My Village Atheist Reveals his Touching Naivete
writing in the comments box under How Revelation Proceeds, he declares:
"Just about every religion says that they are the One, the True, the Only." He then lists exactly three (3) religious traditions as proof of this point. Oddly the three he names happen to be the great Western monotheisms.
In fact, the contention that "just about every religion says that they are the One, the True, the Only" is a proposition that would greatly amuse almost any ancient pagan and a huge number of contemporary ones, who could happily belong to several different cults of worship all at once and never see any difficulty with that. Ever hear the term "Pantheon"?
In fact, the idea of a "One True Religion" is largely a phenomenon that comes in with the three great Western Traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And since Judaism has not been a proselytizing Tradition for, oh, about 2000 years, that pretty much leaves Christianity and Islam.
(Interesting biblical side note, ancient Israelite religion in the time of the Judges and Joshua was not especially interested in "winning converts". It is not even altogether certain that Israel is, strictly speaking, clear about monotheism at this time. Many biblical texts suggest a vague henotheism (i.e, the belief that there are many other "gods" but that, for Israel, the One God whom they met at Sinai in covenant, is "the God of Israel"). It is appears that only later does it become clear to Israel that there are no other gods. Thus, in the conquest of Canaan, Israel was interested (sort of) in exterminating the Canaanites, not in converting them. And it was interested in this primarily because it was interested in preserving the covenant of Hashem with Israel, not with converting the nations. The Canaanites were not a mission field, but a threat to the covenant because they might tempt Israel to abandon their fidelity to Hashem. The interest is not in God as true "for the world" but simply as true "for Israel." True, later on it is revealed (particularly to David and the prophets) that Israel is to be a "light to the nations" and that the Davidic Messiah will call the nations to worship the God of Israel. But, of course, this is precisely where the mission of Christianity comes in. Rabbinic Judaism does not seek converts.
As to the rest of my Village Atheist's picture of the world, he reveals once again that "atheism" is virtually always something that exists only as a reaction to Christianity or Judaism and is nearly always incapable of seeing beyond that provincial little reaction. For, of course, virtually the entire rest of the religious landscape of human history is not a collection of world-converting faiths who regard themselves as the "one, true, and only" but a gaggle of local cults with no universal claims and, very often, no interest in the question of whether they were "true" or not. Much pre-Christian paganism, in fact, had not even advanced to the point where cultic ritual was combined with an interest in ethical or philosophical questions of goodness and right and truth. Over here, the philosophers revolved their ethical problems. Over there, devotees performed mystic rites and never the two did meet.
My Village Atheist, by the way, notes that Christianity bears some superficial similarities with a variety of mystery cults in antiquity and, of course, concludes that it is therefore pretty much the same thing. He also notes that the concept of original sin was allegedly an innovation. So Christianity is therefore incredible because it answers to the deepest intuitions of a wide variety of pre-Christian culture and it is also incredible because it does not immediately appear to fit itself into all that had gone before.
A more simple-minded reader might suppose that a revelation which purported to speak to the deepest longings of humanity could very likely expect all sorts of intuitions and imagery foreshadowing it to appear in the literature of paganism and would, in fact, find the idea of a revelation that had nothing whatsoever to do with those longing and intuitions to be far more difficult to believe. But then, such a reader would also be simple-minded enough to think that the doctrine of original sin is not really a novelty, but merely a clarification and deepening of the age-old awareness, common to pagan, Jew, and Christian, that there is something haywire about us. What even the most simple-minded reader would not do, however (unless he is a Village Atheist), is try to simultaneously keep up the argument that Christianity is unbelievable because the culture prior to it anticipated it and the argument that Christianity is unbelievable because the culture prior to it did not anticipate it.
But, of course, Village Atheists are looking for excuses for Village Atheism, not reasons. Any excuse will do and when one breaks in your hand, you simply grab another. That's how Village Atheism works, you see.
Tuesday, September 03, 2002
My Reader Writes Back
...concerning the Quetzlcoatl thing....
Hmmmm... Well, I'll withhold judgement till I've seen a decent picture of the thing and heard from you incipient Sister Wendy's out there before I make up my mind. Out here in pagan Seattle I'm used to a fair amount of Native American art finding it's way into some expressions of Christianity. Yet some of it is quite harmless. So I tend to be cautious about immediately assuming the worst and about immediately assuming it's all just fine. The question is always: Is the intent to fill pagan forms with Christian content or to fill Christian forms with pagan content? The former is often (not always) redemptive (like when John cribbed the pagan idea of the Logos from Greco-Roman philosophy and filled it with Christian content). The latter is always and only evil and pernicious. My question: which is the use of the Quetzlcoatl image on the Great Bronze Doors?
...concerning the Quetzlcoatl thing....
I'm waiting to see a photo to be sent by a friend w/a digital camera, but I'm not hopeful. The description I read is not Christianity conquering pagan gods, but Christianity being one of many. Robert Graham, the artist who created the doors, did a statue honoring Q. for the city of San Jose a few years ago. Q. is not just a vaguely acceptable pagan god; for his sake, human beings had their hearts ripped out of their chests while still beating. I think this is as close to satanism as you can get without being the real thing. Besides, there's a strong movement underway in California to have devotion to Q., and not the "colonialist" Our Lady of Guadalupe, be the rallying point for Mexican identity. This must be resisted no matter what.
Hmmmm... Well, I'll withhold judgement till I've seen a decent picture of the thing and heard from you incipient Sister Wendy's out there before I make up my mind. Out here in pagan Seattle I'm used to a fair amount of Native American art finding it's way into some expressions of Christianity. Yet some of it is quite harmless. So I tend to be cautious about immediately assuming the worst and about immediately assuming it's all just fine. The question is always: Is the intent to fill pagan forms with Christian content or to fill Christian forms with pagan content? The former is often (not always) redemptive (like when John cribbed the pagan idea of the Logos from Greco-Roman philosophy and filled it with Christian content). The latter is always and only evil and pernicious. My question: which is the use of the Quetzlcoatl image on the Great Bronze Doors?
George Weigel Rocks
Got The Courage to be Catholic from Amazon today. The guy is sooooo good. Read this if you care about the reform of the Church in America.
Got The Courage to be Catholic from Amazon today. The guy is sooooo good. Read this if you care about the reform of the Church in America.
A reader says
Lord knows I hold on to honor for Mahony by my fingernails, sheerly due to the honor due his office and not to the man, and from the pictures I've seen, I think the Cathedral is a big ugly bunker more suited to an armory for orcs than for a Church. But I have to ask: in what context is Quetzlcoatl on the doors? After all, St. Peter's has an Egyptian obelisk in the plaza--with a crucifix on top of it. If our Lady is depicted triumphing above all the pagan gods (as the statue appears to suggest with her standing on the moon like the Virgin of Guadalupe), then I don't know that there is a theological problem, just an aesthetic one.
But then, I haven't seen the doors so I could be all wet. The best picture I could find on the Web has no detail and no explanation of the squiggly little images on the doors and what they mean. Any help here from you artistic and iconographic types would be appreciated.
By the way, I have not weighed in on the cathedral much beyond the general observation that it looks pretty ugly to me for the simple reason that I've just seen a few pictures without explanation of context, leaving me with the general impression: "Gee, that's pretty ugly." As with all questions of artistic merit, I have only the wisdom of Cookie Monster to go on: "Me not know art. But me know what me like." If some artistic whiz out there wants to pull a Sister Wendy on me ("When one wooks at the cathedwal...") and deepen my thimble-deep understanding of the architecture, I'm all ears.
As to the scattered pictures of the opening Mass, I'm not going to freak out since, again, I'm not enough of a liturgical nitnoid to know what is and is not appropriate. Apparently some people freaked out over some Vietnamese nuns doing some sort of liturgical dance. I, for one, have no idea whether this is appropriate in Vietnamese culture or not, nor what a bishop can and cannot permit in his own diocese. And, most of all, I believe life is simply too short to rub acid on my skin over this. I'll let the liturgy experts work out whether it was an abuse or not. Not my diocese, not able to do anything about it, not gonna get angry and ruin my day (assuming, which I don't know) that it was an abuse.
Where's James Akin when you need him?
You guys do realize, do you not, that among the pagan deities carved onto the door of the L.A. Cathedral is Quetzalcoatl, the bloodthirsty Aztec demon-god to whom tens of thousands of human beings were sacrificed, and whose worship Our Lady of Guadalupe came to crush.
Lord knows I hold on to honor for Mahony by my fingernails, sheerly due to the honor due his office and not to the man, and from the pictures I've seen, I think the Cathedral is a big ugly bunker more suited to an armory for orcs than for a Church. But I have to ask: in what context is Quetzlcoatl on the doors? After all, St. Peter's has an Egyptian obelisk in the plaza--with a crucifix on top of it. If our Lady is depicted triumphing above all the pagan gods (as the statue appears to suggest with her standing on the moon like the Virgin of Guadalupe), then I don't know that there is a theological problem, just an aesthetic one.
But then, I haven't seen the doors so I could be all wet. The best picture I could find on the Web has no detail and no explanation of the squiggly little images on the doors and what they mean. Any help here from you artistic and iconographic types would be appreciated.
By the way, I have not weighed in on the cathedral much beyond the general observation that it looks pretty ugly to me for the simple reason that I've just seen a few pictures without explanation of context, leaving me with the general impression: "Gee, that's pretty ugly." As with all questions of artistic merit, I have only the wisdom of Cookie Monster to go on: "Me not know art. But me know what me like." If some artistic whiz out there wants to pull a Sister Wendy on me ("When one wooks at the cathedwal...") and deepen my thimble-deep understanding of the architecture, I'm all ears.
As to the scattered pictures of the opening Mass, I'm not going to freak out since, again, I'm not enough of a liturgical nitnoid to know what is and is not appropriate. Apparently some people freaked out over some Vietnamese nuns doing some sort of liturgical dance. I, for one, have no idea whether this is appropriate in Vietnamese culture or not, nor what a bishop can and cannot permit in his own diocese. And, most of all, I believe life is simply too short to rub acid on my skin over this. I'll let the liturgy experts work out whether it was an abuse or not. Not my diocese, not able to do anything about it, not gonna get angry and ruin my day (assuming, which I don't know) that it was an abuse.
