you can often succeed."
From the Fortress Homosexual McMinistry of Truth
Data: Out of 1200 cases of reported priestly abuse, 85% of the victims were male.
Conclusion: "While some have blamed homosexuality..." followed by 12 paragraphs of blah blah studiously avoiding the connection of two very large dots.
Data: Out of 1200 cases of reported priestly abuse, 85% of the victims were male.
Conclusion: "While some have blamed homosexuality..." followed by 12 paragraphs of blah blah studiously avoiding the connection of two very large dots.
Bp. McCormack of Manchester NH in the news again...
A priest says McCormack is trying to destroy him for knowing to much about a pervert priest. McCormack's henchmen say, in true Clintonian form, that the priest is "mentally unstable".
The priest "consented to a psychological evaluation in April. Though he was found to be mentally sound, Arsenault told the clinic conducting the examination that MacCormack lacked "any prudent sense of with whom to share confidences," according to a copy of the psychological report reviewed by The Associated Press.
Translation: the priest actually thought that bishops like McCormack could be trusted to do the right thing. But padre! This is the bishop who expected us to believe that he just didn't notice anything amiss when credible evidence was given to him that Paul Shanley advocated sex with minors.
Boy, McCormack's a new man after Dallas.
A priest says McCormack is trying to destroy him for knowing to much about a pervert priest. McCormack's henchmen say, in true Clintonian form, that the priest is "mentally unstable".
The priest "consented to a psychological evaluation in April. Though he was found to be mentally sound, Arsenault told the clinic conducting the examination that MacCormack lacked "any prudent sense of with whom to share confidences," according to a copy of the psychological report reviewed by The Associated Press.
Translation: the priest actually thought that bishops like McCormack could be trusted to do the right thing. But padre! This is the bishop who expected us to believe that he just didn't notice anything amiss when credible evidence was given to him that Paul Shanley advocated sex with minors.
Boy, McCormack's a new man after Dallas.
Hallelujah!
The piece that made me fall in love with Rod Dreher's writing is back on the web: Do Fake Boobs Go to Heaven? His review of the first Left Behind movie. I'm eager for further Left Behind movies so Rod can write further reviews.
The piece that made me fall in love with Rod Dreher's writing is back on the web: Do Fake Boobs Go to Heaven? His review of the first Left Behind movie. I'm eager for further Left Behind movies so Rod can write further reviews.
Tuesday, July 23, 2002
A reader thinks JPII's "reversal" of Catholic teaching on the Death Penalty is a strong case against papal infallibility
The Pope's "reversal" isn't even a reversal, much less a danger to papal infallibility. There is a wide range of prudential judgment options for applying capital punishment. That range lies between "Always" and "never". JPII tends to push the needle toward "never" as a rule of thumb but he does not say capital punishment is intrinsically immoral and does not deny Caesar the right to his sword. If he did, then you could start talking about a "reversal" of Catholic teaching and a serious case against infallibility. As it is, John Paul is simply saying that, given the wide range of options, applying capital punishment as infrequently as possible would be preferable.
Infallibility does not mean "Two Popes can never disagree about a question of prudential judgment." In order to argue against infallibility it is necessary to argue against what the Church actually means by the term and not merely to argue against what a phantom Straw Church of one's own imagining means. For a handy discussion of what infallibility actually means, consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Pope's "reversal" isn't even a reversal, much less a danger to papal infallibility. There is a wide range of prudential judgment options for applying capital punishment. That range lies between "Always" and "never". JPII tends to push the needle toward "never" as a rule of thumb but he does not say capital punishment is intrinsically immoral and does not deny Caesar the right to his sword. If he did, then you could start talking about a "reversal" of Catholic teaching and a serious case against infallibility. As it is, John Paul is simply saying that, given the wide range of options, applying capital punishment as infrequently as possible would be preferable.
Infallibility does not mean "Two Popes can never disagree about a question of prudential judgment." In order to argue against infallibility it is necessary to argue against what the Church actually means by the term and not merely to argue against what a phantom Straw Church of one's own imagining means. For a handy discussion of what infallibility actually means, consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Charming Naivete of the Atheist
My blog's Village Atheist remarks on his teenage confusion between the words "scatological" and "eschatological". He announces to a world breathless for his insights that discovering what they meant "was also one of the first moments where I learned that things aren't as simple and complete as CCD or Sunday School would make out -- that the world is a much more interesting, fascinating, tragic, scary yet still sublimely wonderful place than any of the good books ever proffered."
I know this was intended to be a starry paean of praise to a True Thinker by a True Thinker. But it comes off as merely hilarious. I can practically see V.A. standing silhouetted atop a windswept hill, heroically vowing to fight to the last against the forces of conformity and banality there in Smallville, a legend in his own mind. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how learning that you have no idea what the difference is between two extremely different words could possibly produce an Epiphany about how Life is Complex, nor how said Epiphany could equip you with the certainty that somebody as ignorant as you was the very first person to discover this, nor how it could confer a sense of anointing to deliver this news bulletin to the benighted religious hoi polloi. Nor can I see the discovery of one's lexical ignorance suddenly unveiling to one's eyes the Babbit-like existence of his fellow Sunday school attendees and teachers. Why, one almost gets the impression that this view of one's own genius and the contempt for one's fellows preceded the discovery of this interesting little dictionary factoid.
But least of all can I buy the notion that V.A.'s comfy suburban existence is really the true fount of insight and forge of experience that far outstrips the insights, ecstasies and agonies that created the great sacred texts of East and West. I somehow doubt that V.A.'s cozy little American home, tidy income and three squares a day have really done the job in revealing that the world is a much more interesting, fascinating, tragic, scary yet still sublimely wonderful place than any of the good books ever proffered.
My blog's Village Atheist remarks on his teenage confusion between the words "scatological" and "eschatological". He announces to a world breathless for his insights that discovering what they meant "was also one of the first moments where I learned that things aren't as simple and complete as CCD or Sunday School would make out -- that the world is a much more interesting, fascinating, tragic, scary yet still sublimely wonderful place than any of the good books ever proffered."
I know this was intended to be a starry paean of praise to a True Thinker by a True Thinker. But it comes off as merely hilarious. I can practically see V.A. standing silhouetted atop a windswept hill, heroically vowing to fight to the last against the forces of conformity and banality there in Smallville, a legend in his own mind. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how learning that you have no idea what the difference is between two extremely different words could possibly produce an Epiphany about how Life is Complex, nor how said Epiphany could equip you with the certainty that somebody as ignorant as you was the very first person to discover this, nor how it could confer a sense of anointing to deliver this news bulletin to the benighted religious hoi polloi. Nor can I see the discovery of one's lexical ignorance suddenly unveiling to one's eyes the Babbit-like existence of his fellow Sunday school attendees and teachers. Why, one almost gets the impression that this view of one's own genius and the contempt for one's fellows preceded the discovery of this interesting little dictionary factoid.
But least of all can I buy the notion that V.A.'s comfy suburban existence is really the true fount of insight and forge of experience that far outstrips the insights, ecstasies and agonies that created the great sacred texts of East and West. I somehow doubt that V.A.'s cozy little American home, tidy income and three squares a day have really done the job in revealing that the world is a much more interesting, fascinating, tragic, scary yet still sublimely wonderful place than any of the good books ever proffered.
The Revolution is coming a Cropper
Posted today on the VOTF message board:
"The Message Board will be on View Only -- beginning at 4:30 P.M. EDT, July 23rd until further notice. "
Free speech for me but not for thee.
Posted today on the VOTF message board:
"The Message Board will be on View Only -- beginning at 4:30 P.M. EDT, July 23rd until further notice. "
Free speech for me but not for thee.
I've hit on the perfect defense for bad bishops!
"I am personally opposed to child abuse, but I do feel that priests have a right to choose." Works for Democrats and Squish Republicans when the abuse consists of dismembering children, so why not for our shepherds? I'm a genius. Cardinal Mahony, you can fire your PR firm. I'm on the case.
"I am personally opposed to child abuse, but I do feel that priests have a right to choose." Works for Democrats and Squish Republicans when the abuse consists of dismembering children, so why not for our shepherds? I'm a genius. Cardinal Mahony, you can fire your PR firm. I'm on the case.
What a frickin' jerk this columnist is
Been a while since I've seen such a collection of cheap shots against the Faith and such exploitation of a tragedy to advance the Know Nothing cause. Gee, I've got four children. Is that too many for him? I wonder which one he thinks I should drown?
Been a while since I've seen such a collection of cheap shots against the Faith and such exploitation of a tragedy to advance the Know Nothing cause. Gee, I've got four children. Is that too many for him? I wonder which one he thinks I should drown?
A reader writes about the Death Penalty (and I make comments throughout)
True. God also commands stoning adulteresses to death. Yet, Jesus fulfills the law with mercy. I think it quite possible to view the command in Genesis 9:6, like the allowance for divorce under the Mosaic covenant, as a concession to human sinfulness, not as an ideal. Certainly, we know that He who is the fullness of the Image of God and who bears the very stamp of his nature willed, at his own tortured death, the forgiveness, not the execution, of the those who shed his innocent blood. Appeals to the Old Testament which do not take into account the fullness of revelation in Christ are problematic.
Red herring. The Pope does not call capital punishment immoral.
Thanks. I know Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law. But the fulfillment of the Law in Christ is by no means a simple matter. In some cases, OT practices are done away with, which is why Christians are not circumcised. In other cases, the moral teaching of the OT is left as is. In still other cases, Jesus surprises us by elevating the moral teaching of the law in shocking ways ("love your enemies") and lives it out in way which, to the unaided eye, appears to flatly contradict the OT (such as refusing to stone the adulteress woman). Your too-facile attempt to propose that Jesus would enthusiastically cast the first stone in his zeal to uphold your vision of the Law is, well, too facile. So is your too eager attempt to suppose that I think the Law is "canceled" by the NT.
Balderdash. God does not change. But our understanding of revelation does. (Though it should be noted that Jonah does, in fact, speak of God under the image of a man changing his mind at the repentance of the Ninevites.) The fact is God commands stoning for adulteresses in the OT. He then refuses to stone an adulteress in John 8. I can account for that using Newman's tools of the development of doctrine. I don't know how your rigid exegesis of the OT accounts for it. But those same tools are also useful in accounting for JPII's prudential judgment that the death penalty is usually best left unused.
My distinction between First and Third World has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with technology. First world prisons are much more efficient at keeping their prisoners imprisoned. In some Third World mud hut of a prison it is much more likely that a prisoner can get loose to hurt more people. In such cases, it would probably be better to execute him.
As to the charge of "pseudo-intellectual revisionism" I don't think this means much of anything beyond polysyllabic name-calling. His opinions do not "contradict" the worthies you mention for the simple reason that JPII does not call the death penalty immoral. He merely says that it would be best to employ it as rarely as possible. Since none of the worthies you mention urge death as often as it can possibly be inflicted (and Augustine, if memory serves, actually intervened to stop executions of death-deserving prisoners just like that pseudo-intellectual revisionist JPII), all we've really got is a disagreement about how often death should be inflicted, not about whether Caesar has the right to inflict it in grave crimes.
It is curious that you put "repentance" in quotation marks. And, of course, the scenario you propose is not an easy one to dismiss. The murderer of Samantha Runnion provides an extremely powerful case for the death penalty. Some people, it appears, just need killing. And yet, we are bound to try to think with the Tradition. When I do that, I find that the highly emotional case for vengeance you make is difficult to square with the counsels of mercy. It's those little quotation marks of yours that give me pause. For it appears to me that Saul of Tarsus comes remarkably close to fitting your description. He after all, persecuted perfectly innocent people "to the death" and so is guilty of innocent blood and fully deserving of all the punishments of Genesis 9:6, according to you. Shall I spit on his repentance and argue for an inflexible application of the OT lest it appear that I'm becoming one of those damned "Christian liberals"?
Right. The American bishops are always in lockstep with JPII.
Actually, on this point, the bishops are perfectly right. The paragraph above reflects the completely false notion that killing McVeigh would bring peace. It didn't, doesn't and can't. The only thing that can heal is forgiveness. McVeigh will, in death, continue to torment those he so brutally wounded until the day they can forgive him and let him go into the hands of God for judgment. The man whose daughter was killed at OKC and who struggled through from bitterness, by the grace of God, to forgive McVeigh, to befriend McVeigh's father, and to plead he be spared, is freer than most of us will ever know or understand.
And, of course, there is also the simple point: since when do we settle matters of crime and punishment by appeals to how angry the victims feel? This was indeed the purpose of the lex talionis. If its up to victims it would be a life for eye, a life for tooth.
Last I checked, the Church's tradition is formed more by the New Testament's call for mercy than by Talmudic proverbs. It is curious that you put "repentance" in quotes but see a place for cruelty in the gospel.
I don't think the Pope's reaction is delayed. I think he is leaving the bishops to bear the cross they tried to place on innocent shoulders. But that, of course, is neither here nor there in your demand for a crueler Church that doesn't let "repentance" get in the way of the lust for blood.
Thanks for those reliable sources steeped in the Catholic Tradition.
I guess if you are going to put "repentance" in quotes, it's probably not surprising you put Catholics who disagree with you in quotes too. FWIW, I think Catholics (like Scalia) who disagree with the Pope's prudential judgment have a perfect right to do so. I do not put them in quotes and insinuate they are heretics. I merely ask the same courtesy from you when I agree with the Pope and see mercy as the preferable option whenever it can be granted.
Just read your comments about Antonin Scalia and the death penalty. As a Catholic who favors the death penalty, I believe you have forgotten several important points:
1. In Genesis 9:6, God expressly commands the imposition of the death penalty for murder on the grounds that when a human being is murdered, God's image is descecrated (read the passage for yourself). This command predates the Mosaic law by centuries.
True. God also commands stoning adulteresses to death. Yet, Jesus fulfills the law with mercy. I think it quite possible to view the command in Genesis 9:6, like the allowance for divorce under the Mosaic covenant, as a concession to human sinfulness, not as an ideal. Certainly, we know that He who is the fullness of the Image of God and who bears the very stamp of his nature willed, at his own tortured death, the forgiveness, not the execution, of the those who shed his innocent blood. Appeals to the Old Testament which do not take into account the fullness of revelation in Christ are problematic.
2. In the Mosaic law itself, God commands, "Thou Shalt Not Murder" (not "Thou Shalt Not Kill", a common mistranslation of the Hebrew). Obviously, the OT distinguishes between moral and immoral killing. In fact, God ordered Moses and the Israelites to commit genocide against the inhabitants of Canaan as divine judgement against their abominable practices (such as child sacrifice).
Red herring. The Pope does not call capital punishment immoral.
3. Throughout the OT, God has stated that those who shed innocent blood are an abomination to Him. Like many Catholics, you might think that the NT cancels the OT but this is flat-out heresy. First, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it -- and Jesus was a Jew who would be quite familiar with what we call the OT.
Thanks. I know Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law. But the fulfillment of the Law in Christ is by no means a simple matter. In some cases, OT practices are done away with, which is why Christians are not circumcised. In other cases, the moral teaching of the OT is left as is. In still other cases, Jesus surprises us by elevating the moral teaching of the law in shocking ways ("love your enemies") and lives it out in way which, to the unaided eye, appears to flatly contradict the OT (such as refusing to stone the adulteress woman). Your too-facile attempt to propose that Jesus would enthusiastically cast the first stone in his zeal to uphold your vision of the Law is, well, too facile. So is your too eager attempt to suppose that I think the Law is "canceled" by the NT.