Where's James Akin when you need him?
Sandra Miesel (that's MIESEL, not MEISEL) pleads
Y'know, I've just about had it with this comment box software. Anybody know of better comment box software? This feature is down half the time.
My comment under the ICEL defended by NCR entry, a commentator failed to note that I was making fun of myself and not Archbishop Chaput, whom I've met and highly admire. Somebody had speculated on whether he'd make a good pope and I was saying he's equipped to fulfill some entries in the Catholic prophecy books, it being a nutty thing on my part to link him and Charles Coulombe (who thought the idea of himself as HRE quite droll).
I can't get into the comment queue there and don't want your readers to think I'm attacking Chaput!
Y'know, I've just about had it with this comment box software. Anybody know of better comment box software? This feature is down half the time.
Bush to Discuss Attacking Iraq with Congressoids
Are you fer or agin war with Iraq? Discuss. I'd particularly like people to bring Just War theory to bear on this question. Keep it civil.
Are you fer or agin war with Iraq? Discuss. I'd particularly like people to bring Just War theory to bear on this question. Keep it civil.
It turns out abstinence can make a dent in AIDS
Article blasphemes against my Village Atheist's god.
Article blasphemes against my Village Atheist's god.
Ah September!
When apple-cheeked Catholic youth go off to their Catholic schools so they can burn incense and chant to discover their Native American animal spirit guides. Dunno which diocese this is that's just hung out the "Please Send Your Tithes Elsewhere" sign, but my two word reply is "Yay Homeschoolers!"
When apple-cheeked Catholic youth go off to their Catholic schools so they can burn incense and chant to discover their Native American animal spirit guides. Dunno which diocese this is that's just hung out the "Please Send Your Tithes Elsewhere" sign, but my two word reply is "Yay Homeschoolers!"
Doug Sirman on Fr. David Jaeger
As I've mentioned before, I don't much like Fr. Jaeger, who did some sort of gay ministry here in Seattle, whose writings always struck me as an apologia for homosexual rejection of Church teaching and whose presentations always angered and irritated serious Catholics whose judgment I trust. I can't say I was stunned when he was one of the first people out of the gate to be fingered for abuse. Nor am I stunned that our lavender press in Seattle, after the first orgy of rejoicing over this scandal is now waking up to the fact that the main result will be gay priests getting kicked out for past abuse. However, as I've said before, I am highly skeptical about the merits of this particular case. Much as I dislike Fr. Jaeger, I really wonder whether Zero Tolerance is the Catholic response to a stupid act (a back rub!) committed 25 years ago. Is this really the equivalent of rape or pederasty? Does this really justify obliterating his priesthood? Believe me, if there's a priest in this archdiocese (and unhappily there are many) who I'd love to see just go away, it's Fr. Jaeger. And yet, I question the justice of the archdiocese's approach, as I question all Zero Tolerance thinking.
Update: After reading the article more closely, I've changed my mind. Jaeger needs to go, I think. Prolonged "Hey! I didn't do anything serious. See how much people love me!" stuff in the press simply gives him a forum and allows him to prolong the abuse of his victim in another form. As I read the description of what happened, this was more than a backrub thoughtlessly given.
You've made several references to this case. I think you ought to read it if you haven't already.
People can make appalling errors in judgement. Errors which may be understandable given a full comprehension of the context. However, those errors can lead to equally appalling consequences. I think of falling asleep at the wheel.
This case is sounding more and more like someone who is willing to take responsibility for his actions, but wants to distance himself from the consequences. That doesn't make him evil, that makes him human. Cynics would say it makes him "bishop material."
As I've mentioned before, I don't much like Fr. Jaeger, who did some sort of gay ministry here in Seattle, whose writings always struck me as an apologia for homosexual rejection of Church teaching and whose presentations always angered and irritated serious Catholics whose judgment I trust. I can't say I was stunned when he was one of the first people out of the gate to be fingered for abuse. Nor am I stunned that our lavender press in Seattle, after the first orgy of rejoicing over this scandal is now waking up to the fact that the main result will be gay priests getting kicked out for past abuse. However, as I've said before, I am highly skeptical about the merits of this particular case. Much as I dislike Fr. Jaeger, I really wonder whether Zero Tolerance is the Catholic response to a stupid act (a back rub!) committed 25 years ago. Is this really the equivalent of rape or pederasty? Does this really justify obliterating his priesthood? Believe me, if there's a priest in this archdiocese (and unhappily there are many) who I'd love to see just go away, it's Fr. Jaeger. And yet, I question the justice of the archdiocese's approach, as I question all Zero Tolerance thinking.
Update: After reading the article more closely, I've changed my mind. Jaeger needs to go, I think. Prolonged "Hey! I didn't do anything serious. See how much people love me!" stuff in the press simply gives him a forum and allows him to prolong the abuse of his victim in another form. As I read the description of what happened, this was more than a backrub thoughtlessly given.
On the Good News Front
It's a happy thing to see these good bishops from obscure dioceses emerge to do good and save the day.
It's a happy thing to see these good bishops from obscure dioceses emerge to do good and save the day.
Neumayr on the Taj Mahony
It may be ugly, but at least it's inaccessible.
Tithes may be diverted to Mercy Corps, Human Life, or perhaps to a fund for Victims of Fr. Carl Sutphin. Here is a Cardinal who is eminently worthy of not receiving tithes. But don't you even think about refusing to go to Mass.
It may be ugly, but at least it's inaccessible.
Tithes may be diverted to Mercy Corps, Human Life, or perhaps to a fund for Victims of Fr. Carl Sutphin. Here is a Cardinal who is eminently worthy of not receiving tithes. But don't you even think about refusing to go to Mass.
What Happens When Bishops Ask a Secular Politician "Stop Me Before I Abuse Power Again"
He will, of course, apply a complete secular template to the situation (with one eye on pleasing the crowd so as to achieve future political aspirations) and be a little bit right and also disastrously wrong. In this case, the politico in question is Frank Keating, who along with various representatives of the Democratic Party at prayer, are supposed to somehow keep our bishops' noses clean as part of a completely novel, toothless, yet powerful National Review board. So far, the exhalations of that board have consisted of things like Keating's stupid call for Catholics to refuse to go to Mass and to not tithe if your diocese has mishandled funds.
The first suggestion is stupidity in chemical purity. Right, Gov. Stop worshiping God as a way to restrain sin! That'll help. The second is more reasonable since bishops who think like CEOs will presumably act like CEOs when the funds stop rolling in. But, of course, the question then becomes, "How long? To what end?" If the payoffs are over in a place like, say, Milwaukee or Boston is there any particular point to diverting tithes somewhere else? Will this just wind up punishing some widows and orphans somewhere? It's worth asking. And if the diocese has started to clean up its act, then what? Keep punishing them to make sure they get the message? When does reconciliation begin?
Anyway, given the composition of this panel I expect large amounts of folly and a certain amount of common sense to be spoken. But suggesting that Catholics boycott Mass is a helluva stupid way to start. Pathetic that this is what the bishops have come up with as a bizarre device to hold their feet to the fire because they are unwilling or unable to do their office without it.
He will, of course, apply a complete secular template to the situation (with one eye on pleasing the crowd so as to achieve future political aspirations) and be a little bit right and also disastrously wrong. In this case, the politico in question is Frank Keating, who along with various representatives of the Democratic Party at prayer, are supposed to somehow keep our bishops' noses clean as part of a completely novel, toothless, yet powerful National Review board. So far, the exhalations of that board have consisted of things like Keating's stupid call for Catholics to refuse to go to Mass and to not tithe if your diocese has mishandled funds.
The first suggestion is stupidity in chemical purity. Right, Gov. Stop worshiping God as a way to restrain sin! That'll help. The second is more reasonable since bishops who think like CEOs will presumably act like CEOs when the funds stop rolling in. But, of course, the question then becomes, "How long? To what end?" If the payoffs are over in a place like, say, Milwaukee or Boston is there any particular point to diverting tithes somewhere else? Will this just wind up punishing some widows and orphans somewhere? It's worth asking. And if the diocese has started to clean up its act, then what? Keep punishing them to make sure they get the message? When does reconciliation begin?
Anyway, given the composition of this panel I expect large amounts of folly and a certain amount of common sense to be spoken. But suggesting that Catholics boycott Mass is a helluva stupid way to start. Pathetic that this is what the bishops have come up with as a bizarre device to hold their feet to the fire because they are unwilling or unable to do their office without it.
Saturday, August 31, 2002
Hey! It's Labor Day Weekend!
So I'm outta here. But there is an article up on Catholic Exchange. See you Tuesday!
So I'm outta here. But there is an article up on Catholic Exchange. See you Tuesday!
Friday, August 30, 2002
It's here! GrovelSpam Apology 3.0!
Complete with pointers to GrovelSpam Apology 4.0 and it's iterations 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3!
New letter. Same insult to our intelligence. "I had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show." Funny, everybody else knew.
Complete with pointers to GrovelSpam Apology 4.0 and it's iterations 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3!
Re: Your Email
Thank you for sharing with us your concerns about the "Opie & Anthony Show". We take your comments very seriously, and we are grateful that you took the time to share them and have given us the opportunity to respond to you personally.
We at The Boston Beer Company formally apologize to you and anyone we have upset or offended by the incident and by our association with it. My presence on the show, was a lapse in judgment, and I regret it. While not an acceptable excuse, I want you to know that I had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show. I should have walked off the show and I didn't.
Many people have expressed their concerns that we need to issue a more public apology. Enclosed you will find a link to the apology letters that ran as paid advertisements in The Boston Herald, The Boston Globe on Friday, August 30th and in The New York Post on Saturday, August 31st.
http://www.samadams.com/pdf/OpenLetter.pdf
Everyone associated with The Boston Beer Company has worked very hard over the last 17 years to build a good company with world-class products and a quality reputation. Your feedback, along with other feedback we receive, will be used as we develop better guidelines for marketing in the future. As a result of this incident, we are re-evaluating our policy and controls on radio station activities.
Boston Beer is a company that cares deeply about its customers and its reputation with them. We regret that this incident has damaged our relationship with you, and I hope that, over time, we will earn your respect again. Please accept our apology, and again, thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel. I hope you will continue to do so in the future.