Second, to believe that God would somehow "change his mind" on the matter of murder is to believe that God is morally schizophrenic
Balderdash. God does not change. But our understanding of revelation does. (Though it should be noted that Jonah does, in fact, speak of God under the image of a man changing his mind at the repentance of the Ninevites.) The fact is God commands stoning for adulteresses in the OT. He then refuses to stone an adulteress in John 8. I can account for that using Newman's tools of the development of doctrine. I don't know how your rigid exegesis of the OT accounts for it. But those same tools are also useful in accounting for JPII's prudential judgment that the death penalty is usually best left unused.
(You mention that you oppose the death penalty in the "First World". Sorry, but "First World" and "Third World" are arbitrary designations that have to do with economics, not morality. God shows no partiality to the rich or poor when it comes to obeying his moral directives. The fact that Catholics somehow believe this shows how secular thinking has infected the Church).
My distinction between First and Third World has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with technology. First world prisons are much more efficient at keeping their prisoners imprisoned. In some Third World mud hut of a prison it is much more likely that a prisoner can get loose to hurt more people. In such cases, it would probably be better to execute him.
4. The Pope's views on the death penalty are nothing more that pseudo-intellectual revisionism. His opinions contradict the opinions of Augustine, Aquinas, More and Newman (among others) on the matter of the death penalty being an appropriate punishment for murder at all times. To insist that Catholics believe those opinions would be for him to place himself above Tradition and Scripture -- which would be nothing short of idolatry.
As to the charge of "pseudo-intellectual revisionism" I don't think this means much of anything beyond polysyllabic name-calling. His opinions do not "contradict" the worthies you mention for the simple reason that JPII does not call the death penalty immoral. He merely says that it would be best to employ it as rarely as possible. Since none of the worthies you mention urge death as often as it can possibly be inflicted (and Augustine, if memory serves, actually intervened to stop executions of death-deserving prisoners just like that pseudo-intellectual revisionist JPII), all we've really got is a disagreement about how often death should be inflicted, not about whether Caesar has the right to inflict it in grave crimes.
5. The Pope's views also contradict common sense: Suppose I broke into your home and murdered your wife and children in cold blood. Why should I retain my life -- even if I spend the rest of it in prison -- after wantonly taking the lives of people who did no evil to me, whom I have deprived of enjoying the world God created, whom I have deprived of bringing good to others, and after wantonly plunging you into untold, unnecessary grief? And if I did spend the rest of my life in prison -- and became not only a model prisoner, but also a devout Christian -- you know that many Christian liberals would want my sentence commuted because of my "repentance".
It is curious that you put "repentance" in quotation marks. And, of course, the scenario you propose is not an easy one to dismiss. The murderer of Samantha Runnion provides an extremely powerful case for the death penalty. Some people, it appears, just need killing. And yet, we are bound to try to think with the Tradition. When I do that, I find that the highly emotional case for vengeance you make is difficult to square with the counsels of mercy. It's those little quotation marks of yours that give me pause. For it appears to me that Saul of Tarsus comes remarkably close to fitting your description. He after all, persecuted perfectly innocent people "to the death" and so is guilty of innocent blood and fully deserving of all the punishments of Genesis 9:6, according to you. Shall I spit on his repentance and argue for an inflexible application of the OT lest it appear that I'm becoming one of those damned "Christian liberals"?
This is not a matter of believing the "Minimum Daily Adult Requirement" of Church doctrine. This is a matter of serious, intelligent moral decision-making (something that the Church seems less and less able to do, unfortunately, as exemplified by its response to the sex-abuse scandals).
Right. The American bishops are always in lockstep with JPII.
I will never forget the response by a relative of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing to the Pope's letter asking President Bush to commute Timothy McVeigh's death sentence. She asked, "Where's my clemency? When do I get clemency? When does my family get some clemency? When the Pope can answer that, we can talk." (I'll send the reference to you, if you like). I also will never forget the sterile, academic statements made by the American bishops about McVeigh's execution; the death penalty can never bring the murder victim back, only God can take life (even though He gave guidelines in Exodus and Deuteronomy under what circumstances it might be taken) and other such drivel. Cardinal McCarrick of D.C. even compared those relatives who witnessed McVeigh's execution to those who watched gladiatorial contests in the Roman Colisseum.
Actually, on this point, the bishops are perfectly right. The paragraph above reflects the completely false notion that killing McVeigh would bring peace. It didn't, doesn't and can't. The only thing that can heal is forgiveness. McVeigh will, in death, continue to torment those he so brutally wounded until the day they can forgive him and let him go into the hands of God for judgment. The man whose daughter was killed at OKC and who struggled through from bitterness, by the grace of God, to forgive McVeigh, to befriend McVeigh's father, and to plead he be spared, is freer than most of us will ever know or understand.
And, of course, there is also the simple point: since when do we settle matters of crime and punishment by appeals to how angry the victims feel? This was indeed the purpose of the lex talionis. If its up to victims it would be a life for eye, a life for tooth.
Such statements revealed the bishops' ultimate insensitivity to the victims of murder and their survivors. But why should we be surprised? After all, as the Talmud says, "Those who are merciful when they should be cruel will be cruel when they should be merciful".
Last I checked, the Church's tradition is formed more by the New Testament's call for mercy than by Talmudic proverbs. It is curious that you put "repentance" in quotes but see a place for cruelty in the gospel.
Doesn't that saying typify the bishops' (and the Pope's) delayed reaction to sexual abuse by clergy?
I don't think the Pope's reaction is delayed. I think he is leaving the bishops to bear the cross they tried to place on innocent shoulders. But that, of course, is neither here nor there in your demand for a crueler Church that doesn't let "repentance" get in the way of the lust for blood.
I commend to your attention the following Web sites: www.dennisprager.com (Prager is a nationally known author and syndicated radio host) and www.prodeathpenalty.com (which has excellent references on the morality of the death penalty).
Thanks for those reliable sources steeped in the Catholic Tradition.
Bravo to Justice Scalia! He has tremendous courage. Would that more Catholics had the same instead of the lemming-like deference to authority that marks too many so-called "orthodox" Catholics.
I guess if you are going to put "repentance" in quotes, it's probably not surprising you put Catholics who disagree with you in quotes too. FWIW, I think Catholics (like Scalia) who disagree with the Pope's prudential judgment have a perfect right to do so. I do not put them in quotes and insinuate they are heretics. I merely ask the same courtesy from you when I agree with the Pope and see mercy as the preferable option whenever it can be granted.
A reader observes that the Archbishop of Canterbury provides better and more challenging pastoral guidance for the denizens of Hollywood than their own bishop, Raj "How's my hair?" Cardinal Mahony.
More Voice of the Fascists hijinx
David Alexander sends along the following:
Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss. - The Who
UPDATE: The Thought Police have now permitted access to the post. Please keep all comments docile and in accord with the General Will as expressed by the Board Overlords. Right thinking will be rewarded. Wrong thinking will be punished.
David Alexander sends along the following:
The following information was posted to the VOTF message board:
+ + +
But for now, VOTF does offer victims of clergy abuse some hope of being listened to by the lay Catholics and others in our society.
Among the "rays of hope" was Deborah Haffner, scheduled to speak "on ways to have safe parishes."
Deborah Haffner is past president of SEICUS, an organization which has promoted "the right to sexual pleasure" for young teens.
+ + +
The thread was immediately locked. This after the same information was removed the first time, as part of a letter by Kelly Clark, some contents of which are being denied by the VOTF as "misinformation."
Stay tuned...
Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss. - The Who
UPDATE: The Thought Police have now permitted access to the post. Please keep all comments docile and in accord with the General Will as expressed by the Board Overlords. Right thinking will be rewarded. Wrong thinking will be punished.
Mr. Sandman
My friends Michael and Ivy went to Long Beach, WA to see the sand castle contests there. Ivy ended up as a walk-on on one of the teams, and her team won 1st prize ($1200) in the Master's Category. Seriously.Ivy's work is shown in Pictures 4-7.
Here is a supreme example of what separates us from the beasts. Animals, in the absence of biological opportunity, go to sleep. Humans do stuff like this. We're made in the image of the Maker and itch to find some way to create. It's all in Genesis, all in Genesis. What do they teach in school these days?
My friends Michael and Ivy went to Long Beach, WA to see the sand castle contests there. Ivy ended up as a walk-on on one of the teams, and her team won 1st prize ($1200) in the Master's Category. Seriously.Ivy's work is shown in Pictures 4-7.
Here is a supreme example of what separates us from the beasts. Animals, in the absence of biological opportunity, go to sleep. Humans do stuff like this. We're made in the image of the Maker and itch to find some way to create. It's all in Genesis, all in Genesis. What do they teach in school these days?
VOTF=Voice of the Fascists
This was posted--and immediately removed by the muckety mucks without explanation--of the Voice of the Faithful message board. With each passing day, this movement moves deeper into murk and confusion. They started just couple of months ago as a stab at "letting the laity speak" etc. They've been heading full bore into all the typical behaviors of the Leftist Conformity Gestapo since. If you'd like to join David Alexander and become one of the few brave souls trying to keep this herd of independent minds from bustling itself off a cliff, go here and contribute to the board.
UPDATE: VOTF Message Board has re-instated the post. Might be fun to ask why, and why it was removed in the first place.
This was posted--and immediately removed by the muckety mucks without explanation--of the Voice of the Faithful message board. With each passing day, this movement moves deeper into murk and confusion. They started just couple of months ago as a stab at "letting the laity speak" etc. They've been heading full bore into all the typical behaviors of the Leftist Conformity Gestapo since. If you'd like to join David Alexander and become one of the few brave souls trying to keep this herd of independent minds from bustling itself off a cliff, go here and contribute to the board.
UPDATE: VOTF Message Board has re-instated the post. Might be fun to ask why, and why it was removed in the first place.
"Biotechnology is transforming the world around us, far more quickly than we can build a regulatory structure to accommodate it."
In the words of poet Pavel Chichikov, all of human history can be summed up in two sentences. The first is "What could it hurt?" followed sometime later by "How was I supposed to know?"
Pavel comments further:
Pavel, I used to know a guy who said, "There is no problem so subtle or complex that it can't be solved by brute force and ignorance." I've often thought he would make a great advocate of expanding federal power.
In the words of poet Pavel Chichikov, all of human history can be summed up in two sentences. The first is "What could it hurt?" followed sometime later by "How was I supposed to know?"
Pavel comments further:
That article reminds me of a crack made by the famous (also eccentric and funny) physicist Wolfgang Pauli about someone's hypothesis:
It's so far out of it, it's not even wrong.
Making human-animal hybrids presents a philosophical problem which should be solved by a federal science bureaucracy?
Sometimes it seems that some of these people at the Times are literally insane.
Pavel, I used to know a guy who said, "There is no problem so subtle or complex that it can't be solved by brute force and ignorance." I've often thought he would make a great advocate of expanding federal power.
Monday, July 22, 2002
The Minneapolis Strib shows once again the stunning cluelessness of journalists about Catholic Faith
Antonin Scalia differs from the Pope on a matter of prudential judgment, therefore, says the Strib, Catholic teaching is a wide open cafeteria for Scalia and pretty much everybody. Memo to the Strib: have your people read my essay "Catholic Officialdom and Theological Ambiguity" The Magisterium does not operate on the basis "That which is not forbidden is compulsory". The faithful do not navigate by looking for diktats from Rome on whether to crack their eggs on the pointy or round ends. Using our brains does not constitute a rebellious act of private judgment in defiance of the Church.
Antonin Scalia differs from the Pope on a matter of prudential judgment, therefore, says the Strib, Catholic teaching is a wide open cafeteria for Scalia and pretty much everybody. Memo to the Strib: have your people read my essay "Catholic Officialdom and Theological Ambiguity" The Magisterium does not operate on the basis "That which is not forbidden is compulsory". The faithful do not navigate by looking for diktats from Rome on whether to crack their eggs on the pointy or round ends. Using our brains does not constitute a rebellious act of private judgment in defiance of the Church.
A reader asks about the difference between a religious culture and holy one
Chesterton point out the difference in little poem written to commemorate the demise of an English missionary at the hands of very religious cannibals in the Solomon Islands:
It was the Rev. Isaiah Bunting who sailed to world's end
and spread religion in a way that he did not intend.
He gave, if not the gospel feast, at least a ritual meal.
And in a highly painful sense he was devoured with zeal.
America is extremely religious. America is only quite dubiously holy. There are real saints here as anywhere. But much of our religiosity is Moloch-worship.
Chesterton point out the difference in little poem written to commemorate the demise of an English missionary at the hands of very religious cannibals in the Solomon Islands:
It was the Rev. Isaiah Bunting who sailed to world's end
and spread religion in a way that he did not intend.
He gave, if not the gospel feast, at least a ritual meal.
And in a highly painful sense he was devoured with zeal.
America is extremely religious. America is only quite dubiously holy. There are real saints here as anywhere. But much of our religiosity is Moloch-worship.
Okay! Shaken by Scandals: Catholics Speak Out About Priests' Sexual Abuse is here!
Featuring essays by Raymond Arroyo, Rod Dreher, the Editors of Catholic World Report, Kristine Franklin, Al Kresta, Phillip Lawler, Mark Lowery, Michael Novak, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Greg Popcak, Leon Suprenant, Fr. Joseph F. Wilson and yours truly. Email me and you can get a signed copy (signed by me, that is, not by all the contributors).
Featuring essays by Raymond Arroyo, Rod Dreher, the Editors of Catholic World Report, Kristine Franklin, Al Kresta, Phillip Lawler, Mark Lowery, Michael Novak, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Greg Popcak, Leon Suprenant, Fr. Joseph F. Wilson and yours truly. Email me and you can get a signed copy (signed by me, that is, not by all the contributors).
Yet Another Blog on Fortress Homosexuality
Sorry, but the comments section says it's too long. John takes me to task in a comment down below. Here's my reply:
John:
a) It's "Matthew Shepherd", not Andrew. And I agree his death, while heinous, is used far too much by the "All Critics of Gays are Morally Equivalent to Fred Phelps and Shepherd's Murderers!!!!" crowd (one of whom has so delightfully graced this very blog with his measured analysis) as a pot of boiling oil to pour on any critic who gets too close to Fort Homosexual.
b) I associate Gay Christians with such activities because the MCC is a denom that 1) is packed with people who identify themselves as gay Christians and 2) associates itself with such activities. If they wish to disassociate themselves from such activities, I will happily blog the public statement they issue. Until then, I'm simply taking them at their word.
c) The intent of my message was 1) to point out that the Fortress Homosexual "see no evil" response to rot in its midst is just as bogus as the Fortress Catholic "see no evil" response to the Scandal and 2) to make a bad joke playing off my earlier urinary imagery about the Arts Elite community. It is only hysterics who assume from this that I'm saying "All gays are alike. All gays do this, etc." My point is best summed up in David Morrison's words: "I am less troubled with the acts themselves as I am with the fact they were advertised on the church's websites as though there was no trouble with them at all - as though folks were not being used as the means to sexual ends, as though the meaning and dignity of sex were not being trampled as though, in fact, everything was fine."
or "Juuuuuust Fiiiiine" as I put it.
d) I set no trap. My opinions are not a huge secret. The fact that somebody's ideology prevents them from seeing my point and leads them to inadvertantly reinforce it with their own pre-recorded rhetoric is not my problem.
e) No, I don't think your rhetoric is "hate" (something I don't think I've ever accused anybody of on this blog except perhaps Bp. Cawcutt with his fervent wish for JPII's death).
f) I have no power to "break" the defensiveness of Fortress Homosexuals, just as I have no power to "break" the defensiveness of Fortress Catholics. I only have the ability to point out when they are irrationally pretending that any criticism of the rot in the midst of their community is an Assault of by the Forces of Evil on All that is True and Good. This I will continue to do, from time to time, whether the irrational person is gay, a Catholic, or both.