Sincerely,
Jim Koch
Chairman & Founder
The Boston Beer Company
New letter. Same insult to our intelligence. "I had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show." Funny, everybody else knew.
Rod Dreher Writes a Withering Blast of Scorn for CBS' Appalling Real Beverly Hillbillies
This is the sort of godly anger that inspired Amos. Woe to CBS, who buys the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. Thanks for doing this, Rod. Don't these dolts realize there is no Big Three anymore and there are hundreds of channels to choose from? They can be contacted here.
This is the sort of godly anger that inspired Amos. Woe to CBS, who buys the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. Thanks for doing this, Rod. Don't these dolts realize there is no Big Three anymore and there are hundreds of channels to choose from? They can be contacted here.
Nota Bene is having an interesting conversation
with a Pentecostal pastor about "Who is a follower of Christ?"
with a Pentecostal pastor about "Who is a follower of Christ?"
National Catholic Reporter Stamps its Tiny Foot in Impotent Rage
This is good news. The "overthrow" of the evil geniuses at ICEL means we are a step closer to non-bowdlerized "translations" of the Mass. The Reporter's helpless whine is a good sign.
This is good news. The "overthrow" of the evil geniuses at ICEL means we are a step closer to non-bowdlerized "translations" of the Mass. The Reporter's helpless whine is a good sign.
The Planned Barrenhood Chick Who was Denied Permission to Marry in the Catholic Church laments
"How can you do this to me? It's 29 days before my wedding"
In other news, a third trimester abortion victim at her clinic lamented, "How can they do this to me? It's 29 days before my birth."
"How can you do this to me? It's 29 days before my wedding"
In other news, a third trimester abortion victim at her clinic lamented, "How can they do this to me? It's 29 days before my birth."
A reader sez:
I would feel a bit more Jacksonian if I had demanded Samuel Adams give something to the St. Pat's facilities and maintenance fund or the pastor's salary. I would feel absolutely Jacksonian if I had demanded Samuel Adams make an immediate deposit to my PayPal account to the tune of 1 million dollars. As it was, I demanded they give something to the poor, not the Church, and not to me. It's called penance, and is appropriate and fitting given that they have hitherto used their money to corrupt people rather than help them.
I appreciate the tone of your letter to Samuel Adams CEO Jim Koch. He certainly deserves a spanking here. However, I am disappointed in your ninth point, asking him [demanding?] that he make a financial contribution to the Poor Box of St. Patrick's Cathedral. That sounds a little too much Jesse Jackson-like to me. I certainly think it would be grand if he, and his company, did contribute, but to demand it as retribution seems to border on extortion. I don't like it when Jesse Jackson does it to corporate America, I didn't like it when the gay activisits did it to Coors, and integrity demands that I not like it when you do it to Sam Adams.
Other than this one point, I think you wrote a grand letter, and I enjoy reading your site.
By the way, I am also a boycotter of Sam Adams, and I did write them to say so. I will stop boycotting when I am convinced that they are no longer sponsoring shock-jock radio.
I would feel a bit more Jacksonian if I had demanded Samuel Adams give something to the St. Pat's facilities and maintenance fund or the pastor's salary. I would feel absolutely Jacksonian if I had demanded Samuel Adams make an immediate deposit to my PayPal account to the tune of 1 million dollars. As it was, I demanded they give something to the poor, not the Church, and not to me. It's called penance, and is appropriate and fitting given that they have hitherto used their money to corrupt people rather than help them.
The Latest Round in the War of the Rose
The September issue of Crisis apparently has a piece on Michael Rose's critique of Louvain. Fr. Rob Johansen has some comments.
Oh, and final arguments in the Grip 'n Grin Discussion
The September issue of Crisis apparently has a piece on Michael Rose's critique of Louvain. Fr. Rob Johansen has some comments.
Oh, and final arguments in the Grip 'n Grin Discussion
Getting up to Speed
Lately, I've been getting email from people describing their acts of piety in the "Cult of Rod". I haven't quite known what this is all about. Now I see that Rod has laid out his own personal Book of Leviticus for the edification of cult members over in a comments box on Amy's blog. It reads as follows:
I gotta get me one of them cults. Do you think it would be undignified for a newly minted god to demand free roof repair, an exterminator for a carpenter ant problem in the kitchen and some good chocolate? Or should I hold on that till I've filled you with a sense of awe and fear? For now, I will promulgate my Extra Special Cult Chant in the hope it catches on:
Salmon are fish!
Salmon are pretty!
Salmon have scales!
Doo Wah Diddy!
Let me know if you are starting to feel mind-numbed. There's a lot of home repair I need to get done.
Lately, I've been getting email from people describing their acts of piety in the "Cult of Rod". I haven't quite known what this is all about. Now I see that Rod has laid out his own personal Book of Leviticus for the edification of cult members over in a comments box on Amy's blog. It reads as follows:
Attention Cult of Rod devotees! You are hereby commanded under pain of excommunication to deliver unto your Guru the following items: 1) a complete collection of "The Simpsons" episodes from seasons three, eight and nine; 2) a bottle of your favorite hot sauce; 3) a case of Zapp's Crawtators; 4) the keys to your Saab convertible. Be thee well advised, brethren and sistren, that you won't get into the temple unless you can recite the LSU Tigers "Hot Boudin/Cold Cous-Cous" cheer in flawless Latin. Let the word go forth...
I gotta get me one of them cults. Do you think it would be undignified for a newly minted god to demand free roof repair, an exterminator for a carpenter ant problem in the kitchen and some good chocolate? Or should I hold on that till I've filled you with a sense of awe and fear? For now, I will promulgate my Extra Special Cult Chant in the hope it catches on:
Salmon are fish!
Salmon are pretty!
Salmon have scales!
Doo Wah Diddy!
Let me know if you are starting to feel mind-numbed. There's a lot of home repair I need to get done.
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Pope as Teacher, Pope as Flag
Stephen's reaction to my piece puts me in mind of one of the odd phenomena I have observed. Namely, there are those who love the Pope as a teacher and those who love him as a sort of flag. My thoughts on how facing the altar and the world side-by-side will inevitably lead to the creation of strong and vibrant communities came from teachings done at my parish on the Pope's encyclical Mission of the Redeemer and other formal teaching on the Church's mandate to evangelize. In short, I cribbed my ideas from John Paul II, who among other things, says that the way to make a parish strong is not to practice endless introspection but to throw the parish into the work of evangelizing. In sneering at and mischaracterizing what I had to say, Stephen was, all unaware, attacking the Pope's teaching.
He is doing so, it appears to me, because he thinks the Pope is a sort of Flag and I, who have disagreed with Rod Dreher, but defended him as a faithful son of the Church, am an opponent of that Flag in Stephen's extremely simple black and white world. In this worldview, it matters not so much whether you take the Pope's teaching seriously or not as that you stand next to the Flag. Now, I'm all for the Church's teaching on the Pope as a sign of the unity of the Church. But I don't think that unity is preserved by dividing the world into blacks and whites and then attacking everything a "black" says simply because he's "black". This is, in fact, what Stephen has done. And in doing so, he has wound up attacking something John Paul has pointed out, that the health of the Church is bound up with her approach to the Eucharist and the work of evangelization.
This "Pope as Flag" mentality is often carried very far. Often it is so dominant that when the Pope says or does something a Flag-waver can't bear, the "Powerful Forces" excuse is brought out to explain it away. So, for instance, when the Pope says (as he did forty years ago) that "Beat Music" (what we now call rock and roll) should be used as a tool for evangelization, I've known representatives of the "True Catholic Kids Should Only Listen to Gregorian Chant" crowd explain that "Powerful Forces" were at work in the Vatican or somewhere Behind the Scenes, tricking the Pope into saying things like that. He doesn't--he can't--really mean that, because that would mean he taught something at variance with My Understanding of the Faith. This is classic "Pope as Flag, not Teacher" thinking too.
So: a question: Is the Pope your teacher or just your flag? Something to think about.
Stephen's reaction to my piece puts me in mind of one of the odd phenomena I have observed. Namely, there are those who love the Pope as a teacher and those who love him as a sort of flag. My thoughts on how facing the altar and the world side-by-side will inevitably lead to the creation of strong and vibrant communities came from teachings done at my parish on the Pope's encyclical Mission of the Redeemer and other formal teaching on the Church's mandate to evangelize. In short, I cribbed my ideas from John Paul II, who among other things, says that the way to make a parish strong is not to practice endless introspection but to throw the parish into the work of evangelizing. In sneering at and mischaracterizing what I had to say, Stephen was, all unaware, attacking the Pope's teaching.
He is doing so, it appears to me, because he thinks the Pope is a sort of Flag and I, who have disagreed with Rod Dreher, but defended him as a faithful son of the Church, am an opponent of that Flag in Stephen's extremely simple black and white world. In this worldview, it matters not so much whether you take the Pope's teaching seriously or not as that you stand next to the Flag. Now, I'm all for the Church's teaching on the Pope as a sign of the unity of the Church. But I don't think that unity is preserved by dividing the world into blacks and whites and then attacking everything a "black" says simply because he's "black". This is, in fact, what Stephen has done. And in doing so, he has wound up attacking something John Paul has pointed out, that the health of the Church is bound up with her approach to the Eucharist and the work of evangelization.
This "Pope as Flag" mentality is often carried very far. Often it is so dominant that when the Pope says or does something a Flag-waver can't bear, the "Powerful Forces" excuse is brought out to explain it away. So, for instance, when the Pope says (as he did forty years ago) that "Beat Music" (what we now call rock and roll) should be used as a tool for evangelization, I've known representatives of the "True Catholic Kids Should Only Listen to Gregorian Chant" crowd explain that "Powerful Forces" were at work in the Vatican or somewhere Behind the Scenes, tricking the Pope into saying things like that. He doesn't--he can't--really mean that, because that would mean he taught something at variance with My Understanding of the Faith. This is classic "Pope as Flag, not Teacher" thinking too.
So: a question: Is the Pope your teacher or just your flag? Something to think about.
Stephen Hand's critique of my piece on "community building" is mystifying me
He somehow forms the idea that I am pitting community against the transcendental dimension of the Mass and demanding people choose one or the other. Read the piece yourself. I could have sworn I said both were the goal, but that we get the former by focusing on the latter, not that the latter alone is important and the former must be rejected.