Oh, and to the delightful interlocutor asking me to disasociate myself from Islamic female circumcision, Moloch worship and circumcision, Hindu Tantric practices and such, perhaps just a bit more familiarity with what baptism implies might be in order (Hint: I already have disassociated myself from them by being baptized). Also a quick read of Colossians and Galatians might help. The only things on your laundry list that remotely pertain to a Catholic are: "Religious masochism in the orthodox Catholic tradtion" (I'm against it) and "Use of feces as holy relics" (I've not heard of it, but I see nothing particularly immoral about it). Thanks for your input though.
Sorry, but the comments section says it's too long. John takes me to task in a comment down below. Here's my reply:
John:
a) It's "Matthew Shepherd", not Andrew. And I agree his death, while heinous, is used far too much by the "All Critics of Gays are Morally Equivalent to Fred Phelps and Shepherd's Murderers!!!!" crowd (one of whom has so delightfully graced this very blog with his measured analysis) as a pot of boiling oil to pour on any critic who gets too close to Fort Homosexual.
b) I associate Gay Christians with such activities because the MCC is a denom that 1) is packed with people who identify themselves as gay Christians and 2) associates itself with such activities. If they wish to disassociate themselves from such activities, I will happily blog the public statement they issue. Until then, I'm simply taking them at their word.
c) The intent of my message was 1) to point out that the Fortress Homosexual "see no evil" response to rot in its midst is just as bogus as the Fortress Catholic "see no evil" response to the Scandal and 2) to make a bad joke playing off my earlier urinary imagery about the Arts Elite community. It is only hysterics who assume from this that I'm saying "All gays are alike. All gays do this, etc." My point is best summed up in David Morrison's words: "I am less troubled with the acts themselves as I am with the fact they were advertised on the church's websites as though there was no trouble with them at all - as though folks were not being used as the means to sexual ends, as though the meaning and dignity of sex were not being trampled as though, in fact, everything was fine."
or "Juuuuuust Fiiiiine" as I put it.
d) I set no trap. My opinions are not a huge secret. The fact that somebody's ideology prevents them from seeing my point and leads them to inadvertantly reinforce it with their own pre-recorded rhetoric is not my problem.
e) No, I don't think your rhetoric is "hate" (something I don't think I've ever accused anybody of on this blog except perhaps Bp. Cawcutt with his fervent wish for JPII's death).
f) I have no power to "break" the defensiveness of Fortress Homosexuals, just as I have no power to "break" the defensiveness of Fortress Catholics. I only have the ability to point out when they are irrationally pretending that any criticism of the rot in the midst of their community is an Assault of by the Forces of Evil on All that is True and Good. This I will continue to do, from time to time, whether the irrational person is gay, a Catholic, or both.
Oh, and to the delightful interlocutor asking me to disasociate myself from Islamic female circumcision, Moloch worship and circumcision, Hindu Tantric practices and such, perhaps just a bit more familiarity with what baptism implies might be in order (Hint: I already have disassociated myself from them by being baptized). Also a quick read of Colossians and Galatians might help. The only things on your laundry list that remotely pertain to a Catholic are: "Religious masochism in the orthodox Catholic tradtion" (I'm against it) and "Use of feces as holy relics" (I've not heard of it, but I see nothing particularly immoral about it). Thanks for your input though.
Zero Tolerance Idiocy
On June 18, Sullivan issued a statement saying he had concluded that Leonard's removal from ministry was "unwarranted." The statement did not elaborate on why he had reached that conclusion. A day later, another diocesan statement said that three accusers had complained "of incidents involving back rubs, questionable conversations, immodest dress or inappropriate contact, none of which involved genital touch or activity."
David Morrison chronicles the latest use of the Policy to pervert justice.
On June 18, Sullivan issued a statement saying he had concluded that Leonard's removal from ministry was "unwarranted." The statement did not elaborate on why he had reached that conclusion. A day later, another diocesan statement said that three accusers had complained "of incidents involving back rubs, questionable conversations, immodest dress or inappropriate contact, none of which involved genital touch or activity."
David Morrison chronicles the latest use of the Policy to pervert justice.
Somebody asks:
"When you say that you find the death penalty "utterly unnecessary," does that mean that it is "necessary" to keep the criminal from harming others?"
I'm saying, "I don't think it necessary to kill the criminal to punish him adequately." Since I think mercy is preferable to execution and since I think prison security in the First World is such that a heinous criminal can be kept from doing further harm without being executed, I think we should prefer to spare the criminal's life. I am not absolutely opposed to the Death Penalty. In situations where the criminal poses an ongoing threat to innocent people, he should be executed (presuming his crime was worthy of the death penalty, of course). More on this later.
"When you say that you find the death penalty "utterly unnecessary," does that mean that it is "necessary" to keep the criminal from harming others?"
I'm saying, "I don't think it necessary to kill the criminal to punish him adequately." Since I think mercy is preferable to execution and since I think prison security in the First World is such that a heinous criminal can be kept from doing further harm without being executed, I think we should prefer to spare the criminal's life. I am not absolutely opposed to the Death Penalty. In situations where the criminal poses an ongoing threat to innocent people, he should be executed (presuming his crime was worthy of the death penalty, of course). More on this later.
A Defense of Ding Dongs
Et tu, Rod?
I'm not, really not, trying to make a case that Thomas Kinkade or the manufacturers of Ding Dongs (think of that, "manufactured food") are on the side of the True, the Good and the Beeyootiful. I'm simply pointing out (as Minute Particulars does) that the contempt and pride that undergirds the Arts Elite is basically just, well, contempt and pride and denote an insular little culture that has even less interest in and love for the Herd (as we hoi polloi are viewed) than Kinkade has. Call it my "Dickens instinct" if you like. When the great mass of ordinary people like something that is essentially harmless (chocolate box art or Dickens or fiddling about with model trains) then my first impulse is to think that withering critics like the little malignant dwarf I linked to below are the ones who are warped, stunted and truculent. I like ordinary pleasures as well as extraordinary ones, Ding Dongs as much as Dilettante Chocolates. Yes, the mass of humanity can be fools sometimes. We are all fallen and Bill Clinton was elected twice. But I tend to side with Chesterton and Dickens in thinking that the unvarnished preferences of ordinary people are usually to be preferred over the contempt of elites. Satire directed by the weak against the powerful (see Swift, Jonathan "A Modest Proposal") can indeed be a work of genius. Satire directed by the elite against the simple loves of ordinary people can be a very cruel and contemptible thing indeed.
Et tu, Rod?
I'm not, really not, trying to make a case that Thomas Kinkade or the manufacturers of Ding Dongs (think of that, "manufactured food") are on the side of the True, the Good and the Beeyootiful. I'm simply pointing out (as Minute Particulars does) that the contempt and pride that undergirds the Arts Elite is basically just, well, contempt and pride and denote an insular little culture that has even less interest in and love for the Herd (as we hoi polloi are viewed) than Kinkade has. Call it my "Dickens instinct" if you like. When the great mass of ordinary people like something that is essentially harmless (chocolate box art or Dickens or fiddling about with model trains) then my first impulse is to think that withering critics like the little malignant dwarf I linked to below are the ones who are warped, stunted and truculent. I like ordinary pleasures as well as extraordinary ones, Ding Dongs as much as Dilettante Chocolates. Yes, the mass of humanity can be fools sometimes. We are all fallen and Bill Clinton was elected twice. But I tend to side with Chesterton and Dickens in thinking that the unvarnished preferences of ordinary people are usually to be preferred over the contempt of elites. Satire directed by the weak against the powerful (see Swift, Jonathan "A Modest Proposal") can indeed be a work of genius. Satire directed by the elite against the simple loves of ordinary people can be a very cruel and contemptible thing indeed.
If you sleep-deprived WYD pilgrims need some dull heresy to catch some ZZZs by, go here
People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad . . . The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable . . . It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob . . . It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to avoid them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect. -- G K Chesterton {Orthodoxy, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1908, pp. 100-101}
People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad . . . The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable . . . It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob . . . It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to avoid them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect. -- G K Chesterton {Orthodoxy, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1908, pp. 100-101}
Speaking of which (again)....
Jody has also been writing to say "Ideas, in and of themselves, have no consequences. They have influence, they have a figurative might and in many cases a mythological truth. Actions -- speaking, writing, working, fighting -- those have consequences." So far, Samuel Schmitt seems to be the only one to voice my response to this odd expenditure of energy on Jody's part: "If ideas don't have consequences, could someone remind me why we're all here?" Jody appears to be doing a sort of poor man's Aristotle impression against what he takes be a lot of dumb Platonists. For myself, I can only say that *arguing strenuously* that ideas have no consequences is something like when members of the postmodern academy get together to present closely reasoned papers on why language has no meaning and then, at lunch, haggle with the waitress about the whether the bill is accurate.
Jody has also been writing to say "Ideas, in and of themselves, have no consequences. They have influence, they have a figurative might and in many cases a mythological truth. Actions -- speaking, writing, working, fighting -- those have consequences." So far, Samuel Schmitt seems to be the only one to voice my response to this odd expenditure of energy on Jody's part: "If ideas don't have consequences, could someone remind me why we're all here?" Jody appears to be doing a sort of poor man's Aristotle impression against what he takes be a lot of dumb Platonists. For myself, I can only say that *arguing strenuously* that ideas have no consequences is something like when members of the postmodern academy get together to present closely reasoned papers on why language has no meaning and then, at lunch, haggle with the waitress about the whether the bill is accurate.
At last Jody and I can happily agree
Jody writes in a comment below: "Is there an invisible sky god up in the air getting ticked off every time you find someone attractive and fantasize about a torrid affair involving whip cream, M & M's and day glow yarn? No. Is there an invisible cave god smoking brimstone and chuckling with maniacal glee when you go all a-ga-ga after stumbling onto the 14th annual g-string swim suit competition? No."
Just so. No "invisible sky god". No "invisible cave god". Just the real one. And his approach to such matters is much more nuanced than the caricature which you apparently carry about in your bosom based on memories from a Chick Tract you read once in 7th grade, Jody.
The wonderful thing about Jody is how often he seems to go out of his way to illustrate little observations I've made over the years. Recently, he rendered his services to illustrate my remarks on the strange affinity between Fortress Catholicism and Fortress Homosexuality. Now he chimes in to illustrate something I've long believed: Scratch an atheist, find a Fundamentalist.
Jody writes in a comment below: "Is there an invisible sky god up in the air getting ticked off every time you find someone attractive and fantasize about a torrid affair involving whip cream, M & M's and day glow yarn? No. Is there an invisible cave god smoking brimstone and chuckling with maniacal glee when you go all a-ga-ga after stumbling onto the 14th annual g-string swim suit competition? No."
Just so. No "invisible sky god". No "invisible cave god". Just the real one. And his approach to such matters is much more nuanced than the caricature which you apparently carry about in your bosom based on memories from a Chick Tract you read once in 7th grade, Jody.
The wonderful thing about Jody is how often he seems to go out of his way to illustrate little observations I've made over the years. Recently, he rendered his services to illustrate my remarks on the strange affinity between Fortress Catholicism and Fortress Homosexuality. Now he chimes in to illustrate something I've long believed: Scratch an atheist, find a Fundamentalist.
Speaking of which...
Gotta say I can't help liking Mike Hardy. As Chesterton once observed of Bernard Shaw, "He can tell no lie unless he thinks it is the truth." And so, for all his irritation at me, he springs to my defense when the delightfully over-the-top Frank Elliot writes in the comments section under "Thanks to La Paglia for her unsolicited testimonial on Fortress Homosexuality": "Morally, there is no difference between the Catholic "God Hates Fags" crowd (e.g. Mark Shea, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Bevilacqua, and Pope John Paul II) and the original protestant crowd epitomized by Fred Phelps (www.godhatesfags.com)."
Wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, I can only say "Lord bless you, Frank. That was just wonderful! Not quite vertebral enough to call me a Nazi, but still a spirited manifestation of Fortress Homosexual rhetoric." (By the way, one need not be gay to indulge in Fortress Homosexual rhetoric.) But Mike, whose spirit of fair play always prevails in the end, couldn't let it stand. Thanks Mike. You're a mensch.
Gotta say I can't help liking Mike Hardy. As Chesterton once observed of Bernard Shaw, "He can tell no lie unless he thinks it is the truth." And so, for all his irritation at me, he springs to my defense when the delightfully over-the-top Frank Elliot writes in the comments section under "Thanks to La Paglia for her unsolicited testimonial on Fortress Homosexuality": "Morally, there is no difference between the Catholic "God Hates Fags" crowd (e.g. Mark Shea, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Bevilacqua, and Pope John Paul II) and the original protestant crowd epitomized by Fred Phelps (www.godhatesfags.com)."
Wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, I can only say "Lord bless you, Frank. That was just wonderful! Not quite vertebral enough to call me a Nazi, but still a spirited manifestation of Fortress Homosexual rhetoric." (By the way, one need not be gay to indulge in Fortress Homosexual rhetoric.) But Mike, whose spirit of fair play always prevails in the end, couldn't let it stand. Thanks Mike. You're a mensch.
Yay! David Morrison has a blog!
David is a great guy. He's the author of Beyond Gay and the moderator of Courage Online. A faithful, intelligent, articulate Catholic who can speak of the trials of homosexually-oriented Catholics from experience and who uses his great gifts to advocate for faithfulness to the Tradition and to urge gay bashers (and gays who bash) to think and act in charity. For a fine example of a non-Fortress Catholic/non-Fortress Homosexual approach to the question of homosexuality and Catholic Faith, Dave's your guy.
David is a great guy. He's the author of Beyond Gay and the moderator of Courage Online. A faithful, intelligent, articulate Catholic who can speak of the trials of homosexually-oriented Catholics from experience and who uses his great gifts to advocate for faithfulness to the Tradition and to urge gay bashers (and gays who bash) to think and act in charity. For a fine example of a non-Fortress Catholic/non-Fortress Homosexual approach to the question of homosexuality and Catholic Faith, Dave's your guy.
Sunday, July 21, 2002
Cranky Professor weighs in on Thomas Kinkade
Like I say, I don't hold a brief for Kinkade. In the words of Cookie Monster, me not know art, but me know what me like. I like Kinkade. I also like Ding Dongs and I know they are not supreme examples of the culinary arts. What I find far more troubling than a harmless taste for Not Terrific Art or Food is the truly hellish pride and contempt that informs the work of the sort of people who enjoy peeing in the faces of ordinary people who find something lovely in Kinkade. Such "artists" have nothing *better* than Kinkade (indeed, they have nothing to say at all really. They are merely interested in negation.) The answer to Kinkade is good art, not satire. Satire is the first refuge of the untalented artist. Any idiot can paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Any fool can say "The masses are cattle." It's a rare person who can say (and paint) as though the masses are human beings, made in the image of God, who deserve art worthy of their awesome dignity.
Well, you don't have a link to me, but I seem to be the only blogging Catholic art historian, so I have to say something about Thomas Kinkade (painter of light (tm)).
He's bad.
Now I am the last to say that people who make money off art are bad - he's a genius. The mall stores are great. The workshop system is great. The differential pricing plan based on how much paint T.K. himself applies to the canvas goes back to the Renaissance (Van Dyke was a master of this - his base rate for portraits involved him doing the face. He had specialists for hands, flowers, velvet, satin, landscape, wood grain, etc., but if you wanted to pay extra he'd do the whole last coat of highlights himself).