However, even weirder than this is the fact that Stephen has opted to put me in his email kill-file, so that I can't respond to him in any way but on a public blog. Then, he uses my comments box to advertise an odd swipe at my piece. He's welcome to use my comments box--even for that. But there is something rather ungracious about kill-filing a person and then showing up to advertise further insults against them on their own comment box, doncha think Stephen? This is community building? This is the social dimension of the gospel?
He somehow forms the idea that I am pitting community against the transcendental dimension of the Mass and demanding people choose one or the other. Read the piece yourself. I could have sworn I said both were the goal, but that we get the former by focusing on the latter, not that the latter alone is important and the former must be rejected.
However, even weirder than this is the fact that Stephen has opted to put me in his email kill-file, so that I can't respond to him in any way but on a public blog. Then, he uses my comments box to advertise an odd swipe at my piece. He's welcome to use my comments box--even for that. But there is something rather ungracious about kill-filing a person and then showing up to advertise further insults against them on their own comment box, doncha think Stephen? This is community building? This is the social dimension of the gospel?
Another abusive priest is found after the clerical mafia's efforts to hide him fail
I hope they can put this guy away but I fear the statute of limitations will work against it. Maybe they can nail him for fleeing justice? After that though, I hope they can also jail his accomplices. Enough!
I hope they can put this guy away but I fear the statute of limitations will work against it. Maybe they can nail him for fleeing justice? After that though, I hope they can also jail his accomplices. Enough!
Now Here's a Cool Idea!
It turns out that 99% of the priests out there are good guys. They need encouragement and we need to be reminded just how good they are. Check out Thankyoufather.com. Read a cool story or two and leave one of your own if you've got one.
It turns out that 99% of the priests out there are good guys. They need encouragement and we need to be reminded just how good they are. Check out Thankyoufather.com. Read a cool story or two and leave one of your own if you've got one.
My Pal James Akin of Catholic Answers has a blog!
Your one-stop shopping point for all your apologetics needs. And, if you come from a Reformed background (which I don't) he's Da Man for answering your questions since he's been where you are and can scratch where you itch.
Your one-stop shopping point for all your apologetics needs. And, if you come from a Reformed background (which I don't) he's Da Man for answering your questions since he's been where you are and can scratch where you itch.
A Priest in Medicine Hat with Spine
Frances Quisling lecturing the priest on upholding Church teaching is like Michael Dukakis in a tank.
Frances Quisling lecturing the priest on upholding Church teaching is like Michael Dukakis in a tank.
From the "My Readers Are Just So Incredibly Classy" Department
I won't publish the name, address, and phone stuff, but I would urge you to check out this reader's blog.
Oh, and Mr. Koch, there's more mail where that came from but I don't want to fill up my blog with it. Thanks, folks, for taking a moment to combat the culture of death. It does make a difference.
Mr. Koch --
I'm sure you're busy, so i'll keep it simple:
Protestant pastor, no Catholic family a'tall.
Massively offended, more by the cop-out rationalizations than by the fact you backed into this meat-grinder by way of doing PR, which i do actually understand.
Y'all crossed a line, and don't seem able to say that you get it very clearly.
Please consider doing so; i can't threaten much, as i like Guiness and Sam'l Smith Oatmeal Stout anyhow, but i do occasionally drink with others who do drink your product.
You've given me an interesting conversational gambit when that happens.
In Grace & Peace,
I won't publish the name, address, and phone stuff, but I would urge you to check out this reader's blog.
Oh, and Mr. Koch, there's more mail where that came from but I don't want to fill up my blog with it. Thanks, folks, for taking a moment to combat the culture of death. It does make a difference.
Tim Drake on Our Lady of Hollywood, Dreher and Signs
Your one-stop shopping place for all your August 2002 American Catholic cultural needs.
Your one-stop shopping place for all your August 2002 American Catholic cultural needs.
A Sam Adams Joke
Jim Koch sent the first bottles of Sam Adams off to be analyzed for FDA approval. The lab sent them back the bad news: "Your horse has diabetes."
Jim Koch sent the first bottles of Sam Adams off to be analyzed for FDA approval. The lab sent them back the bad news: "Your horse has diabetes."
Got the Apology 2.0 GrovelSpam from Jim Koch at Boston Beer this AM
Here's my reply to him:
Here's my reply to him:
Dear Mr. Koch:
If there's one thing that could serve to drive a customer away more emphatically than desecrating his or her faith, it's desecrating his or her faith and then insulting their intelligence to boot. Catholic faith is, of course, about the forgiveness of sins. There's remarkably little point to it if you leave that bit out. But forgiveness of sins presupposes a sincere confession of wrongdoing and a firm purpose of amendment.
Now then: you say, and expect me to believe, that you had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show. Yet, according to the NY Post, everybody else knew this:
Fans of the WNEW show said the stunt was part of the program's "Sex for Sam" feature - which offers a prize to the couple having sex at the riskiest location in the city.
A couple having sex in a church would get 25 points, according to a list of 54 sites around the city seized from Mercurio.
So you seriously expect me to believe that you, the sponsor of this revolting stunt, had no idea what the stunt involved? Reeeeeally? Please.
You continue, saying you should have walked off the show and didn't. Not only should you have walked off the show, you should never have sponsored it. I'm sorry, but the transcripts of your enthusiastic commentary:
``I think these guys are awesome,'' Koch was saying from his voyeur's perch inside New York's WNEW studio during the now-infamous - and final - Opie and Anthony broadcast Aug. 15. ``The quality gets better every year.'' (source: Boston Herald)
...do not indicate a man undergoing a crisis of conscience there in the broadcasting booth, wondering if he should walk off the show and failing, out of weakness, to do so. It suggests a man who thought the whole thing was cool till it began to dimly occur to him that profits were being threatened by his despicable enthusiasm for this repulsive contest. Likewise, your initial lame excuse ("We were not in control of the program") suggests a company that cares, not about the fact that it just pissed in the faces of millions of its customers, but about the fact that its insulting and degrading sponsorship of insulting and degrading programming will lose it millions of dollars. Sure, you were not in control of the program. Fine. But you needn't have sponsored it at all and I don't believe for a moment that you did not know what the programming consisted of. Nor do I believe you were not completely enthusiastic about it till your vestigial conscience was pricked by the thought losing a million bucks and some dim awareness crossed your mind that it might be a special act of cretinism for a brewer--a brewer, for heaven's sake--to insult millions of German and Irish Catholics in a country where there are a hell of a lot of other beers out there.
So now, your vestigial conscience has prompted you to send out this somewhat-more-contrite GrovelSpam which adds mendacity to desecration and hopes that it quiets those dumb Catholics.
Sorry, but we're not that dumb.
Next time, when you draft Apology 3.0, here are the talking points:
1. Sincerest apologies
2. We knew exactly what we were doing when we irresponsibly sponsored this grotesque contest. It was wrong and we apologize.
3. We knew exactly how the contest worked, including the points for sex in Church. It was all grotesque, including the sex in Church, but we thought we could get away with it.
4. We not only insulted your faith, we were stupid, since so many Catholics drink our product.
5. We not only insulted your faith, we were mendacious, and attempted to pretend we didn't know what was going on when the public reacted.
6. We not only insulted your faith, we compounded our mendacity by sending out a GrovelSpam with a new improved apology from the one on our website, which still never addressed the heart of the problem: the fact that we knew perfectly well what the contest involved (including points for sex in church) and tried to finesse you back with Clintonesque apologies that never actually address the wrong we did.
7. We are also sorry for sticking legalese at the bottom of the GrovelSpam letter which makes it impossible for the letter to be posted publicly.
8. As a token of our sincerity, we of course promise that there will never again be another "Sex for Sam" contest or any other such insult to the public, nor will our advertising ever be anything but respectful, not only of the Catholic faith, but of all religious traditions.
9. Finally, we would like to donate a portion of our profits to the Poor Box of St. Patrick's Cathedral to put our money where our mouth is.
Do this, and I reckon you will find millions of Irish and German Catholics to be a forgiving lot. Otherwise, there's a hell of a lot of other good beers out there and yours goes in the toilet.
Oh, and by the way, I run a widely-read Catholic blog site (www.markshea.blogspot.com) and write for a wide variety of Catholic newspapers and magazines for a very large Catholic reading public. So, though you guys are too chicken to let me run your Apology 2.0 letter there, I will run my reply to your letter on my blog and (I hope) in the Catholic press, as well as giving the email for still more feedback to Boston Beer. Keep working on that apology until you actually apologize (and take some serious steps to pay) for what you did. Then we'll take you seriously.
Still disgusted,
Mark Shea
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Light Blogging Today
I've hauled a vanload of Strapping Youths to my brother's house for a swim fest in the lake. Would you be sitting at a computer when it's 80 degrees and there's a perfectly beautiful lake a few yards away?
I've hauled a vanload of Strapping Youths to my brother's house for a swim fest in the lake. Would you be sitting at a computer when it's 80 degrees and there's a perfectly beautiful lake a few yards away?
Fr. Rob Johansen Wants to Know...
what people think of having folks grip and grin at each other before Mass as a way of building community.
I basically think people should save it for coffee hour. AmChurch does not need still more emphasis on "community building". It needs a return to the transcendent ("Seek first his kingdom and all these things shall be added as well"). Community is like health. You get it, not by seeking it, but by seeking other, more important things. For my basic take on such matters, go here.
what people think of having folks grip and grin at each other before Mass as a way of building community.
I basically think people should save it for coffee hour. AmChurch does not need still more emphasis on "community building". It needs a return to the transcendent ("Seek first his kingdom and all these things shall be added as well"). Community is like health. You get it, not by seeking it, but by seeking other, more important things. For my basic take on such matters, go here.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
How Revelation Proceeds
There's a little discussion going on about the Immaculate Conception and several Catholics are voicing the "She had to be immaculate so that Jesus could dwell in her womb" theory. A Protestant is (understandably) saying "Then how does the Holy Spirit dwell in the rest of us unimmaculate types?" I'm not going to try to answer that question (since I don't buy that explanation of the reason for the IC either, so I'm not obliged to).