However, the pictures are banal. The light in the window? Please!
O.k., o.k., you can have pictures of dogs playing POKER if you like, but just because a picture of dogs playing poker looks like your mental image of dogs playing poker doesn't make it good art. In fact, mere representation is not particularly good.
Oh, well. I'll rant elsewhere. Hope your boyscout weekend went well.
(omigosh - don't get me started on working his wife's initials and a WWJD into every picture!)
Like I say, I don't hold a brief for Kinkade. In the words of Cookie Monster, me not know art, but me know what me like. I like Kinkade. I also like Ding Dongs and I know they are not supreme examples of the culinary arts. What I find far more troubling than a harmless taste for Not Terrific Art or Food is the truly hellish pride and contempt that informs the work of the sort of people who enjoy peeing in the faces of ordinary people who find something lovely in Kinkade. Such "artists" have nothing *better* than Kinkade (indeed, they have nothing to say at all really. They are merely interested in negation.) The answer to Kinkade is good art, not satire. Satire is the first refuge of the untalented artist. Any idiot can paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Any fool can say "The masses are cattle." It's a rare person who can say (and paint) as though the masses are human beings, made in the image of God, who deserve art worthy of their awesome dignity.
A reader sez:
He's not just woofin'. Over at Catholic Exchange, I've carried on a conversation with an Iranian student who hates the regime and who is very interested in learning more about Christianity. This student (I can't reveal many details for obvious reasons) request I send along as much info as I could and (get this) said that all the student (and teachers) at the student's school were eager to read it too. I continue to wonder how well Islam as a whole will survive when it doesn't have the benefit of a despotic state mandating its observance and forbidding all other religions to speak. I strongly suspect a lot of it will collapse like a house of cards.
Having had the privilege of knowing many Iranians, I have a soft spot for their culture, especially that which has not been corrupted by the excesses of Islam. Not many people know this, but this is the country that has arguably produced some of the world's greatest poets (Hafez, Sadi), pre-Christian religious reformers (Zarathustra), and wine (Shiraz). What's more, I think it is a culture that is ripe for evangelization. I know two Iranian Christians - one Catholic and one Evangelical - who are absolute models of what a Christian should be.
With that in mind, I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that many sources are saying that the present Iranian regime is on the edge of collapse. We, as Americans and Christians, should therefore be prepared to offer spiritual, financial, and moral support to our brothers in Iran, and think about how we eventually we can proclaim the Gospel there when the opportunity to do so arises.
He's not just woofin'. Over at Catholic Exchange, I've carried on a conversation with an Iranian student who hates the regime and who is very interested in learning more about Christianity. This student (I can't reveal many details for obvious reasons) request I send along as much info as I could and (get this) said that all the student (and teachers) at the student's school were eager to read it too. I continue to wonder how well Islam as a whole will survive when it doesn't have the benefit of a despotic state mandating its observance and forbidding all other religions to speak. I strongly suspect a lot of it will collapse like a house of cards.
Wow! Literary clout!
The other day I raved about The Supper of the Lamb and urged you folks to read it. Today I see that my Svengali-like powers have persuaded Rod Dreher to not only read it but quote it on the Corner! Toldja it's great! Now... about my books... You're getting sleeeeeepy...
The other day I raved about The Supper of the Lamb and urged you folks to read it. Today I see that my Svengali-like powers have persuaded Rod Dreher to not only read it but quote it on the Corner! Toldja it's great! Now... about my books... You're getting sleeeeeepy...
From the "Put your Money where your Mouth is" Department
Wanna do something to bring the gospel to the Arab world? Support TeleLumiere. Supervised by the Assembly of Catholic Patriarchs and Bishops in Lebanon, it is the first and only Christian television in Lebanon and the entire Middle East.
Wanna do something to bring the gospel to the Arab world? Support TeleLumiere. Supervised by the Assembly of Catholic Patriarchs and Bishops in Lebanon, it is the first and only Christian television in Lebanon and the entire Middle East.
A reader cc's me with the following letter to the Diocese of Cleveland:
Personally, I've always thought it peculiar to seize on the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins as your motto. Perhaps, in addition to "Gay Pride" we can have "Full Gospel Businessman Avarice" or "Singles Lust" or "Knights of Labor Sloth" or "Overeaters Anonymous Gluttony"?
The Catholic Church has always taught, and still teaches, that homosexual acts are always grave sins, and that persons with homosexual tendencies are to be loved but helped to overcome their disordered inclinations and taught to lead chaste lives (we are all obliged to lead chaste lives). For the Cleveland Diocese to display the "Gay Pride" rainbow triangle sends a message that homosexuality is something to be proud of.
The excuse, so far, for leaving it on the website, despite numerous complaints, is that the diocese offers a homosexual ministry. I am sure that the diocese also has programs in place for alcoholics; I do not see any "alcoholic pride" symbols on the website. As long as the diocese retains such a politically charged symbol on its website, it is sending the wrong type of message. Why not a cross, or the word COURAGE, or a saint known for purity to represent the ministry. We all have weaknesses and shortcomings. I cannot understand why anyone with such a complex disorder, who seeks to live a chaste life according to the will of Christ, would be proud to display his weakness with such a symbol. It would be insulting to me. Like an alcoholic choosing a tipsy Irishman for a logo or mascott. Those who embrace this symbol are those who do not wish to change themselves, but rather, to change the Church's views on this matter (and to change our civil laws, as well). Christ asks us to deny ourselves, not his teachings. I urge those at the diocese to BE FIRM in your defense of the Faith. There are already too many organizations out there who are tempting us to embrace "tolerance" of evil actions.
Personally, I've always thought it peculiar to seize on the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins as your motto. Perhaps, in addition to "Gay Pride" we can have "Full Gospel Businessman Avarice" or "Singles Lust" or "Knights of Labor Sloth" or "Overeaters Anonymous Gluttony"?
More Earthy Crunchy
Speaking of Tolkien and Lewis (and pretty much anybody from the Western Tradition) when did poetry become the exclusive province of buttercup twirlers and ne'er do well dilettantes and the subject of snickers from Gradgrind conservatives? Poetry has sustained men going to valiant death in battle and held countless bodies and souls together, as well as sustaining ordinary people like daily bread. It has given to us words to express what the Wall Street Journal or the Limbaugh Letter or (pardon Rod) National Review could not come within light years of speaking. So why has it received such studied neglect from people who are serious about conserving the best of the human race?
It is, I think, extremely significant that there was such an outburst of poetry after 9/11 among Americans. There are emotional heights and depths which only poetry or music can reach. If you are serious about preserving the human legacy reflect for a moment on the fact that the earliest writings we have are poetic. Poetry is not a "development" from prose. It is the other way round. Music is a sort of cooled version of the molten joy of trinitarian ecstasy that made the world. Poetry is language attempting to be music and prose is at its best, only ossified poetry.
And another thing: not all poetry has to be grim and serious. Here for example is US Poet Laureate (yes, we have one) Billy Collins' delightful "Forgetfulness".
Speaking of Tolkien and Lewis (and pretty much anybody from the Western Tradition) when did poetry become the exclusive province of buttercup twirlers and ne'er do well dilettantes and the subject of snickers from Gradgrind conservatives? Poetry has sustained men going to valiant death in battle and held countless bodies and souls together, as well as sustaining ordinary people like daily bread. It has given to us words to express what the Wall Street Journal or the Limbaugh Letter or (pardon Rod) National Review could not come within light years of speaking. So why has it received such studied neglect from people who are serious about conserving the best of the human race?
It is, I think, extremely significant that there was such an outburst of poetry after 9/11 among Americans. There are emotional heights and depths which only poetry or music can reach. If you are serious about preserving the human legacy reflect for a moment on the fact that the earliest writings we have are poetic. Poetry is not a "development" from prose. It is the other way round. Music is a sort of cooled version of the molten joy of trinitarian ecstasy that made the world. Poetry is language attempting to be music and prose is at its best, only ossified poetry.
And another thing: not all poetry has to be grim and serious. Here for example is US Poet Laureate (yes, we have one) Billy Collins' delightful "Forgetfulness".
Friday, July 19, 2002
War of the Rose, Part Deux
Rod Dreher replies to Tom Hoopes:
Just a note to all combatants. I'm going to be gone for the weekend soon. Feel free to send me more stuff, but it may not get posted till Monday.
Rod Dreher replies to Tom Hoopes:
Hoopes:First of all, on Rose: re-read the section on Father Taillon. The relevant section of Michael Rose's book first tells about priests who do adoration for vocations and their successes. Rose should mention Father Taillon as one (his weekly adoration for vocations is increasing seminarian numbers at Providence), but he doesn't. Instead he turns to contrast the good guys with the bad dioceses that fail to get vocations because they use slick marketing tactics and reject orthodoxy. He includes Father Taillon in this latter category, then adds "Catholics wonder if the [Providence] diocese is trying to attract 'unchurched' men that they can mold easily into their 'reenvisioned' image of the priest." Then he quotes an anonymous source who characterizes the Providence seminary as a place hostile to orthodox seminarians (the opposite is true). This silly claim that the Register is jumping all over Rose for a paragraph about MTV ignores the argument that Rose actually makes in the book.
Dreher: Boy, that's weak. Fr. Taillon and his MTV ad campaign are mentioned as but one example of what Rose calls "gimmicks" meant to attract young men to the seminary. The commentary about the campaign takes up all of four paragraphs in the book. Taillon's name occurs exactly twice in those paragraphs, both introducing quotes he gave to the Providence Visitor explaining why he thought it was a good idea to advertise on MTV. Rose is not writing an evaluation of the overall efforts of Fr. Taillon, only bringing up the MTV campaign as an example of a gimmick. Which it most certainly is. If I were to write a critique of the State Department's Visa Express program as being ineffective in the war on terror, would I be obligated to list things the State Department does that are effective? Of course not - unless the point of my story was to evaluate the overall role of the agency in the war on terror. Anyway, if Fr. Taillon spent hours daily in front of the Blessed Sacrament praying for vocations, he'd be eminently praiseworthy, at the very least - and his MTV campaign would still be an embarrassing gimmick.
As to criticizing Rose for using an anonymous source, he has been very clear why he had to do that in many cases: retaliation against these young men by their ecclesiastical superiors. Besides, the Register quotes sources anonymously in sensitive cases. It's opportunistic, and indeed hypocritical, to blast Rose for doing something you rightly allow in your own newspaper.
You still have not explained, Tom, why you let David Pearson get away with writing as if Michael Rose were responsible for somebody else's anti-Taillon letter to the editor of New Oxford Review. Probably because it's journalistically indefensible.
Hoopes: Second, I had to laugh at the "mustn't upset the bishops" line. In The Corner Dreher recently criticized the Register for being TOO critical of Frank Keating and the bishops' policy. Mustn't upset the bishops?
Dreher: You're right, I don't know why you've come down so hard and unfairly on Michael Rose. Nor do I know why the Register was so late to the scandal. I withdraw my speculation. You're claiming that the Register was turned against "Goodbye, Good Men" by reports that good priests were maligned by the book without giving them a chance to defend themselves. I wonder, though, if Fr. Taillon's situation is your idea of a good example of this. If Pearson's article is the best you guys can do, I remain profoundly unpersuaded.
Hoopes: Rod, I know you're in a tough position, with your name on the front of the book and all, but we should all be trying to help the Church here - together.
Dreher: I'm not in a tough position at all. I had no idea when I endorsed the book that they were going to put my name on the cover, and I don't feel that my confidence in the book was misplaced. I'm responding because I'm alarmed to see elements of the orthodox Catholic press nitpicking a tremendously important book to death - and doing so most unjustly.
Just a note to all combatants. I'm going to be gone for the weekend soon. Feel free to send me more stuff, but it may not get posted till Monday.
Hmmm... No time to Irritate the Death Penalty Guys Today
I'll do it next week. Soon, I'm taking off to spend the night at the Boy Scout shindig on Fire Mountain with my guys. Big fun! While I'm gone, you kids don't put no beans up your noses!
Oh, and buy my books and tapes. They will immensely improve everything about your life, add sheen and bounce to your dull, lifeless hair, and fill you with that ineffable sense of well-being normally caused by endorphins.
I'll do it next week. Soon, I'm taking off to spend the night at the Boy Scout shindig on Fire Mountain with my guys. Big fun! While I'm gone, you kids don't put no beans up your noses!
Oh, and buy my books and tapes. They will immensely improve everything about your life, add sheen and bounce to your dull, lifeless hair, and fill you with that ineffable sense of well-being normally caused by endorphins.
Thanks to La Paglia for her unsolicited testimonial on Fortress Homosexuality
It's real guys. Deal with it. (By the way, "Fortress Homosexuality" has a much more evocative iron ring to it than "reactionary insularity", wouldn't you agree? However, "gay Stalinism" is definitely a memorable phrase. And so very true so often!)
It's real guys. Deal with it. (By the way, "Fortress Homosexuality" has a much more evocative iron ring to it than "reactionary insularity", wouldn't you agree? However, "gay Stalinism" is definitely a memorable phrase. And so very true so often!)
Did you know all this stuff about Phyllis Schlafly?
I didn't. I always sort of thought of her as a politically active Erma Bombeck without the sense of humor. Thanks to gleeful bomb-thrower Ann Coulter for exploding another myth.
I didn't. I always sort of thought of her as a politically active Erma Bombeck without the sense of humor. Thanks to gleeful bomb-thrower Ann Coulter for exploding another myth.
Hope for All you Folks Rushing off to Marry a Wiccan
St. Monica's husband Patricius eventually converted:
This fruit of her prayers, of her long-suffering, and of her
steadfast application of the Gospel precepts took a long time
to mature. It was only after sixteen years that Patricius was
baptized. Nor did Monica enjoy for long her husband's company
at the Lord's Supper, for he died only a year later, in 371.
Nevertheless, her aim had been to sanctify her husband for
eternal life, and, by the Grace of God, this she had achieved.
It remained for her to extricate her wayward son from the delusion
of the passions and from the Manichean heresy. This required
another fourteen years of persistent prayer. When at last his
heart, too, was converted, her joy was complete.
However, before you try this at home folks, you might make sure you are a saint.
St. Monica's husband Patricius eventually converted:
This fruit of her prayers, of her long-suffering, and of her
steadfast application of the Gospel precepts took a long time
to mature. It was only after sixteen years that Patricius was
baptized. Nor did Monica enjoy for long her husband's company
at the Lord's Supper, for he died only a year later, in 371.
Nevertheless, her aim had been to sanctify her husband for
eternal life, and, by the Grace of God, this she had achieved.
It remained for her to extricate her wayward son from the delusion
of the passions and from the Manichean heresy. This required
another fourteen years of persistent prayer. When at last his
heart, too, was converted, her joy was complete.
However, before you try this at home folks, you might make sure you are a saint.
The War of the Rose Continues...
Tom Hoopes, editor of National Catholic Register, writes in response to Rod Dreher's remarks here yesterday:
Tom Hoopes, editor of National Catholic Register, writes in response to Rod Dreher's remarks here yesterday:
First of all, on Rose: re-read the section on Father Taillon. The relevant section of Michael Rose's book first tells about priests who do adoration for vocations and their successes. Rose should mention Father Taillon as one (his weekly adoration for vocations is increasing seminarian numbers at Providence), but he doesn't. Instead he turns to contrast the good guys with the bad dioceses that fail to get vocations because they use slick marketing tactics and reject orthodoxy. He includes Father Taillon in this latter category, then adds "Catholics wonder if the [Providence] diocese is trying to attract 'unchurched' men that they can mold easily into their 'reenvisioned' image of the priest." Then he quotes an anonymous source who characterizes the Providence seminary as a place hostile to orthodox seminarians (the opposite is true). This silly claim that the Register is jumping all over Rose for a paragraph about MTV ignores the argument that Rose actually makes in the book.