Instead, I'm going to point out something else. Folks trying to deal with some point of revelation need to remember that theories about *why* God chose to do X and not Y are different than the revelation that God has, in fact, done X and not Y. C.S. Lewis referred to this in Mere Christianity when he spoke of vitamin theories. He said that people ate their dinners for centuries without ever knowing what vitamins were. They just ate and felt better. Then somebody came up with vitamin theories to explain why dinners make you feel better when you are hungry. If, tomorrow, somebody proves that vitamins don't exist, people will go on eating their dinners and feeling better.
Theories of the atonement are the same way. We know *that* Christ's death and resurrection have atoned for our sins. We don't really know how and all our various theories attempting to explain how are just that: theories about the Reality, not the Reality itself. What matters is that we receive the atonement in faith and baptism. Theories of how it all works are handy, but quite secondary. They are not the revelation, only our attempts to understand the revelation.
Dittos for the Immaculate Conception. What is revealed is the fact that Mary was preserved from sin (both original and actual). Why God chose to do so is an entirely secondary question. Bad explanations by Catholics don't refute the revelation. They merely show that some Catholics have inadequate theories about why God does the strange and wonderful things he does.
It is worth noting that revelation proceeds much more like falling in love than like deriving the solution to a math problem. The early Church did not come up with a passel of doctrines and then say, "Let's tell people that God is a Trinity, Mary is sinless, and predestination and free will are both true so that we can play logic games with this cool leatherbound book we just published." Rather, revelation hit them on the head out of clear blue sky and they spent the rest of their lives asking, "What the heck was that?" Just as we don't get up in the morning planning to meet That Special (Wo)Man Who Changes our Lives Forever, so the apostles were not expecting to meet Jesus and have him do all the weird things he did. They weren't expecting the Resurrection. Or Pentecost. Or the conversion of the Gentiles. Or Mary. These things happened and then the Church has spent 2000 years trying to figure out what happened and what it all means.
This means that the Church often doesn't really know *why* it teaches what it teaches. "Why no women priests?" somebody asks. And the Church spends several decades or centuries saying, "Good question. All we know is what Jesus told us to do. Here are some possible reasons why. But the important thing is Jesus told us to do it this way." Same with the Immaculate Conception. The Church is satisfied *that* Mary is immaculately conceived and sinless. Reasons *why* God might have chosen to do this are an entirely secondary matter.
There's a little discussion going on about the Immaculate Conception and several Catholics are voicing the "She had to be immaculate so that Jesus could dwell in her womb" theory. A Protestant is (understandably) saying "Then how does the Holy Spirit dwell in the rest of us unimmaculate types?" I'm not going to try to answer that question (since I don't buy that explanation of the reason for the IC either, so I'm not obliged to).
Instead, I'm going to point out something else. Folks trying to deal with some point of revelation need to remember that theories about *why* God chose to do X and not Y are different than the revelation that God has, in fact, done X and not Y. C.S. Lewis referred to this in Mere Christianity when he spoke of vitamin theories. He said that people ate their dinners for centuries without ever knowing what vitamins were. They just ate and felt better. Then somebody came up with vitamin theories to explain why dinners make you feel better when you are hungry. If, tomorrow, somebody proves that vitamins don't exist, people will go on eating their dinners and feeling better.
Theories of the atonement are the same way. We know *that* Christ's death and resurrection have atoned for our sins. We don't really know how and all our various theories attempting to explain how are just that: theories about the Reality, not the Reality itself. What matters is that we receive the atonement in faith and baptism. Theories of how it all works are handy, but quite secondary. They are not the revelation, only our attempts to understand the revelation.
Dittos for the Immaculate Conception. What is revealed is the fact that Mary was preserved from sin (both original and actual). Why God chose to do so is an entirely secondary question. Bad explanations by Catholics don't refute the revelation. They merely show that some Catholics have inadequate theories about why God does the strange and wonderful things he does.
It is worth noting that revelation proceeds much more like falling in love than like deriving the solution to a math problem. The early Church did not come up with a passel of doctrines and then say, "Let's tell people that God is a Trinity, Mary is sinless, and predestination and free will are both true so that we can play logic games with this cool leatherbound book we just published." Rather, revelation hit them on the head out of clear blue sky and they spent the rest of their lives asking, "What the heck was that?" Just as we don't get up in the morning planning to meet That Special (Wo)Man Who Changes our Lives Forever, so the apostles were not expecting to meet Jesus and have him do all the weird things he did. They weren't expecting the Resurrection. Or Pentecost. Or the conversion of the Gentiles. Or Mary. These things happened and then the Church has spent 2000 years trying to figure out what happened and what it all means.
This means that the Church often doesn't really know *why* it teaches what it teaches. "Why no women priests?" somebody asks. And the Church spends several decades or centuries saying, "Good question. All we know is what Jesus told us to do. Here are some possible reasons why. But the important thing is Jesus told us to do it this way." Same with the Immaculate Conception. The Church is satisfied *that* Mary is immaculately conceived and sinless. Reasons *why* God might have chosen to do this are an entirely secondary matter.
Some Gutsy Orthodox Attack Sexual Abuse in Their Communion
More power to ya. It appears the Lord is cleaning house everywhere.
More power to ya. It appears the Lord is cleaning house everywhere.
Part of What Helped Make a Catholic of Me was This Sort of Thing
I wrote, in plain English, using short, easy-to-read words: "By the way, you do know, don't you, that Mary's sinlessness is due to the grace of Christ and not to some intrinsic merit of her own? For example, Christ saved me from a life as a drug dealing Nazi skinhead. Do you know how? By keeping me from ever falling into those sins in the first place. He did the same thing for Mary, only he kept her from falling into any sin, including original sin. That's the basic Catholic belief. Not a claim that she needed no savior, but rather a claim that she was completely saved"
The reader to whom I was replying then wrote back: "You seem to think Mary didn't need a Savior."
It's this sort of pre-recorded response to Catholic teaching that I found singularly depressing in so many Protestant attempts to deal with what the Church teaches when I was trying to evaluate the claims of the Church vs. Protestant critiques. So many critiques boiled down, like this one, to saying "Catholics *can't* say Mary is saved by the grace of Christ because my tape-recorded response is only crafted to deal with the straw man Catholic who (my teachers assure me) believe Mary needed no Savior. So I'll just repeat myself, even when it makes no sense."
Um, every evening of every day, for hundreds and hundreds of years, the Church has prayed the Magnificat in which Mary says, "My spirit rejoices in God my *savior*. This is not a news flash to the Church.
Please. Deal with what Catholics actually teach and throw away the pre-recorded responses. For those who are seriously trying to grapple with Catholic teaching, such rejoinders only have the effect of making a powerful case that most critics of Catholic teaching don't have a clue what they are rejecting.
I wrote, in plain English, using short, easy-to-read words: "By the way, you do know, don't you, that Mary's sinlessness is due to the grace of Christ and not to some intrinsic merit of her own? For example, Christ saved me from a life as a drug dealing Nazi skinhead. Do you know how? By keeping me from ever falling into those sins in the first place. He did the same thing for Mary, only he kept her from falling into any sin, including original sin. That's the basic Catholic belief. Not a claim that she needed no savior, but rather a claim that she was completely saved"
The reader to whom I was replying then wrote back: "You seem to think Mary didn't need a Savior."
It's this sort of pre-recorded response to Catholic teaching that I found singularly depressing in so many Protestant attempts to deal with what the Church teaches when I was trying to evaluate the claims of the Church vs. Protestant critiques. So many critiques boiled down, like this one, to saying "Catholics *can't* say Mary is saved by the grace of Christ because my tape-recorded response is only crafted to deal with the straw man Catholic who (my teachers assure me) believe Mary needed no Savior. So I'll just repeat myself, even when it makes no sense."
Um, every evening of every day, for hundreds and hundreds of years, the Church has prayed the Magnificat in which Mary says, "My spirit rejoices in God my *savior*. This is not a news flash to the Church.
Please. Deal with what Catholics actually teach and throw away the pre-recorded responses. For those who are seriously trying to grapple with Catholic teaching, such rejoinders only have the effect of making a powerful case that most critics of Catholic teaching don't have a clue what they are rejecting.
No Mention of the Immaculate Conception can Fail to Elicit the Famous Romans 3:23 Objection
A reader sez:
A couple of points:
1. "For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all." So, since "all means all" it must follow that Paul believes God will have mercy on all. Right? Universalism is therefore a dogma, right?
No? How come?
Because Paul's use of "all" is in a collective sense ("You should have seen it! Everybody was at the party. They were all there!") not in an absolute "every-last-person" sense. For, of course, not all have sinned. A newborn hasn't. Has he contracted original sin? Yes. But has he "sinned" i.e. committed actual sin? No. In order to show a real contradiction between the Immaculate Conception and Scripture, you have to show that Paul mean "all" in the absolute sense, not the collective sense.
2. If "all" means "all" does this include Jesus?
No. For Paul expects the reader to know--without his stating it--that Jesus is exempt from "all". In short, he expects his reader to be familiar with unwritten Tradition. A Catholic would say the same thing obtains with the Blessed Virgin. Paul expects us to know that she is a special exception, like Jesus.
3) The Assumption makes no sense apart from the Immaculate Conception.
One handy thing to remember is that the whole reason the Church wrestled with this problem so long is that Romans 3:23 is as much a part of her tradition as it is that of Protestantism. It's not like the Church was unaware of this verse. It's just that the Church was aware of other aspects of the Tradition as well. It is worth noting that Augustine, the Doctor of Original Sin, who fought like a tiger for the insistence that all are afflicted with this spiritual death of original sin from our First Parents, also takes it for granted that Mary, of course, is the exception to the rule, by the grace of Christ. Quick proof text appeals are seldom terribly useful, as though a legion of saints and thinkers had somehow failed to ever notice this passage and the objector is the first person to have come across it.
(By the way, you do know, don't you, that Mary's sinlessness is due to the grace of Christ and not to some intrinsic merit of her own? For example, Christ saved me from a life as a drug dealing Nazi skinhead. Do you know how? By keeping me from every falling into those sins in the first place. He did the same thing for Mary, only he kept her from falling into any sin, including original sin. That's the basic Catholic belief. Not a claim that she needed no savior, but rather a claim that she was completely saved.)
Please. No questions on "Why Mary and not me?" How should I know? God has his own purposes. Certainly, though, if God wishes to do something like this, he is within his rights. He owes us nothing.
A reader sez:
While I believe you are correct that there can be revelation that is not contained in Scripture, there can be no revelation that contradicts Scripture, to wit, "... for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace...." (Romans 3:23-24)
"All" is, well, all... So (pace Garry Wills) it's Assumption/Dormition "Si," Immaculate Conception, "no."
A couple of points:
1. "For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all." So, since "all means all" it must follow that Paul believes God will have mercy on all. Right? Universalism is therefore a dogma, right?
No? How come?
Because Paul's use of "all" is in a collective sense ("You should have seen it! Everybody was at the party. They were all there!") not in an absolute "every-last-person" sense. For, of course, not all have sinned. A newborn hasn't. Has he contracted original sin? Yes. But has he "sinned" i.e. committed actual sin? No. In order to show a real contradiction between the Immaculate Conception and Scripture, you have to show that Paul mean "all" in the absolute sense, not the collective sense.
2. If "all" means "all" does this include Jesus?
No. For Paul expects the reader to know--without his stating it--that Jesus is exempt from "all". In short, he expects his reader to be familiar with unwritten Tradition. A Catholic would say the same thing obtains with the Blessed Virgin. Paul expects us to know that she is a special exception, like Jesus.
3) The Assumption makes no sense apart from the Immaculate Conception.
One handy thing to remember is that the whole reason the Church wrestled with this problem so long is that Romans 3:23 is as much a part of her tradition as it is that of Protestantism. It's not like the Church was unaware of this verse. It's just that the Church was aware of other aspects of the Tradition as well. It is worth noting that Augustine, the Doctor of Original Sin, who fought like a tiger for the insistence that all are afflicted with this spiritual death of original sin from our First Parents, also takes it for granted that Mary, of course, is the exception to the rule, by the grace of Christ. Quick proof text appeals are seldom terribly useful, as though a legion of saints and thinkers had somehow failed to ever notice this passage and the objector is the first person to have come across it.
(By the way, you do know, don't you, that Mary's sinlessness is due to the grace of Christ and not to some intrinsic merit of her own? For example, Christ saved me from a life as a drug dealing Nazi skinhead. Do you know how? By keeping me from every falling into those sins in the first place. He did the same thing for Mary, only he kept her from falling into any sin, including original sin. That's the basic Catholic belief. Not a claim that she needed no savior, but rather a claim that she was completely saved.)
Please. No questions on "Why Mary and not me?" How should I know? God has his own purposes. Certainly, though, if God wishes to do something like this, he is within his rights. He owes us nothing.
BS from Boston Beer
The "points scale" for public sex was not suddenly announced on the show that day. It was standard policy and Koch knew it. This jerk knew exactly what they were doing. Don't let them add dishonesty to desecration. Tell them they can pour their horse piss down the toilet for this double insult.
The "points scale" for public sex was not suddenly announced on the show that day. It was standard policy and Koch knew it. This jerk knew exactly what they were doing. Don't let them add dishonesty to desecration. Tell them they can pour their horse piss down the toilet for this double insult.
Another Encomium to Josef Pieper
A reader writes:
A reader writes:
Thanks for blogging the Pieperian Analysis of Babette's Feast. I noticed it didn't generate much discussion, but hopefully a few people read this, and are intrigued by, I think, one of the wisest philosophers of the 20th century. Hopefully, that will inspire some to read his essays.
I think the importance of reading good (ie., truthful, wise) philosophers is that they enable the reader to bring into sharper focus his thoughts and ideas, to tie together his observations of life (either conscious or unconscious), and/or to resolve his perplexities with the world. In otherwords, the philosopher enlightens.
I remember once during the period in the late 90s when the Left in America had cranked up the spin machine to defend Clinton's perjurious testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial. In order to keep their man in power, they resorted to a barrage of lies and half-truths in order to keep Clinton's poll numbers high and Kenneth Starr's low. Through their spin, they painted a picture of the world that seemed vaguely plausible, yet at the same time decidely unreal. I could sense the spinmmeister's sophism - the disingenuousness and the obfuscation - yet, I could not see it entirely for what it was. It all became clear to me when I read Josef Pieper's essay Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power (1974), which in many ways is summed up by these two paragraphs:
And precisely this is one of the lessons recognized by Plato through his own experience with the sophists of his time, a lesson he sets before us as well. This lesson, in a nutshell, says: the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed, finds in it the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much so that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained, as it were, by observing the symptom of the public abuse of language. The degradation, too, of man through man, alarmingly evident in the acts of physical violence committed by all tyrannies has its beginning, certainly much less alarmingly, at that almost imperceptible moment when the word loses its dignity. The dignity of the word, to be sure consists in this: through the word is accomplished what no other means can accomplish, namely, communication based on reality. Once again it becomes evident that both areas, as has to be expected are connected: the relationship based on mere power, and thus the most miserable decay of human interaction, stands in direct proportion to the most devastating breakdown in orientation toward reality.
What more can I say?
Boston Beer makes a startling discovery
It appears that there are lots of other beers in the world and if a brewer chooses to spit in the eye of millions of Irish and German Catholics, they can find those other beers and drink them instead.
It appears that there are lots of other beers in the world and if a brewer chooses to spit in the eye of millions of Irish and German Catholics, they can find those other beers and drink them instead.
Monday, August 26, 2002
Using my best Sister Mary Elephant Voice
Let me just say that vigorous conversation is encouraged in my comments boxes, but let's play well with others, people. No mind or soul reading. Stick to the argument and don't stray into speculating on the knavish soul and sinister motives of the person with whom you disagree. Just a reminder.
Let me just say that vigorous conversation is encouraged in my comments boxes, but let's play well with others, people. No mind or soul reading. Stick to the argument and don't stray into speculating on the knavish soul and sinister motives of the person with whom you disagree. Just a reminder.
A reader says:
Remember: Catholics don't think that all revelation is conveyed only in Scripture. They believe the Tradition transmits revelation as well. Both the sinlessness and the "dormition" or Assumption of Mary are ancient features of the Tradition (which is why the Orthodox, who split from Rome a thousand years before the definitions were promulgated) regard them as part of the Tradition. Neither definition added anything new. They merely defined more closely what the Church has always believed.
It is true that the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception, but their reason for doing so is not much consolation to your average Protestant. Protestants take such a high view of original sin that they can't believe even Mary was exempt from it. Orthodox tend to reject the idea of original sin and therefore never bothered with the question of how Mary (whom they, like Catholics, believe to have been "Panagia" or "All Holy" or stainless) got that way. Catholics defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in order to clarify how a belief they shared with the Orthodox (Mary's sinlessness) could be reconciled with a belief they share with Protestants (original sin). As usual, it offended both the Orthodox and the Protestants. Part of the genius of our Faith. :)
The Assumption (or Dormition as it is known in the East) was made a feast in the Eastern Church in the fourth century. This is considerably before 1950 and so is hardly "new revelation". Feasts are like icebergs in the ancient Church. When the Church gets as far as proclaiming a feast, we are looking at something that is widely received as "common knowledge" by everybody (much like nobody would be stunned if the Church formally defined that a human person exists from conception tomorrow morning). Notably, the promulgation of the feast seems to have generated no controversy at a time when itsy bitsy doctrinal variations generated huge controversies (think "homoousious vs. homoiousious") or the giant screamfest that erupted over "Theotokos vs. Christotokos". This provides strong support for the contention that it was common knowledge in the early Church that Mary had been assumed into heaven. It was a non-controversial proposition to a Church that was easily given to controversy.
You said, "an infallible definition is never new revelation" but isn't that just a mite disingenuous? The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary into heaven were both infallibly declared but both are about as close to new revelation as one could possibly get, given that there is no Scriptural support for either and little support in Tradition.
Remember: Catholics don't think that all revelation is conveyed only in Scripture. They believe the Tradition transmits revelation as well. Both the sinlessness and the "dormition" or Assumption of Mary are ancient features of the Tradition (which is why the Orthodox, who split from Rome a thousand years before the definitions were promulgated) regard them as part of the Tradition. Neither definition added anything new. They merely defined more closely what the Church has always believed.
It is true that the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception, but their reason for doing so is not much consolation to your average Protestant. Protestants take such a high view of original sin that they can't believe even Mary was exempt from it. Orthodox tend to reject the idea of original sin and therefore never bothered with the question of how Mary (whom they, like Catholics, believe to have been "Panagia" or "All Holy" or stainless) got that way. Catholics defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in order to clarify how a belief they shared with the Orthodox (Mary's sinlessness) could be reconciled with a belief they share with Protestants (original sin). As usual, it offended both the Orthodox and the Protestants. Part of the genius of our Faith. :)
The Assumption (or Dormition as it is known in the East) was made a feast in the Eastern Church in the fourth century. This is considerably before 1950 and so is hardly "new revelation". Feasts are like icebergs in the ancient Church. When the Church gets as far as proclaiming a feast, we are looking at something that is widely received as "common knowledge" by everybody (much like nobody would be stunned if the Church formally defined that a human person exists from conception tomorrow morning). Notably, the promulgation of the feast seems to have generated no controversy at a time when itsy bitsy doctrinal variations generated huge controversies (think "homoousious vs. homoiousious") or the giant screamfest that erupted over "Theotokos vs. Christotokos". This provides strong support for the contention that it was common knowledge in the early Church that Mary had been assumed into heaven. It was a non-controversial proposition to a Church that was easily given to controversy.
A reader writes:
Thanks so much for your kind words. Very briefly. "Is it about oxen that God is concerned?" St. Paul asks this question and assumes that we know the answer: No.
Biblical revelation concerns itself solely with our salvation. It does not pretend to be a science book of Everything. For Paul, "death" refers to human death, not the death of oysters. He gives no hint that the sin of Adam results in the death of anybody but human beings. It is reading into, not out of, the text to assume that he has in mind the suffering of animals at the hands of carnivores.