Second, I had to laugh at the "mustn't upset the bishops" line. In The Corner Dreher recently criticized the Register for being TOO critical of Frank Keating and the bishops' policy. Mustn't upset the bishops?
Last, I think we're in heated agreement on the troubles in the seminaries. We at the Register were glad when Michael Rose's book came out. From the beginning, we supported it. We echoed its premise in a news story (a story which cited it approvingly) about deep problems in the seminaries. We advertised it. But then we started seeing the reports that good priests were maligned in the book, without having even been given a phone call to defend themselves. (A phone call would have discovered weekly Eucharistic adoration for vocations at Providence, no "re-envisioned" understanding of the priesthood, and the truth about the seminarian who was rejected.) As they used to teach in Catholic seminaries, the end doesn't justify the means.
Rod, I know you're in a tough position, with your name on the front of the book and all, but we should all be trying to help the Church here -- together.
My Last Post to Fortress Homosexuals for the Nonce
Gosh! In addition to the War of the Rose, my comments boxes have been aflame with passionate non sequiturs and desperate distractions from the grotesque business at the MC Church. Mike, generally the more civil of the Mike 'n Jody show, has been largely answered, though I did want to note two last things.
First: the "Hey! It's just one MC Church!" thing will carry more weight with me when somebody produces a statement from the other MC Churches saying, "Ick!" I suspect such a statement will be a long time coming.
Second: the "it's this particular article" thing will likewise carry more weight with me when said statement is issued by the MCC. The activities documented in the article are, oh, what's the word I'm looking for? "True." They go on under the banner of the MCC and the MCC churches have not, so far as I know, disassociated themselves from them or condemned them. Which is my whole point. Fortress Homosexuality tends rather to attack critics of this stuff than the stuff itself. Yes, Jody, I'm aware that homosexuals are not all alike. Duh. Still the culture has a particular shape and smell, and gays who dare to break from that mold to criticize it are often treated quite brutally. Just ask Andrew Sullivan. Or the gay woman in Boston who was one of the first to smell a rat with Paul Shanley and who was pressured by Fortress Catholics *and* Fortress Homosexuals to shut up.
As to Jody: Thanks for the newsflash. Homosexuals are not a Church and Andrew Sullivan is not your Pope. Nice rhetorical squib, flashy and content-free. Um, I know this. However, in case you didn't notice, the MCC is a church and its theology is therefore of interest to a blog that dwells with inordinate fascination on things like "theology". To attack that theology, its practitioners and its ardent apologists and see-no-evil fellow travelers is, well, just part of what I do. I do so because the Fortress Mentality of so many in the gay community (such as Jody) smells just as bad as the Fortress Mentality in my communinon.
In short, it's the Fortress Mentality I oppose and that is what I was lampooning in my piece. Your Fortress response, Jody, was a helpful bit of frosting on the cake. Thanks.
And now, farewell to all that for a while. I must go irritate the Death Penalty advocates next.
Gosh! In addition to the War of the Rose, my comments boxes have been aflame with passionate non sequiturs and desperate distractions from the grotesque business at the MC Church. Mike, generally the more civil of the Mike 'n Jody show, has been largely answered, though I did want to note two last things.
First: the "Hey! It's just one MC Church!" thing will carry more weight with me when somebody produces a statement from the other MC Churches saying, "Ick!" I suspect such a statement will be a long time coming.
Second: the "it's this particular article" thing will likewise carry more weight with me when said statement is issued by the MCC. The activities documented in the article are, oh, what's the word I'm looking for? "True." They go on under the banner of the MCC and the MCC churches have not, so far as I know, disassociated themselves from them or condemned them. Which is my whole point. Fortress Homosexuality tends rather to attack critics of this stuff than the stuff itself. Yes, Jody, I'm aware that homosexuals are not all alike. Duh. Still the culture has a particular shape and smell, and gays who dare to break from that mold to criticize it are often treated quite brutally. Just ask Andrew Sullivan. Or the gay woman in Boston who was one of the first to smell a rat with Paul Shanley and who was pressured by Fortress Catholics *and* Fortress Homosexuals to shut up.
As to Jody: Thanks for the newsflash. Homosexuals are not a Church and Andrew Sullivan is not your Pope. Nice rhetorical squib, flashy and content-free. Um, I know this. However, in case you didn't notice, the MCC is a church and its theology is therefore of interest to a blog that dwells with inordinate fascination on things like "theology". To attack that theology, its practitioners and its ardent apologists and see-no-evil fellow travelers is, well, just part of what I do. I do so because the Fortress Mentality of so many in the gay community (such as Jody) smells just as bad as the Fortress Mentality in my communinon.
In short, it's the Fortress Mentality I oppose and that is what I was lampooning in my piece. Your Fortress response, Jody, was a helpful bit of frosting on the cake. Thanks.
And now, farewell to all that for a while. I must go irritate the Death Penalty advocates next.
Thursday, July 18, 2002
With machine-like predictability, Mike Hardy and Jody write to Shoot the Messenger
They complain about the link I posted to the exciting activities available at the Gay Church in the comments section. Jody asks, "And you think some heterosexuals don't do this?"
Um, no. I think that it is rather rare for churches to devote their theology and time to saying this is all just ducky--even for heterosexuals. Churches which do attempt to normalize this under the mandate of the gospel (and make no mistake, MCC's whole mission revolves around saying "This is all what Christ approves of") are, not to put too fine a point on it, full of shit. In the Catholic communion, there exists at least a Tradition which can speak to aberrant freakish pastors and say, "You're full of shit." In the MCC, there's nothing but do-it-yerself theologians tickling people's ears and platoons of people ready to affirm everybody in their okayness and attack as homophobic anybody (such as me) who says "What you are doing is bullshit". I will feel more confident about the gay community's self-regulatory capabilities when the first instinct of guys like Jody and Mike is not to shoot the messenger, but to write the MCC and question the wisdom of their little workshops. It isn't just Honduran bishops whose first instinct is to close ranks and pretend that the problem is those who dare to criticize them. The gay community is filled with past masters of the Fortress mentality.
They complain about the link I posted to the exciting activities available at the Gay Church in the comments section. Jody asks, "And you think some heterosexuals don't do this?"
Um, no. I think that it is rather rare for churches to devote their theology and time to saying this is all just ducky--even for heterosexuals. Churches which do attempt to normalize this under the mandate of the gospel (and make no mistake, MCC's whole mission revolves around saying "This is all what Christ approves of") are, not to put too fine a point on it, full of shit. In the Catholic communion, there exists at least a Tradition which can speak to aberrant freakish pastors and say, "You're full of shit." In the MCC, there's nothing but do-it-yerself theologians tickling people's ears and platoons of people ready to affirm everybody in their okayness and attack as homophobic anybody (such as me) who says "What you are doing is bullshit". I will feel more confident about the gay community's self-regulatory capabilities when the first instinct of guys like Jody and Mike is not to shoot the messenger, but to write the MCC and question the wisdom of their little workshops. It isn't just Honduran bishops whose first instinct is to close ranks and pretend that the problem is those who dare to criticize them. The gay community is filled with past masters of the Fortress mentality.
Have I mentioned how much I am coming to hate Blogger?
It is getting to be impossible to post anything!
It is getting to be impossible to post anything!
Everything in the Gay Christian Community is Juuuuuust Fiiiiiine
No. Really.
The article does clear up, however, the strange habit that so many in the Arts Elite crowd have of peeing in the faces of ordinary people:
Thanks. But a handshake or a pat on the back is really a sufficient form of greeting for me.
No. Really.
The article does clear up, however, the strange habit that so many in the Arts Elite crowd have of peeing in the faces of ordinary people:
Monday, July 3, 2000, in the church hall was a workshop on "watersports." Watersports, for those of you who don't know, is the perverted act some homosexuals practice by urinating on one another, among other things, and getting their thrills.
Thanks. But a handshake or a pat on the back is really a sufficient form of greeting for me.
Curious story on Thomas Kinkade art
What strikes me (once again) is the curious need of the Art Elite Crowd to pee in the faces of ordinary people. Fine. So Kinkade is not Great Art. What is helped by the juvenile who has to stick tanks, snipers, and naked women (not nudes, naked women) into his little parodies? (Oh, and don't miss his blowing of snot upon Kinkade, the heros of 9/11 and, well, pretty much everybody.) Don't tell me, people have to "wake up" to the fact we live in a violent, sexually exploitive world. Thanks for the news flash, bud. Hope you're enjoying your sophomore year in high school.
Here's an idea for the Art Elite Crowd. If you think the Herd is ill-served by Bad Art, why not create Good Art? Why pee in the faces of the people you claim to want to rescue from Bad Art? One gets the impression you don't really care about us hoi polloi all that much.
What strikes me (once again) is the curious need of the Art Elite Crowd to pee in the faces of ordinary people. Fine. So Kinkade is not Great Art. What is helped by the juvenile who has to stick tanks, snipers, and naked women (not nudes, naked women) into his little parodies? (Oh, and don't miss his blowing of snot upon Kinkade, the heros of 9/11 and, well, pretty much everybody.) Don't tell me, people have to "wake up" to the fact we live in a violent, sexually exploitive world. Thanks for the news flash, bud. Hope you're enjoying your sophomore year in high school.
Here's an idea for the Art Elite Crowd. If you think the Herd is ill-served by Bad Art, why not create Good Art? Why pee in the faces of the people you claim to want to rescue from Bad Art? One gets the impression you don't really care about us hoi polloi all that much.
The Cheapness of Granola Conservatism
A reader (who re-lapsed back to Catholicism partially through Tolkien, the Distributivists and the Caelum et Terra folks) writes from across the Pond:
One glitch in the conservative cultural paradigm that has received quite a bit of neglect is that two giants in the conservative pantheon (Tolkien and C.S. Lewis) had a view of the sacredness of creation which was, sacramental and Christian and completely unpagan and which deeply distrusted the "there it is boys, takes as much as you want" materialism which sees Nature as one vast warehouse of raw materials. This early, healthy, and profoundly Christian apprehension has, of course, been bowdlerized by the pagan eco-spirituality crowd (which sees nature, not as a sacrament, but as a goddess). However, in reaction to this, most conservatives have adopted a mentality which does not distinguish between a sacramental approach to nature and a pagan one. They're all just a bunch of damn tree huggers. Lewis, Tolkien and other point a very different way. One which restores Nature to her place as our sister, not our Mother, and which is as hostile to the denigration of nature as to its worship. Sooner or later, serious conservatives are going to have to go back and take a look at Tolkien's attitude to trees (and their attitude toward us in his fiction) and Lewis' attitude to vivisection. They are definitely not PETA or Earth First types. But neither would they be thrilled with Rush Limbaugh. Yet conservatives adore them both. Time to stop compartmentalizing here and deal with their sacramental attitude toward nature. It will only make conservatism healthier by giving it a less reactionary and more intelligent view of conservation that isn't simply defined by opposition to the lunatics of the Left.
A reader (who re-lapsed back to Catholicism partially through Tolkien, the Distributivists and the Caelum et Terra folks) writes from across the Pond:
I have been bulk-buying organic grains/beans/etc, buying my veg through an organic box scheme, buying organic meat in bulk and freezing it, cooking almost entirely from scratch including bread, jam, soft cheese, etc (I even grind my own flour), brewing all beer and wine, even doing some wild food gathering, etc. for the past several years while living in a first-floor flat in London.
I kept records of how much cash I spent before I started doing this, and have been keeping records since. I also have checked statistics on how much the average person in the UK spends on food per year. I can assure you that even with organic meat (though not steaks every night), this style of buying, cooking and eating is *much* less expensive than the typical UK diet. Current per person expenditure is about £18 per person per week, or just under £1000 per year (and most of the people I know spend far more - I see my coworkers spending £4-5 on lunch alone most days). On my plan, I consider £1000/year *ample* for excellent organic food for *two adults*, and could probably still manage three good meals a day (though I'd cut out the meat) on £250 per person per year.
If anyone says that being crunchy is fine for those who can afford it, you have my guarantee that they have no idea what they are talking about.
One glitch in the conservative cultural paradigm that has received quite a bit of neglect is that two giants in the conservative pantheon (Tolkien and C.S. Lewis) had a view of the sacredness of creation which was, sacramental and Christian and completely unpagan and which deeply distrusted the "there it is boys, takes as much as you want" materialism which sees Nature as one vast warehouse of raw materials. This early, healthy, and profoundly Christian apprehension has, of course, been bowdlerized by the pagan eco-spirituality crowd (which sees nature, not as a sacrament, but as a goddess). However, in reaction to this, most conservatives have adopted a mentality which does not distinguish between a sacramental approach to nature and a pagan one. They're all just a bunch of damn tree huggers. Lewis, Tolkien and other point a very different way. One which restores Nature to her place as our sister, not our Mother, and which is as hostile to the denigration of nature as to its worship. Sooner or later, serious conservatives are going to have to go back and take a look at Tolkien's attitude to trees (and their attitude toward us in his fiction) and Lewis' attitude to vivisection. They are definitely not PETA or Earth First types. But neither would they be thrilled with Rush Limbaugh. Yet conservatives adore them both. Time to stop compartmentalizing here and deal with their sacramental attitude toward nature. It will only make conservatism healthier by giving it a less reactionary and more intelligent view of conservation that isn't simply defined by opposition to the lunatics of the Left.
The Martyrdom of St. Me by Reginald Cawcutt
"I came from a very simple horse racing family and was not given to academics like many others. I tried to be close to all of God’s people -and certainly no one prepared me to face the intrigues of people who misjudge and those who cannot see that truth is not the thing one sees at face value."
"I came from a very simple horse racing family and was not given to academics like many others. I tried to be close to all of God’s people -and certainly no one prepared me to face the intrigues of people who misjudge and those who cannot see that truth is not the thing one sees at face value."
Rod wants to know if it's really true that a Catholic can marry a Wiccan
Yep. As our pals Greg Popcak and Pete Vere make clear, from the Church's perspective it's just another mixed marriage provided the canonical ducks are in a row. It is worth noting that St. Monica was married to a pagan too and her kid turned out okay (and her husband eventually converted, if memory serves). Still, it's not what I would recommend for the reasons Greg and Pete give, but it certainly doesn't mean the Church in Wheeling is off its rocker in allowing it in theory.
Yep. As our pals Greg Popcak and Pete Vere make clear, from the Church's perspective it's just another mixed marriage provided the canonical ducks are in a row. It is worth noting that St. Monica was married to a pagan too and her kid turned out okay (and her husband eventually converted, if memory serves). Still, it's not what I would recommend for the reasons Greg and Pete give, but it certainly doesn't mean the Church in Wheeling is off its rocker in allowing it in theory.
Wednesday, July 17, 2002
More Good News!
AwRIGHT! Good news for all you visiting Stimpsonites who like good books, for all you earthy crunchy conservative Dreherites who believe eating is supposed to be splendid and not merely "nutritional", and for all you Catholic theological types. Heck! This is good news for anybody who likes to eat. Robert Farrar Capon's magnificent book The Supper of the Lamb is back in print. I'm serious people. If you want to read one of the best books written in the last half century, a rollickingly well-written, theologically profound, and breathlessly energetic reflection on the doctrine of Creation ingeniously wrapped up in a genyoowine cookbook, then this is the book. It goes on my roster of one of the ten best books I've ever read. Drop everything and read it.
AwRIGHT! Good news for all you visiting Stimpsonites who like good books, for all you earthy crunchy conservative Dreherites who believe eating is supposed to be splendid and not merely "nutritional", and for all you Catholic theological types. Heck! This is good news for anybody who likes to eat. Robert Farrar Capon's magnificent book The Supper of the Lamb is back in print. I'm serious people. If you want to read one of the best books written in the last half century, a rollickingly well-written, theologically profound, and breathlessly energetic reflection on the doctrine of Creation ingeniously wrapped up in a genyoowine cookbook, then this is the book. It goes on my roster of one of the ten best books I've ever read. Drop everything and read it.
Why Michael Rose Gives Me the Willies
Yesterday A Saintly Salmagundi (a blog I heartily recommend, by the by) published yet another tirade by Rose against yet another article critical of Goodbye, Good Men. (For some reason, the piece is now gone from the site). What bothers me and sets off my alarm beepers is simply the frequency and tenacity with which I see Rose going after everybody who dares to speak a word against his book. He went after Fr. Rob Johansen's (to me, at least) rather sensible critiques (and called in several other people to heap ad hominem upon Johansen). He's gone after another acquaintance of mine. Now he's blasting OSV. Dunno if he's gone after the Register yet.
What bothers me is the peculiar disproportionality of the defensiveness. Most of the reviews I've seen have been from people who freely grant the basic complaint of the book: that there is a lavender mafia at work in the administrative and educational structures of the Church and that a culture of contempt for chastity and orthodoxy is seriously endangering vocations. Yet when legitimate criticisms are made about the highly questionable methodology of the book, Rose is... "graceless" may be the word I'm searching for. It's like the book is more important than the problem it purports to seek to correct.
Anyway, it bothers me. I'm finding him difficult to trust.
Yesterday A Saintly Salmagundi (a blog I heartily recommend, by the by) published yet another tirade by Rose against yet another article critical of Goodbye, Good Men. (For some reason, the piece is now gone from the site). What bothers me and sets off my alarm beepers is simply the frequency and tenacity with which I see Rose going after everybody who dares to speak a word against his book. He went after Fr. Rob Johansen's (to me, at least) rather sensible critiques (and called in several other people to heap ad hominem upon Johansen). He's gone after another acquaintance of mine. Now he's blasting OSV. Dunno if he's gone after the Register yet.
What bothers me is the peculiar disproportionality of the defensiveness. Most of the reviews I've seen have been from people who freely grant the basic complaint of the book: that there is a lavender mafia at work in the administrative and educational structures of the Church and that a culture of contempt for chastity and orthodoxy is seriously endangering vocations. Yet when legitimate criticisms are made about the highly questionable methodology of the book, Rose is... "graceless" may be the word I'm searching for. It's like the book is more important than the problem it purports to seek to correct.
Anyway, it bothers me. I'm finding him difficult to trust.
Mark Cameron is Back!
After a month-long hiatus from blogging, he's posted several magna opera on same sex marriages in Ontario, the coming same sex schism in the Anglican Church, and is nominating German economist Wilhelm Roepke as a poster child for Rod Dreher's "granola conservatives."
After a month-long hiatus from blogging, he's posted several magna opera on same sex marriages in Ontario, the coming same sex schism in the Anglican Church, and is nominating German economist Wilhelm Roepke as a poster child for Rod Dreher's "granola conservatives."
To Those Two People Emily Stimpson Mentioned I say What I say to All
Don't forget my other gripping books and tapes!
And if you want a terrific speaker who will make you learn about the Faith when you just thought you were laughing, then consider my wife's husband. (Shameless plug mode off)
Don't forget my other gripping books and tapes!
And if you want a terrific speaker who will make you learn about the Faith when you just thought you were laughing, then consider my wife's husband. (Shameless plug mode off)
A reader sent this link to Charles Murtaugh's blog
My reader remarks, "Between the cult of the frontal lobe, redesigning humans, and living eternally, how do the scientists find the time to be so cool and avoid the temptations of hubris, fanaticism, pride, envy, jealousy, featherbedding and hate. O that's right they're scientists and are immune from the vices of religion. I can sleep sounder now."
You mean Richard Dawkins is a shallow booby when he's not talking about the breeding habits of wasps? Great! Now I won't be able to sleep tonight.
My reader remarks, "Between the cult of the frontal lobe, redesigning humans, and living eternally, how do the scientists find the time to be so cool and avoid the temptations of hubris, fanaticism, pride, envy, jealousy, featherbedding and hate. O that's right they're scientists and are immune from the vices of religion. I can sleep sounder now."
You mean Richard Dawkins is a shallow booby when he's not talking about the breeding habits of wasps? Great! Now I won't be able to sleep tonight.
Norwegian Blogger on Modernity's Room Temperature Theism
"The problem is that faith today is a combination of X-Files and laziness. They know that there's something out there, but they are too lazy to go out and see what it is."
"The problem is that faith today is a combination of X-Files and laziness. They know that there's something out there, but they are too lazy to go out and see what it is."
Interesting piece on the costs of Presbyterianizing Catholic governance... from a Presby perspective
which is why it won't happen. Reforms come from within and are an organic growth. They don't come by suddenly grafting on a patch ripped from another tradition.
which is why it won't happen. Reforms come from within and are an organic growth. They don't come by suddenly grafting on a patch ripped from another tradition.
A reader writes concerning the distinction between the Church of Mary and the Church of Peter:
Answer: Yes.
Given this distinction, when people say that "no matter what, the Church will survive" or "God's hand is on the Church" etc., WHICH church is that...the Church of Mary or the Church of Peter?
Answer: Yes.
Kudos to Domenico Bettinelli's friend for this exquisite fillet of Bp. Galante's mendacity and the "Working-to-Rape-You-Less" efforts of what Bp. Bruskewitz calls "this hapless bench of bishops"
Favorite quote: "To say the archdiocese [of Boston] "pioneered" zero-tolerance is like saying Louis XVI pioneered the guillotine as a device for detaching oneself from the cares of monarchy."
Favorite quote: "To say the archdiocese [of Boston] "pioneered" zero-tolerance is like saying Louis XVI pioneered the guillotine as a device for detaching oneself from the cares of monarchy."
Yay! Let the Enema Continue!
Another miscreant bishop has gone. Bp. Reginald "St. Sebastian's Angels/I hope JPII dies" Cawcutt's career has bitten the ecclesial dust. May this death lead him to repentance and eternal life.
Another miscreant bishop has gone. Bp. Reginald "St. Sebastian's Angels/I hope JPII dies" Cawcutt's career has bitten the ecclesial dust. May this death lead him to repentance and eternal life.
More from Rod Dreher on Earthy Crunchy Conservatism
He writes:
I wonder if this is a good time for me to say that, in addition to all my other non-ideological idiosyncrasies, I also like the Indigo Girls and Bruce Cockburn? Oh what the hell. I do! And none of you conservatives can deny me this forbidden love! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
He writes:
Amazed by the nerve this has struck in people! I'm thinking about the negative reaction of some who have said this kind of lifestyle is only possible if you have the money to afford it. In terms of housing, I'd say that's true in most places. But in terms of food, I'd say it's probably less true than people think. Some people I meet have this idea that because I work for a national magazine in New York City, I must be rolling in cash. If they only knew!
For one, I'm a journalist for a political magazine, a surefire way not to get rich. For another, I'm the only breadwinner in our family; my wife is a full-time mother and homemaker. We live pretty close to the margins financially, but that's a sacrifice we want to make for the greater good of our son, and our family.
Along those lines, Julie and I were talking last night about whether or not the food we eat is more expensive, or significantly more expensive, than the "normal" supermarket-bought diet. It's hard for me to believe that it is. On meat, yes, for sure. We buy only from the local butcher shop, which has been in business since the 19th century. We used to only go there to get meat for special occasions, because the quality is so high. After a bout with food poisoning from chicken purchased at the cheapo local supermarket, we decided to henceforth buy meat from the local butcher, who knows our name, and in whom we can trust. The thought occurred to us that food is one of the most important aspects of our family's life. It is not simply ballast, fuel. It's worth spending a bit more to make sure what we're getting is of high quality, not only in terms of health, but of taste.
That goes for vegetables too. I don't really buy into the claims for the superior health benefits of organic vegetables, but without question they taste better. Is it because they're organic, or because they're fresh? I don't care. As it happens, it's really no more expensive to buy fresh stuff from the farmer's markets than it is to buy produce in NYC supermarkets. The difference in taste is amazing -- so much so that again, we'd happily spend more for better food. It's a question of priorities.
That said, I have to wonder about people who think they can't afford buying higher-quality meat and produce, yet think nothing of spending money on Fruit Roll-Ups, five-dollar boxes of sugary cereal, and two-liter bottles of soda. Julie and I were talking last night about a relative of ours who makes fun of us for our allegedly expensive taste in food, but who keeps the counters in her house laden with bags of chips, snack cakes and cookies for her kids. She also spends a lot of money on baby food. When our son was first starting solid foods, Julie bought vegetables, cooked them and processed them herself. It didn't take all that long, it was healthier (no preservatives), and ultimately cheaper. She makes cookies herself for our son, using less sugar than normal, and spending less money on snacks. And we believe we're saving money by purchasing bulk grains from the whole-foods market instead of laying out cash for packaging and marketing in the supermarket.
Bottom line: I'm convinced lots of people who think eating better is beyond their financial means are just making excuses. Besides which, as long as it's not a huge difference, it's worth spending more to eat better -- if that really matters to you, that is.
I wonder if this is a good time for me to say that, in addition to all my other non-ideological idiosyncrasies, I also like the Indigo Girls and Bruce Cockburn? Oh what the hell. I do! And none of you conservatives can deny me this forbidden love! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Tuesday, July 16, 2002
"Diversity" \Di*ver"si*ty\, n. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
A reader writes:
In a curious way, I was helped and comforted by two unlikely allies when I became a Catholic: Archbishop Hunthausen and John Henry Cardinal Newman. I converted to the Faith during the raucous tenure of Archbishop Hunthausen, when the Seattle Archdiocese was a major mess. So far from upsetting me, it comforted me, because *I* was a major mess and it was abundantly clear to me that the Catholic Church was not held together by people living in perfection, but by grace. Indeed, coming out of sectarian Protestantism, I was heartily sick of the weirdly Darwinian view of holiness that is so often lived there, with people forever drawing in their skirts from one another over this or that that failure. I wrote a piece once to try to describe what I mean.
Anyway, the strangely comforting messiness of the Church meant that here was a place for slobs, loosers, factory rejects, and screwups: in a word, me. And when I read Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, I was still more comforted to find out that t'was ever thus. What occasioned the writings of the New Testament? The Church was a mess. "Don't sleep with your mother. Don't worship angels. Stop attacking my apostolic office. Quit your drinking and your blood feuds. Don't hive off into apostasy. Stop saying Jesus wasn't really a man". This is a small sample of the sort of trouble the apostles had to deal with. And it just goes on into the rest of history. The Great Councils were not academic exercises. They were desperate, near-run things--emergency surgery to save a desperately sick Body of Christ. Dittos for the Dark Ages: not happy times for the Church. The Cluniac Reforms were necessary because the Church was in deep doo doo. The writings of St. Thomas were ocassioned by loony people saying and doing loony things. The Renaissance Church was a mess. The Church during the Enlightenment was a mess. The Church before Vatican II was a mess and the Church is still a mess today. "So it's the same Church!" says Newman with fetching logic.
God has chosen to reveal himself in a human way. In assuming humanity, it is fallen humanity he assumes (though he is without sin). For this reason, the Body of Christ is sinless and Holy, yet all the members but Mary are sinners. And "sinner" means not "roguish but loveable rascals" but "desperately wicked people whose redemption required the brutal murder of God by torture to redeem".
In short, part of the task of a Christian is to face the same facts that Jesus faced: the sinners he has come to redeem (that'd be us) are not nice people and are prone to betrayal, confusion, wickedness and a proclivity for getting fogbound. Merely happening to wear a pointy hat or a veil does nothing to minimize that.
But that's not cause for despair. It's cause for prudence and resolve and hope. Given the fact that we are a fallen race, the wonderful thing is how much God has done for us and how much more he means to do. The wonder is not that your bishop failed, that your aunt got fuddled, that teachers teach crapola at times, but that they still have the chance to change and grow and that God will not leave them where they are. Our task is not to be afraid or discouraged, but to press on and seek cleaner fountains if the ones we tried to drink at were undrinkable. They do exist.
The Church will *always* be wheat and tares, bad fish and good, until the Parousia. Our part, as Gandalf says, is to decide what we are going to do with the time given to us.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I just read your article "It didn't go out with Vatican II". It was very timely for me because of something I have been struggling with in my faith. I hope you can address it in your blog. I have just finished reading Donna Steichen's Ungodly Rage, and must say, I feel like someone just took more wind out of my sails. You see, my former bishop (Remi de Roo) was mentioned in the book and has since been asked to resign as a result of his failure to adhere to canon law in the management of Diocese funds and his loss of said funds to the tune of 17 million dollars. Not only was I ignorant of his controversial postion on issues like women's ordination and married priests (in 1999 he was asked by the Vatican to remove his name from the list of speakers at an upcoming Married Priests Conference), but of his admiration for so-called "Catholic theologians" like Rosemary Ruether and Elisabeth Fiorenza. This, particularly, boggles the mind. I have also encountered, in one of my parishes (I've moved a few times in the last few years), nuns who were promoting and facilitating Enneagram workshops and a priest who gave a homily on the "loaves and fishes miracle" as being a "miracle of sharing" - by the way, I heard your comments on this "theology of Barney" on a radio show--funny! If this weren't enough, I recently sought some advice from my aunt, a nun in her late 60's after one of my Bible study classes dissolved into a defence of homosexuality, only to learn that she was "stuck on the fact that heterosexuals get to marry and everything is fine, and homosexuals can't and so can never live a fulfilled sexual life as practicing Catholics and therefore are in a lot of pain." She even referred to the tired "Spirit of Vatican II" phrase. Not only couldn't I believe what I was hearing, I had to remind her of what the Bible and the Catholic Catechism has to say about the matter. While she conceded that "If you rely on the Catechism, you can't go wrong" I was still dismayed. I guess I figured, "If I can't go to my own aunt, a nun, for sound advice, who can I go to?". In the last year I've had a friend tell me she really like Joan Chittister's book "Heart of Flesh", a fellow parishioner telling me she's pro-choice, and I've had to complain to our pastoral assistant about several books I'd unwittingly borrowed from the parish library that turned out to be anti-Catholic diatribes advocating progressive Catholicism and "new ways of looking at the person of Jesus (i.e. not really Divine at all). I'm getting really discouraged. I really respect your level-headed approach to matters of faith so I'd like to ask "how do you maintain a charitable attitude towards those who would seek to distort the Catholic faith to their own ends, to co-exist peacefully in the Church with them without compromising the Truth of the faith, and to not be an alarmist (that is, imagine dissent where none may, in fact, exist) but not be naiive either. Some days, Mark, I really miss the days of my blissful ignorance. Could you please offer some advice?