And, by the way, the Catechism itself tells us that Genesis is using "figurative language" in describing the historic events of Creation and Fall
(390. "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.[Cf. GS 13 # 1.] Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.[Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654.] "
For my take on Genesis, see my book Making Senses Out of Scripture. To say the writer uses figurative language is not to say the events of Genesis are not historical. It is to say the writer chooses to relate an historic event in non-historical language (as Nathan did when he told of the historic event of the adultery of David in the words of the story of the man who robbed his neighbor of a ewe lamb.)
But Scripture simply does not commit us to the idea that no living thing died before the fall. It has in view only human death.
My suggestion: Read C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain for an attempt to wrestle with that problem.
First of all, I find your work really inspirational and I pray it will bring unity in Christ between Catholics and protestants. I have read your book on Evangelicals discovering tradition and have noted some interesting concepts about divine revelation. I am also really inspired by Mary as the Ark of The New Covenant. I just wanted to mention however, I am not on the same page as you in regards to creation. It's not so much whether God created the world in a literal 7 days or not, ( however I believe He did, and the Sacred Scriptures only confirms that all throughout, even Catholic Tradition confirms that with Saturday evening Mass ) the main point here is the point of the Fall of man which is where the infallible doctrine of original sin comes in. As a result of Adam's sin death spread to all ( including all the animals ), in this way it was sin that caused pain and suffering, not God! Now when you look at the record from Adam to Christ to now scholars have been able to calculate the approxamite age of the earth. I'm not really a science buff, but how do you tie in the doctrine of original sin causing suffering to creation ( bones dated at millions of years of animals clearly tormenting each other in travail ) with the biblical account in light of Sacred Tradition ( I was under the impression that the Church would have one point affirmed for sure a literal 7 day creation, say for example Augustine, as She assures us that the Deuterocanonical books are infallibly as well the Word of God in the form of Divine Revelation - Jesus Christ Himself being the incarnate Word ). Brother, that just does not make sense to me. I do no Catholics who believe in a true 7 day creation by the way. I am applauding the Holy Spirit on how He is leading the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Praise be our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Praise be to God our Father. Praise be to the Blessed Trinity. Please respond to my e-mail thoughtfully and prayerfully, I will pray for your evangelization to bring many people to salvation in Christ and brothers and sisters to dwell in unity together.
Thanks so much for your kind words. Very briefly. "Is it about oxen that God is concerned?" St. Paul asks this question and assumes that we know the answer: No.
Biblical revelation concerns itself solely with our salvation. It does not pretend to be a science book of Everything. For Paul, "death" refers to human death, not the death of oysters. He gives no hint that the sin of Adam results in the death of anybody but human beings. It is reading into, not out of, the text to assume that he has in mind the suffering of animals at the hands of carnivores.
And, by the way, the Catechism itself tells us that Genesis is using "figurative language" in describing the historic events of Creation and Fall
(390. "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.[Cf. GS 13 # 1.] Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.[Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654.] "
For my take on Genesis, see my book Making Senses Out of Scripture. To say the writer uses figurative language is not to say the events of Genesis are not historical. It is to say the writer chooses to relate an historic event in non-historical language (as Nathan did when he told of the historic event of the adultery of David in the words of the story of the man who robbed his neighbor of a ewe lamb.)
But Scripture simply does not commit us to the idea that no living thing died before the fall. It has in view only human death.
My suggestion: Read C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain for an attempt to wrestle with that problem.
Chris Lansdown is confused about Papal Infallibility and Ex Cathedra statements
He writes:
I'm no expert in moral theology so don't look to me for the fine points. However, FWIW, Humanae Vitae, while an expression of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church (i.e. what the Church has always taught and said and therefore infallible) was not an ex cathedra definition of dogma. It simply reiterated the constant teaching of the Church that nature is good and that our technologies are to assist, not thwart, natural processes. You can't get an argument against papal infallibility out of your problems with Humanae Vitae since the Pope's position is most emphatically not contrary to either Scripture or Tradition. Saying the arguments for the Tradition don't appeal to your reason is not sufficient to rebut the infallible nature of the teaching. You would have to show that the teaching is absolutely contrary to Scripture and Tradition. It's not.
Just to be clear, Papal infallibility is simply a corollary of the infallibility of the Church. It is reflected in Jesus' promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and, in particular, in his promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth. An infallible definition is never new revelation. It is merely a clarified description of old revelation. (See this article for a discussion of that.) Thus, infallibility is a negative charism, not a positive act of inspired prophecy. In plain English, it's the promise of the Holy Spirit that when the Church is guided to define its teaching formally, the Holy Spirit will not permit her to define error as doctrine.
Some Christians have a problem with this and see in this a denial of human freedom. Yet very few such Christians have any problem thinking that, as Paul said, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" or in thinking that the Scriptures (which recorded precisely what the Holy Spirit intended to be written) were not also written in complete freedom by the human authors. Same principle obtains here. Catholics would argue that the infallibility is not an expression of slavery, but of freedom. The Church is *liberated* to proclaim the truth in defining doctrine, set free (in that moment) from the bondage of ignorance, stupidity and sin to clearly articulate the revelation.
Papal infallibility is simply a corrollary of this. Other sources (see Catholic Answers, for instance), give the biblical, patristic and theological arguments for this better than me though. So I'll let them do it. To see what I have to say about infallibility, go here.
He writes:
I have written a few posts on the topic of contraception (totaling about 4,000 words) and have been contemplating it for a while. The upshot is that I cannot accept any of the arguments against contraception which I have yet seen, and that if Humanae Vitae is an example of the pope speaking Ex Cathedra, then I can no longer keep an open mind about papal infallibility and must reject it as false. Thank you for your time.
Anyhow, if you care:
http://weblog.wayreth.onegeek.org/arguments_on_contraception_part_2.html
http://weblog.wayreth.onegeek.org/arguments_on_contraception_part_3.html
http://weblog.wayreth.onegeek.org/humanae_vitae.html
But if the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra on the issue, I don't think that this discussion any longer has any relevance. No one but those who believe in papal infallibility reject contraception, and those who do can't change their mind (especially since they don't believe it by argumentation anyway).
Thanks for your time and I hope that my position on this does not preclude our discussing other matters where I our beliefs coincide more (while I was baptised Greek Orthodox, my beliefs are nearly catholic with the one big exception of papal infallibility).
I'm no expert in moral theology so don't look to me for the fine points. However, FWIW, Humanae Vitae, while an expression of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church (i.e. what the Church has always taught and said and therefore infallible) was not an ex cathedra definition of dogma. It simply reiterated the constant teaching of the Church that nature is good and that our technologies are to assist, not thwart, natural processes. You can't get an argument against papal infallibility out of your problems with Humanae Vitae since the Pope's position is most emphatically not contrary to either Scripture or Tradition. Saying the arguments for the Tradition don't appeal to your reason is not sufficient to rebut the infallible nature of the teaching. You would have to show that the teaching is absolutely contrary to Scripture and Tradition. It's not.
Just to be clear, Papal infallibility is simply a corollary of the infallibility of the Church. It is reflected in Jesus' promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and, in particular, in his promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth. An infallible definition is never new revelation. It is merely a clarified description of old revelation. (See this article for a discussion of that.) Thus, infallibility is a negative charism, not a positive act of inspired prophecy. In plain English, it's the promise of the Holy Spirit that when the Church is guided to define its teaching formally, the Holy Spirit will not permit her to define error as doctrine.
Some Christians have a problem with this and see in this a denial of human freedom. Yet very few such Christians have any problem thinking that, as Paul said, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" or in thinking that the Scriptures (which recorded precisely what the Holy Spirit intended to be written) were not also written in complete freedom by the human authors. Same principle obtains here. Catholics would argue that the infallibility is not an expression of slavery, but of freedom. The Church is *liberated* to proclaim the truth in defining doctrine, set free (in that moment) from the bondage of ignorance, stupidity and sin to clearly articulate the revelation.
Papal infallibility is simply a corrollary of this. Other sources (see Catholic Answers, for instance), give the biblical, patristic and theological arguments for this better than me though. So I'll let them do it. To see what I have to say about infallibility, go here.
How Not to "Defend" the Pope
Readers of my blog will know that, though I agree with Rod about the greatness of JPII, I disagree with him about what the Pope is up to and think that he is attempting a risky medicine in keeping the bad bishops where they are to suffer the consequence of their manifold sins. I can, however, appreciate the anguish Rod feels as somebody who has had to deal on a more or less daily basis with the stories of victims, the lies of bishops, and the crimes of priests. We differ on what and whether the Pope is doing something about it. But, having gotten to know Rod over the past several months, I would tremble before God to suggest that he is motivated by love of money or contempt for the Church or the Holy Father.
Stephen Hand does not tremble. For Hand, Rod Dreher can't, of course, be an honorable Catholic with whom one has a legitimate disagreement about a prudential decision. No. He must demonized as a man lusting for power and eager to crucify the Holy Father. He has to be characterized as a false son of the Church more in love with money and power than with the good of souls and the ruined lives of children and their families.
Yes. I'm so sure the Holy Father would appreciate this sort of defense. With friends like Hand, the Holy Father doesn't need enemies.
Readers of my blog will know that, though I agree with Rod about the greatness of JPII, I disagree with him about what the Pope is up to and think that he is attempting a risky medicine in keeping the bad bishops where they are to suffer the consequence of their manifold sins. I can, however, appreciate the anguish Rod feels as somebody who has had to deal on a more or less daily basis with the stories of victims, the lies of bishops, and the crimes of priests. We differ on what and whether the Pope is doing something about it. But, having gotten to know Rod over the past several months, I would tremble before God to suggest that he is motivated by love of money or contempt for the Church or the Holy Father.
Stephen Hand does not tremble. For Hand, Rod Dreher can't, of course, be an honorable Catholic with whom one has a legitimate disagreement about a prudential decision. No. He must demonized as a man lusting for power and eager to crucify the Holy Father. He has to be characterized as a false son of the Church more in love with money and power than with the good of souls and the ruined lives of children and their families.
Yes. I'm so sure the Holy Father would appreciate this sort of defense. With friends like Hand, the Holy Father doesn't need enemies.
I'm sure this sort of thing happens constantly
It's stories like this that make me want to be a "spokesman" when I grow up. What other line of work is there where you'd get to say, "We're still looking for either a naked man with huge eyes or an emu"?