In a curious way, I was helped and comforted by two unlikely allies when I became a Catholic: Archbishop Hunthausen and John Henry Cardinal Newman. I converted to the Faith during the raucous tenure of Archbishop Hunthausen, when the Seattle Archdiocese was a major mess. So far from upsetting me, it comforted me, because *I* was a major mess and it was abundantly clear to me that the Catholic Church was not held together by people living in perfection, but by grace. Indeed, coming out of sectarian Protestantism, I was heartily sick of the weirdly Darwinian view of holiness that is so often lived there, with people forever drawing in their skirts from one another over this or that that failure. I wrote a piece once to try to describe what I mean.
Anyway, the strangely comforting messiness of the Church meant that here was a place for slobs, loosers, factory rejects, and screwups: in a word, me. And when I read Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, I was still more comforted to find out that t'was ever thus. What occasioned the writings of the New Testament? The Church was a mess. "Don't sleep with your mother. Don't worship angels. Stop attacking my apostolic office. Quit your drinking and your blood feuds. Don't hive off into apostasy. Stop saying Jesus wasn't really a man". This is a small sample of the sort of trouble the apostles had to deal with. And it just goes on into the rest of history. The Great Councils were not academic exercises. They were desperate, near-run things--emergency surgery to save a desperately sick Body of Christ. Dittos for the Dark Ages: not happy times for the Church. The Cluniac Reforms were necessary because the Church was in deep doo doo. The writings of St. Thomas were ocassioned by loony people saying and doing loony things. The Renaissance Church was a mess. The Church during the Enlightenment was a mess. The Church before Vatican II was a mess and the Church is still a mess today. "So it's the same Church!" says Newman with fetching logic.
God has chosen to reveal himself in a human way. In assuming humanity, it is fallen humanity he assumes (though he is without sin). For this reason, the Body of Christ is sinless and Holy, yet all the members but Mary are sinners. And "sinner" means not "roguish but loveable rascals" but "desperately wicked people whose redemption required the brutal murder of God by torture to redeem".
In short, part of the task of a Christian is to face the same facts that Jesus faced: the sinners he has come to redeem (that'd be us) are not nice people and are prone to betrayal, confusion, wickedness and a proclivity for getting fogbound. Merely happening to wear a pointy hat or a veil does nothing to minimize that.
But that's not cause for despair. It's cause for prudence and resolve and hope. Given the fact that we are a fallen race, the wonderful thing is how much God has done for us and how much more he means to do. The wonder is not that your bishop failed, that your aunt got fuddled, that teachers teach crapola at times, but that they still have the chance to change and grow and that God will not leave them where they are. Our task is not to be afraid or discouraged, but to press on and seek cleaner fountains if the ones we tried to drink at were undrinkable. They do exist.
The Church will *always* be wheat and tares, bad fish and good, until the Parousia. Our part, as Gandalf says, is to decide what we are going to do with the time given to us.
The Death Penalty, Scalia, and the Holy Father
A reader asks:
I think it depends on what aspect of the Encyclical we are talking about. The section on the death penalty (full disclosure: I agree completely with the Pope about the death penalty. I think it should only be inflicted as a last resort and that, whenever possible, human life should be preserved) does not appear to me to bind the conscience of the believer. It appears to be a prudential judgment of the Pope's, not a dogmatic statement. However, at the same time, I categorically reject what I "Mininum Daily Adult Requirement" approaches to the teaching of the Church ("What's that absolute least I have to believe?"). To think with the Church requires more than this sort of approach. But to think with the Church is, indeed, to think and not merely to look to the teaching office to micromanage every prudential decision. The death penalty is the proper sphere of Caesar (within careful moral limits) and Caesar (in the person of people such as Antonin Scalia) must make a judgment call. This has roots going back to Romans 13. Caesar's rights here are not absolute. Jesus is Lord. But Caesar's rights and duties are real nonetheless.
For myself, I think the death penalty utterly unnecessary anywhere in the First world. I favor the death of criminal only when they pose an ongoing menace to the community (and therefore have no problem with wiping out Al-Quaeda or blowing away bin Laden). But beyond that, I think mercy is wisest. I also think that Christians, living in a culture that is rapidly de-Christianizing, are frankly fools for urging an increasingly pagan and anti-Christian state to take up the sword. Caesar will find uses for the sword, and we may not enjoy it as much as we suppose.
A reader asks:
A quick question for you...well, I hope it's quick. I'm sure by now you've read Scalia's article in First Things called "God's Justice and Ours". My question, specifically, is on
these sentences:
> It will come as no surprise from what I have said that I do not agree
> with the encyclical Evangelium Vitae and the new Catholic catechism
> (or the very latest version of the new Catholic catechism), according
> to which the death penalty can only be imposed to protect rather than
> avenge, and that since it is (in most modern societies) not necessary
> for the former purpose, it is wrong. [...]
> So I take the encyclical and the latest, hot-off-the-presses version
> of the catechism (a supposed encapsulation of the "deposit" of faith
> and the Church's teaching regarding a moral order that does not
> change) to mean that retribution is not a valid purpose of capital
> punishment. Unlike such other hard Catholic doctrines as the
> prohibition of birth control and of abortion, this is not a moral
> position that the Church has always-or indeed ever before-maintained. [...]
> I am therefore happy to learn from the canonical experts I have
> consulted that the position set forth in Evangelium Vitae and in the
> latest version of the Catholic catechism does not purport to be
> binding teaching-that is, it need not be accepted by practicing
> Catholics, though they must give it thoughtful and respectful
> consideration. [...]
> So I have given this new position thoughtful and careful
> consideration-and I disagree. That is not to say I favor the death
> penalty (I am judicially and judiciously neutral on that point); it is
> only to say that I do not find the death penalty immoral. I am happy
> to have reached that conclusion, because I like my job, and would
> rather not resign. And I am happy because I do not think it would be a
> good thing if American Catholics running for legislative office had to
> oppose the death penalty (most of them would not be elected
Is it true that Evangelium Vitae does NOT "purport to be binding teaching"? If that's the case, then does that conflict with
> "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical
> Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes
> do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these
> matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the
> following is pertinent 'He who heareth you, heareth me.'; and usually
> what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already
> pertains to Catholic doctrine." Humani Generis (1950), DZ 2313.
I think it depends on what aspect of the Encyclical we are talking about. The section on the death penalty (full disclosure: I agree completely with the Pope about the death penalty. I think it should only be inflicted as a last resort and that, whenever possible, human life should be preserved) does not appear to me to bind the conscience of the believer. It appears to be a prudential judgment of the Pope's, not a dogmatic statement. However, at the same time, I categorically reject what I "Mininum Daily Adult Requirement" approaches to the teaching of the Church ("What's that absolute least I have to believe?"). To think with the Church requires more than this sort of approach. But to think with the Church is, indeed, to think and not merely to look to the teaching office to micromanage every prudential decision. The death penalty is the proper sphere of Caesar (within careful moral limits) and Caesar (in the person of people such as Antonin Scalia) must make a judgment call. This has roots going back to Romans 13. Caesar's rights here are not absolute. Jesus is Lord. But Caesar's rights and duties are real nonetheless.
For myself, I think the death penalty utterly unnecessary anywhere in the First world. I favor the death of criminal only when they pose an ongoing menace to the community (and therefore have no problem with wiping out Al-Quaeda or blowing away bin Laden). But beyond that, I think mercy is wisest. I also think that Christians, living in a culture that is rapidly de-Christianizing, are frankly fools for urging an increasingly pagan and anti-Christian state to take up the sword. Caesar will find uses for the sword, and we may not enjoy it as much as we suppose.
Caesar to Pope: You shall have no other gods before me
Read this story, particularly paragraphs 4 and 14. Nice choice the bishops of Boston have faced us with by their incompetence and sin: Behind Door #1: Semi-serious attempts at protecting children and bringing clerical miscreants to justice. Behind Door #2: Caesar taking over management of the Church.
Thanks guys!
Read this story, particularly paragraphs 4 and 14. Nice choice the bishops of Boston have faced us with by their incompetence and sin: Behind Door #1: Semi-serious attempts at protecting children and bringing clerical miscreants to justice. Behind Door #2: Caesar taking over management of the Church.
Thanks guys!
Monday, July 15, 2002
Nihil Obstat's Ship Has Come In!
A reader exults:
A reader exults:
I've found an ideal time-sink that Nihil Obstat would probably take to quite readily, if we want to distract her from her mission of scrutinizing the writers of St. Blog's.
The web site zeal.com has volunteers maintaining its web directory, which feeds into search engines at MSN and Prodigy. I signed up in order to submit one site, and now a week later I find I have submitted about 1,000 changes, mostly various sorts of corrections to and rearrangements of the data already in the directory. Obviously I shall have to stop or I'll never get anything else done.
If Nihil is the sort of compulsive person driven to fix typos and check that the listed URLs are working, this site will keep her busy forever. And if she decides to take over the maintenance of some of the Catholic categories, it'll qualify as a "good work" too.
Mark, may I? .... Oh, thank you. Ahem:
Mwa ha ha ha.
A Reading from the Prophet Chesterton on Enron and Worldcom
"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." - The Uses of Diversity, 1921
"From the standpoint of any sane person, the present problem of capitalist concentration is not only a question of law, but of criminal law, not to mention criminal lunacy." - "A Case In Point," The Outline of Sanity
"Our society is so abnormal that the normal man never dreams of having the normal occupation of looking after his own property. When he chooses a trade, he chooses one of the ten thousand trades that involve looking after other people's property." - Commonwealth10-12-32
"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." - The Uses of Diversity, 1921
"From the standpoint of any sane person, the present problem of capitalist concentration is not only a question of law, but of criminal law, not to mention criminal lunacy." - "A Case In Point," The Outline of Sanity
"Our society is so abnormal that the normal man never dreams of having the normal occupation of looking after his own property. When he chooses a trade, he chooses one of the ten thousand trades that involve looking after other people's property." - Commonwealth10-12-32
When Bishops did this sort of thing, it was obstruction of Justice. When Planned Parenthood does it, it's "heroic".
Police in Buena Vista County, Iowa, believe the local Planned Parenthood clinic may have information that could help investigators identify the mother of a newborn baby who was abandoned at the county recycling center in May. The baby's remains were found in a garbage shredder.
But the Planned Parenthood Federation of America says it will not sacrifice patient confidentiality for "the Iowa police dragnet."
According to Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt, "Planned Parenthood will exhaust all legal remedies to protect our patients' medical privacy."
It boggles the mind that this evil organization prospers as it does. May God solemnly damn it and destroy it.
When bishops protect evildoers, they pervert their mission. When Planned Parenthood does it, it is fulfilling its mission. (Just a little clue into the difference between the two for all moral equivalency enthusiasts out there.)
Thanks to Emily Stimpson for the link.
Police in Buena Vista County, Iowa, believe the local Planned Parenthood clinic may have information that could help investigators identify the mother of a newborn baby who was abandoned at the county recycling center in May. The baby's remains were found in a garbage shredder.
But the Planned Parenthood Federation of America says it will not sacrifice patient confidentiality for "the Iowa police dragnet."
According to Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt, "Planned Parenthood will exhaust all legal remedies to protect our patients' medical privacy."
It boggles the mind that this evil organization prospers as it does. May God solemnly damn it and destroy it.
When bishops protect evildoers, they pervert their mission. When Planned Parenthood does it, it is fulfilling its mission. (Just a little clue into the difference between the two for all moral equivalency enthusiasts out there.)
Thanks to Emily Stimpson for the link.
Church Blamed for AIDS in Africa
"The problem is not an out-of-control sexual appetite that doesn't care who dies so long as it can be satiated. The problem is the Church attempting to restrain that appetite and not allowing us the right to conscience-assuagement in the form of a condom. Next thing you know, they will be condemning Russian Roulette, even when the teenagers playing have only three bullets in the revolver. I mean, your chances are much higher than if there were six bullets!" said Morticia Addams, spokescreature for Planned Barrenhood. "Choice must be paramount!"
The Church was also blamed for limiting other ways in which humans can oppose life and indulge their life-denying appetites recklessly. Condemnation of Dresden and Nagasaki bombings labeled "unpatriotic" and "suppression of natural urge". Baptism of Hans Frank, Gauleiter of Poland, criticized as "soft on Nazism". Worldcom and Enron spokesman critique Jesus' condemnations of Mammon as "typical hellfire fundamentalism". "The Church is out of step" agreed conservative and liberal supporters of Planned Barrenhood.
UNFPA vowed they would continue to urge upon all Africans the right to as much sex as possible without thought of consequences and condemned any attempts to find solutions other than shallow band-aid ones as "fear-based sexuality".
"What's to be afraid of?" said Addams.
"The problem is not an out-of-control sexual appetite that doesn't care who dies so long as it can be satiated. The problem is the Church attempting to restrain that appetite and not allowing us the right to conscience-assuagement in the form of a condom. Next thing you know, they will be condemning Russian Roulette, even when the teenagers playing have only three bullets in the revolver. I mean, your chances are much higher than if there were six bullets!" said Morticia Addams, spokescreature for Planned Barrenhood. "Choice must be paramount!"
The Church was also blamed for limiting other ways in which humans can oppose life and indulge their life-denying appetites recklessly. Condemnation of Dresden and Nagasaki bombings labeled "unpatriotic" and "suppression of natural urge". Baptism of Hans Frank, Gauleiter of Poland, criticized as "soft on Nazism". Worldcom and Enron spokesman critique Jesus' condemnations of Mammon as "typical hellfire fundamentalism". "The Church is out of step" agreed conservative and liberal supporters of Planned Barrenhood.
UNFPA vowed they would continue to urge upon all Africans the right to as much sex as possible without thought of consequences and condemned any attempts to find solutions other than shallow band-aid ones as "fear-based sexuality".
"What's to be afraid of?" said Addams.
#@#@@%@#$^&^*(%
I have been trying to publish since Friday and everytime I try the Blogger server is down. Posting may be sporadic till Blogger figures out what's wrong and fixes it.
I have been trying to publish since Friday and everytime I try the Blogger server is down. Posting may be sporadic till Blogger figures out what's wrong and fixes it.
Saturday, July 13, 2002
Friday, July 12, 2002
The Ever-Interesting Minute Particulars discusses Atheism
... and why Mere Theism, though a huge step up from atheism, is not enough to satisfy the human soul. We need a God who is personal, not one that merely exists. That is why the Word became flesh: to satisfy our intense hunger as persons for him who is the ultimate source of the Personal.
... and why Mere Theism, though a huge step up from atheism, is not enough to satisfy the human soul. We need a God who is personal, not one that merely exists. That is why the Word became flesh: to satisfy our intense hunger as persons for him who is the ultimate source of the Personal.
The Church of Mary in Evangelicalism
Here's a fascinating bunch of links from Family Life, an Evangelical pro-family ministry that has (as Evangelicals do with startling frequency) begun to re-discover Catholic teaching simply by trying to be disciples. In this case, its the biblical (not just "Catholic") teaching on the unitive and procreative meaning of sex and the consequent sinfulness of artificial contraception. (They don't use those terms to describe what they are discovering. But those terms do describe it.) More and more Evangelicals are beginning to see this truth about the biblical teaching concerning human sexuality. But mark this: they are seeing it because they are trying hard to be disciples--members (and this would shock many of them) of the Church of Mary, not because they are poring over magisterial documents. One day, they may well (as Kimberly Hahn did) start to encounter these documents and be surprised at how the Catholic Church seems to have gotten something right. Then they may discover other things the Church got right too. When the Church of Peter is functioning as it should, it strengthens and confirms the truths which the Church of Mary lives. When members of the Church of Mary see this (as I did) they are glad for God's gift of the Church of Peter.
Here's a fascinating bunch of links from Family Life, an Evangelical pro-family ministry that has (as Evangelicals do with startling frequency) begun to re-discover Catholic teaching simply by trying to be disciples. In this case, its the biblical (not just "Catholic") teaching on the unitive and procreative meaning of sex and the consequent sinfulness of artificial contraception. (They don't use those terms to describe what they are discovering. But those terms do describe it.) More and more Evangelicals are beginning to see this truth about the biblical teaching concerning human sexuality. But mark this: they are seeing it because they are trying hard to be disciples--members (and this would shock many of them) of the Church of Mary, not because they are poring over magisterial documents. One day, they may well (as Kimberly Hahn did) start to encounter these documents and be surprised at how the Catholic Church seems to have gotten something right. Then they may discover other things the Church got right too. When the Church of Peter is functioning as it should, it strengthens and confirms the truths which the Church of Mary lives. When members of the Church of Mary see this (as I did) they are glad for God's gift of the Church of Peter.
Homilies that Irritate
I loathe homilies that deal with difficulties by cheap dodges. Today a friend called to say the local (what else?) Jesuit priest had basically diced up the gospel reading at Mass into "words of Jesus" and "words injected by the evangelist into Jesus' mouth" in order to explain away passages he happened to dislike. It's the oldest trick in the book for the lazy exegete. Oh, Jesus didn't really say the parts about the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched. He just said the nice comfy bits. Memo to Padre: we have no little yellow sticky notes attached to the gospel manuscripts explaining "I, Luke, would now like to offer a few remarks of my own." We just have the gospels and when they say Jesus said something, they are in earnest. Deal with hard sayings, don't wish them away.
I loathe homilies that deal with difficulties by cheap dodges. Today a friend called to say the local (what else?) Jesuit priest had basically diced up the gospel reading at Mass into "words of Jesus" and "words injected by the evangelist into Jesus' mouth" in order to explain away passages he happened to dislike. It's the oldest trick in the book for the lazy exegete. Oh, Jesus didn't really say the parts about the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched. He just said the nice comfy bits. Memo to Padre: we have no little yellow sticky notes attached to the gospel manuscripts explaining "I, Luke, would now like to offer a few remarks of my own." We just have the gospels and when they say Jesus said something, they are in earnest. Deal with hard sayings, don't wish them away.
Homilies that Challenge
I like a homily that challenges me to think in new ways. I don't find such homilies irritating but refreshing. So when my priest tells me "Man and women are the road the Church must walk" (quoting JPII) I find this challenging, even though, when I first heard it, it reversed my notion of what I thought orthodox Catholicism said. I thought Catholic Faith would insist the Church is the road man and woman must walk. But, given the Incarnation and the reality that God has opted to reveal himself in a human way, I realize that there is profound wisdom in the Pope's teaching. Likewise, when the Holy Father says that the "Church of Mary" (i.e. the communion of disciples) precedes and makes possible the Church of Peter (the Church of office) this, though startling, immediately makes challenging sense.
(By the way, I think a hugely fruitful meditation awaits those who ponder the recent Scandals as the result of the Church of Peter attempting to take precedence over the Church of Mary: that is, of the Church of office thinking it existed for itself and not simply and solely for the sake of the Church of disciples. I also think that the one and *only* way back to health for the Church is for all reformers to commit themselves to the Church of Mary--of discipleship--and not to the Church of Jefferson, or Catholics for a Free Choice, or Ms. or Marx).
I love that sort of "creative orthodoxy" that thinks outside the box, but not outside the Faith. Thanks to my Dominican priests at Blessed Sacrament for giving such homilies on a frequent basis.
I like a homily that challenges me to think in new ways. I don't find such homilies irritating but refreshing. So when my priest tells me "Man and women are the road the Church must walk" (quoting JPII) I find this challenging, even though, when I first heard it, it reversed my notion of what I thought orthodox Catholicism said. I thought Catholic Faith would insist the Church is the road man and woman must walk. But, given the Incarnation and the reality that God has opted to reveal himself in a human way, I realize that there is profound wisdom in the Pope's teaching. Likewise, when the Holy Father says that the "Church of Mary" (i.e. the communion of disciples) precedes and makes possible the Church of Peter (the Church of office) this, though startling, immediately makes challenging sense.
(By the way, I think a hugely fruitful meditation awaits those who ponder the recent Scandals as the result of the Church of Peter attempting to take precedence over the Church of Mary: that is, of the Church of office thinking it existed for itself and not simply and solely for the sake of the Church of disciples. I also think that the one and *only* way back to health for the Church is for all reformers to commit themselves to the Church of Mary--of discipleship--and not to the Church of Jefferson, or Catholics for a Free Choice, or Ms. or Marx).
I love that sort of "creative orthodoxy" that thinks outside the box, but not outside the Faith. Thanks to my Dominican priests at Blessed Sacrament for giving such homilies on a frequent basis.
Carmelites are Cool!
Check this out, ladies. Sr. Mary Judith writes:
If you know of any young ladies in your offices or Churches that would be interested in our Retreat Weekend or are searching for a women's congregation to enter that is totally loyal to our Holy Father, I would appreciate it if you would pass this on. God bless you.
WEEKEND OF PRAYER AND REFLECTION
The Carmelite Sisters of the Divine Heart of Jesus, Northern Province
Are Offering
A Weekend of Prayer and Reflection
For Single Women Age 18--40.
This Will Enable You To Learn More
About Our Carmelite Way of Life
As a Sister Dedicated To Caring For the
Children, Youth and the Aged.
Special Events: Holy Mass, Adoration, Confession, Recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours, Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet, Workshops, Conferences, Rosary and Scapular Making, Scripture Study, Quiet Private Time, Outdoor BBQ on Saturday Noon, and more......
Date: August 16--18, 2002
Place: 1230 Kavanaugh Place
Milwaukee, WI 53213
Phone: 414-453-4040
Fax: 414-453-6503
e-mail: srmaryjudith@aol.com
Please Visit Our Web Site: carmelitedcjnorth.org
RSVP: August 9, 2002
Check this out, ladies. Sr. Mary Judith writes:
If you know of any young ladies in your offices or Churches that would be interested in our Retreat Weekend or are searching for a women's congregation to enter that is totally loyal to our Holy Father, I would appreciate it if you would pass this on. God bless you.
The Carmelite Sisters of the Divine Heart of Jesus, Northern Province
Are Offering
A Weekend of Prayer and Reflection
For Single Women Age 18--40.
This Will Enable You To Learn More
About Our Carmelite Way of Life
As a Sister Dedicated To Caring For the
Children, Youth and the Aged.
Special Events: Holy Mass, Adoration, Confession, Recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours, Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet, Workshops, Conferences, Rosary and Scapular Making, Scripture Study, Quiet Private Time, Outdoor BBQ on Saturday Noon, and more......
Date: August 16--18, 2002
Place: 1230 Kavanaugh Place
Milwaukee, WI 53213
Phone: 414-453-4040
Fax: 414-453-6503
e-mail: srmaryjudith@aol.com
Please Visit Our Web Site: carmelitedcjnorth.org
RSVP: August 9, 2002
From the "Teach a Person to Fish" Department
In the interest of educating others and (pursuing a more rigorous regimen as a Couch Potato freed from the burdens of researching questions for others), let me commend to you a new on-line study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church . You can read all about it here. It will commence Aug.19, 2002.
In the interest of educating others and (pursuing a more rigorous regimen as a Couch Potato freed from the burdens of researching questions for others), let me commend to you a new on-line study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church . You can read all about it here. It will commence Aug.19, 2002.
Bravo to Rod Dreher
One does get the impression from certain people that in order to be a "real" conservative (that is, somebody who doesn't worship the future or exalt the State above the human person, and who thinks the patrimony of human culture and the revelation of God are things of value) or a "real" Catholic (that is, somebody who assents to the teaching of the Church without revision) one must also smoke cigars, eat red meat, and eschew NPR, certain ritually impure foods, and ritually defiling contact with Unapproved Books and/or Media. The apotheosis of this sort of thinking on the Internet is Petersnet, which "grades" sites for "fidelity" and uses as criteria (among other things) who you happen to link to. Thus, perfectly orthodox Catholics I know have gotten warnings from Petersnet that they will be "downgraded" for fidelity simply because they link to sites which Petersnet deems questionable. Similarly, I have gotten email from people "warning" me that I am dallying with heterodoxy because I don't see a big problem with Harry Potter books and I kinda liked the Matrix.
I think the Left is far worse in this sort of rigidity. (I remember with fondness a woman I worked with who brought me some publisher's catalog she'd gotten in the mail full of stuff by Jefferson and the Founders. All she wanted to know was "Is this a *conservative* publisher?" The actual content of the catalog (which was admittedly full of long words and might have been beyond her) was of no interest. She just wanted to avoid ritual defilement.) But the Left does not have a corner on it. So... I hereby announce: I enjoy "A Prairie Home Companion". I don't see "conservative" and "conservation" as antonyms but as cognates. I find much to admire in Christopher Hitchens. I still don't see the big problem with Assisi. I do not trust large corporations any more than I trust large governments. I think the bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes. I think cigars stink. (However, I do like a good steak and, while I loathe beer, I like a good glass of liberal zinfandel.) Oh, and I've always been fond of "Lord of the Dance" (the song, not the Michael Flatley video) and, contrary to one of Amy's over-the-top hysterical commenters yesterday, I reject the goofy notion that holding hands during the "Our Father" and receiving communion in the hand is a portent and cause of apostasy and child molestation.
One does get the impression from certain people that in order to be a "real" conservative (that is, somebody who doesn't worship the future or exalt the State above the human person, and who thinks the patrimony of human culture and the revelation of God are things of value) or a "real" Catholic (that is, somebody who assents to the teaching of the Church without revision) one must also smoke cigars, eat red meat, and eschew NPR, certain ritually impure foods, and ritually defiling contact with Unapproved Books and/or Media. The apotheosis of this sort of thinking on the Internet is Petersnet, which "grades" sites for "fidelity" and uses as criteria (among other things) who you happen to link to. Thus, perfectly orthodox Catholics I know have gotten warnings from Petersnet that they will be "downgraded" for fidelity simply because they link to sites which Petersnet deems questionable. Similarly, I have gotten email from people "warning" me that I am dallying with heterodoxy because I don't see a big problem with Harry Potter books and I kinda liked the Matrix.
I think the Left is far worse in this sort of rigidity. (I remember with fondness a woman I worked with who brought me some publisher's catalog she'd gotten in the mail full of stuff by Jefferson and the Founders. All she wanted to know was "Is this a *conservative* publisher?" The actual content of the catalog (which was admittedly full of long words and might have been beyond her) was of no interest. She just wanted to avoid ritual defilement.) But the Left does not have a corner on it. So... I hereby announce: I enjoy "A Prairie Home Companion". I don't see "conservative" and "conservation" as antonyms but as cognates. I find much to admire in Christopher Hitchens. I still don't see the big problem with Assisi. I do not trust large corporations any more than I trust large governments. I think the bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes. I think cigars stink. (However, I do like a good steak and, while I loathe beer, I like a good glass of liberal zinfandel.) Oh, and I've always been fond of "Lord of the Dance" (the song, not the Michael Flatley video) and, contrary to one of Amy's over-the-top hysterical commenters yesterday, I reject the goofy notion that holding hands during the "Our Father" and receiving communion in the hand is a portent and cause of apostasy and child molestation.
Thursday, July 11, 2002
Where's Nihil Obstat when you need him/her/it?
Jesse Jackson says Dubya is "unliterate". One wishes to say... oh, many things about this delectable quote. But all of them simply gild the lily.
Jesse Jackson says Dubya is "unliterate". One wishes to say... oh, many things about this delectable quote. But all of them simply gild the lily.
Much discussion about the Masculinity and Femininity in the Church over on Amy's blog
....prompts me to direct y'all to this piece I wrote some time ago. It's reflective of my own experience as a convert to the Catholic Faith from Evangelicalism.
....prompts me to direct y'all to this piece I wrote some time ago. It's reflective of my own experience as a convert to the Catholic Faith from Evangelicalism.
The Press asks the tough questions
Fox wants to know "Why is Michael Jackson acting so weird?" (Look waaaay down at the bottom.) . Meanwhile Mark Steyn records the bafflement of authorities over what conceivable connection there might be between an Egyptian Muslim fanatic with possible ties to Al-Quaeda who shoots up an El Al counter on July 4th and terrorism. It's a riddle to vex the mind of the greatest sage. Tomorrow the NY Times will begin a series called "Is the Pope Catholic?" followed by a hard-hitting investigation into whether bears defecate in the woods.
Fox wants to know "Why is Michael Jackson acting so weird?" (Look waaaay down at the bottom.) . Meanwhile Mark Steyn records the bafflement of authorities over what conceivable connection there might be between an Egyptian Muslim fanatic with possible ties to Al-Quaeda who shoots up an El Al counter on July 4th and terrorism. It's a riddle to vex the mind of the greatest sage. Tomorrow the NY Times will begin a series called "Is the Pope Catholic?" followed by a hard-hitting investigation into whether bears defecate in the woods.
Joycelyn Elders (remember her?) is Giving a Planned and Wanted Talk to Planned and Wanted People
Unwanted people are not wanted.
Unwanted people are not wanted.
SatireWire is giving the Onion a run for it's money
"SUPREME COURT RULES EARNINGS SHOULD BE PROTECTED AS "ART"
"SUPREME COURT RULES EARNINGS SHOULD BE PROTECTED AS "ART"
Wednesday, July 10, 2002
Iran is really on the edge of implosion
Let's hear from more of these Reformers against the Radical Islamic nutballs.
Let's hear from more of these Reformers against the Radical Islamic nutballs.
And another reader weighs in on Keating
One interesting fact about Frank Keating has yet to be aired in any media outlet I've seen: He is the governor of the state with the highest per capita number of prisoners on death row. He has gone on record as saying that the Pope is "just wrong" on the death penalty. Even more unsettling, one of the senior forensic scientists in the Oklahoma's crime lab has been arrested for, in essence, lying about evidence (such as whether fingerprints or hair samples matched -- if you watch Law and Order, they had an episode based on this story). At least one man was probably sent to his death on the basis of such evidence, but we'll never know for sure because Oklahoma won't do any DNA testing, stating that "it no longer matters." Truth always matters. This is not to assign blame to Keating for all of this, but to some degree, he has tolerated this unseemly state of affairs regarding the justice system of his state, and is an ardent supporter of the death penalty in spite of these overwhelming and obvious flaws. Contrast his actions with those of Gov. Ryan of Illinois, for instance. But more important, it is to suggest that Keating may have his own ulterior motives for pushing "lay control" over church affairs -- based on the fervor of his comments regarding the chruch and the death penalty I believe he has personally felt the sting of the generally more charitable view espoused by the Church in matters of criminal punishment. I view his commission as a disaster, not because of Keating's involvement per se, but because it crystallizes for me the fact that when publicly minded, secular individuals gain such a strong hand in church affairs they are at least as if not more likely to be motivated by concerns other than the good of the church than the bishops, however royally they have screwed things up. I don't care who loses his head (so to speak) in all of this mess, but I want the execution to be an authentic action of the Church itself, an action that is motivated for the good of the Church and its faithful, especially those faithful who have been victims of those linked with the Church. Handing that responsibility off makes it more likely that, instead, the executioner will be driven by his or her allegiance to notions of law and order criminal justice, the death penalty, political popularity, women priests, gay priests, married priests, or whatever else they promote during the time they aren't actually sitting in church. You may feel that the bishops are inadequate, but really, that's who we have, and action