It's stories like this that make me want to be a "spokesman" when I grow up. What other line of work is there where you'd get to say, "We're still looking for either a naked man with huge eyes or an emu"?
This is cool!
A look at Babette's Feast (what?! You've never seen it? Get it from Amazon right here!) in light of the thought of Josef Pieper. (What? You've never read Pieper? 20th Century lay German Thomist. Man! Is he good. Try his Leisure: The Basis of Culture for starters.)
A look at Babette's Feast (what?! You've never seen it? Get it from Amazon right here!) in light of the thought of Josef Pieper. (What? You've never read Pieper? 20th Century lay German Thomist. Man! Is he good. Try his Leisure: The Basis of Culture for starters.)
Sunday, August 25, 2002
Friday, August 23, 2002
I'm outta here again!
August means short weeks, long weekends. This time we're out the door to Washington Park near Anacortes, on the beeyootiful shores of Puget Sound. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, we're having more fun.
While I'm gone remember: you kids don't put no beans up your noses. And it's never too late to leave a tip at the PayPal button conveniently located on the left side of the screen. Or, if you like, buy my books and/or tapes! Or hire me to come speak at your parish or conference! Democratic capitalism. Novak, Neuhaus, and Weigel would so proud.
August means short weeks, long weekends. This time we're out the door to Washington Park near Anacortes, on the beeyootiful shores of Puget Sound. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, we're having more fun.
While I'm gone remember: you kids don't put no beans up your noses. And it's never too late to leave a tip at the PayPal button conveniently located on the left side of the screen. Or, if you like, buy my books and/or tapes! Or hire me to come speak at your parish or conference! Democratic capitalism. Novak, Neuhaus, and Weigel would so proud.
Doug Sirman responds...
to my puzzled question about why so many Protestants are fascinated with the internal workings of a communion to which they don't belong.
Doug (a Protestant himself, though with Romish leanings) writes:
Okay. I can buy that.
to my puzzled question about why so many Protestants are fascinated with the internal workings of a communion to which they don't belong.
Doug (a Protestant himself, though with Romish leanings) writes:
Good question. Frankly, I believe that many prots see the Roman Catholic Church as "Mother Church" even if they won't consciously admit it. Like caring what happens in your home town, even though you don't live there anymore.
Okay. I can buy that.
Integrity ponders the response of St. Blog's to Rod Dreher's piece
As far as "polarization" goes, I think part of it is due to the fact that, at the end of the day, none of us can (humanly speaking) do anything to change anything. So we turn to talking to each other and from there, arguing with each other. I'm beginning to think that, in my own life, there is nothing for it but prayer and the attempt to be obedient to the Spirit as best I can. Unremarkable insight, I know. But there it is. The prophets' message, when you break it down, is similarly unremarkable: "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires: Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly before your God." Leaving the Church is absolutely out of the question. It is Christ's Church. I reject utterly the idea that I even have the right to leave him over this--as though the sins of other people are somehow vastly more grave than my own or as though they can or should separate me from Christ and the Church which is his body. At the same time, leaving the Church as it is, is out of the question. But I have no power to change anything by firing off letters or writing this blog, at least as far as the hierarchy goes. But I can attempt to obey Christ (I'm bad at this) and I can try to bleat about wrongdoing and try to encourage people about what's still good.
There is, by the way, still a great deal of good. Remember, remember, how newspapers work. They never tell you what's good in the world. Doesn't sell papers. Their task is to announce "Admiral Bangs is Dead!" to a world that never knew Admiral Bangs had been born. And so you hear *only* about Scandal and come to fear that there is only scandal. There isn't. There is the million year old priest who heard my first confession and set me on a road to healing whom I can never repay. There is the Catherine of Siena Institute. There is Scott Hahn. There are the burgeoning lay movements that are raising up holy laypeople who will parent tomorrows reformers. There is (still) this Pope, whose contributions to the betterment of the human condition and the progress of the gospel are epic. There is Rod Dreher. There is Gerard Serafin. There is Tom Hoopes. Passionate laypeople who, at the end of the day, desire life, joy and prosperity for all the members of Christ, not the destruction of the Church and the triumph of the culture of death. There is my parish and (in the case of many of you) your parish. There is my family, a colossal gift. There are good bishops, not absolutely flawless (who is?) but good, wise, holy, compassionate, and *honest* bishops. There are the kids who went to World Youth Day (including my own) who long for the challenge of a holy life. There is, in the end, unstoppable till the Last Day, the Holy Eucharist which continues to call people. There is the woman who walked up to my priest after months of sitting in the back of the Church and said, "How do I become Catholic?" When he chatted with her to ask what the attraction was, she said, "You know that little thing you give everybody to eat? I want that!" There is the Holy Spirit who says "Very well. You shall have that!"
J.R.R. Tolkien once remarked, "I am a Catholic. I do not expect history to be anything but one long defeat." But we are not of history, we are merely in it, for the present.
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
or, as Lady Julian or Norwich relates the Lord Jesus told her, "All will be well and all will be well, and all manner of thing will be well."
Situation desperate, Christ has triumphed. But now we must roll up our sleeves and get back to work.
As far as "polarization" goes, I think part of it is due to the fact that, at the end of the day, none of us can (humanly speaking) do anything to change anything. So we turn to talking to each other and from there, arguing with each other. I'm beginning to think that, in my own life, there is nothing for it but prayer and the attempt to be obedient to the Spirit as best I can. Unremarkable insight, I know. But there it is. The prophets' message, when you break it down, is similarly unremarkable: "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires: Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly before your God." Leaving the Church is absolutely out of the question. It is Christ's Church. I reject utterly the idea that I even have the right to leave him over this--as though the sins of other people are somehow vastly more grave than my own or as though they can or should separate me from Christ and the Church which is his body. At the same time, leaving the Church as it is, is out of the question. But I have no power to change anything by firing off letters or writing this blog, at least as far as the hierarchy goes. But I can attempt to obey Christ (I'm bad at this) and I can try to bleat about wrongdoing and try to encourage people about what's still good.
There is, by the way, still a great deal of good. Remember, remember, how newspapers work. They never tell you what's good in the world. Doesn't sell papers. Their task is to announce "Admiral Bangs is Dead!" to a world that never knew Admiral Bangs had been born. And so you hear *only* about Scandal and come to fear that there is only scandal. There isn't. There is the million year old priest who heard my first confession and set me on a road to healing whom I can never repay. There is the Catherine of Siena Institute. There is Scott Hahn. There are the burgeoning lay movements that are raising up holy laypeople who will parent tomorrows reformers. There is (still) this Pope, whose contributions to the betterment of the human condition and the progress of the gospel are epic. There is Rod Dreher. There is Gerard Serafin. There is Tom Hoopes. Passionate laypeople who, at the end of the day, desire life, joy and prosperity for all the members of Christ, not the destruction of the Church and the triumph of the culture of death. There is my parish and (in the case of many of you) your parish. There is my family, a colossal gift. There are good bishops, not absolutely flawless (who is?) but good, wise, holy, compassionate, and *honest* bishops. There are the kids who went to World Youth Day (including my own) who long for the challenge of a holy life. There is, in the end, unstoppable till the Last Day, the Holy Eucharist which continues to call people. There is the woman who walked up to my priest after months of sitting in the back of the Church and said, "How do I become Catholic?" When he chatted with her to ask what the attraction was, she said, "You know that little thing you give everybody to eat? I want that!" There is the Holy Spirit who says "Very well. You shall have that!"
J.R.R. Tolkien once remarked, "I am a Catholic. I do not expect history to be anything but one long defeat." But we are not of history, we are merely in it, for the present.
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
or, as Lady Julian or Norwich relates the Lord Jesus told her, "All will be well and all will be well, and all manner of thing will be well."
Situation desperate, Christ has triumphed. But now we must roll up our sleeves and get back to work.
A PSA from Fr. Paul Hartmann
For those of you who might be interested, no matter where you are, next Monday morning from 7am to 8am CDT, Archbishop-elect Timothy Dolan will be doing an hour long, radio interview (open to callers). He has done this sort of thing twice before and it is quite exciting. It is also quite enjoyable to listen to the banter between the Bishop and his brother Bob, a host of the program that he is appearing on. It is possible to listen via the internet (you may have to download Windows Media Player).
Here is the link to the radio station:
Hope you enjoy it if you can. We are all very excited here in Milwaukee as we look forward to Archbishop-elect Dolan installation next Wednesday. Please keep him, and this entire diocese in your prayers.
Johansen on Dreher on Johansen
Oh, and by the way, Fr. Johansen says it's "vomitorium" not "regurgitarium". I stand corrected.
Oh, and by the way, Fr. Johansen says it's "vomitorium" not "regurgitarium". I stand corrected.
Thursday, August 22, 2002
Mark Shea Catches Nihil Obstat in a Typo! Alert the Media!
Nihil writes in the comment box at this entry:
Check it out! There is a SPACE between "Parish" and the period! Nihil Obstat has been BUSTED!
Now we do the dance of joy!
Nihil writes in the comment box at this entry:
Mark,
Thanks for pointing me to yet another [victim] member of St. Blog's Parish .
N.O.
nihil obstat
Check it out! There is a SPACE between "Parish" and the period! Nihil Obstat has been BUSTED!
Now we do the dance of joy!
AIDS as a spiritual metaphor
A major American corporation sponsors sex in St. Pat's on a solemn Catholic feast day. The response from the cardinal of New York?
Not a sound. Wanna know why?
CNN commentary: "I hardly think that the Catholic League is in the right position to be saying who should lose their job over indecent sex acts!"
Now the beauxeau on CNN is, of course, too ignorant to know that Catholic League is a) a lay organization and b) not exactly in the forefront of trying to offer justifications for our abusive priests or the bishops who love them. But the comment still points to the problem: the good Cardinal of New York, and so many of his fellow bishops, *have* put themselves in the position--for the rest of their lives--of being wholly unable to credibly challenge almost any assault on the Church from every degenerate wahoo out there. It's actually *better* if they keep their trap shut than if they moralize about desecration of the Eucharist when the very hands which have confected it have been down the pants of little boys--or have signed paperwork protecting such hands and endangering more little boys. They, who were supposed be a vital part of the Church's immune system from a world that still hates the Church and wishes to destroy her, are now largely rendered unable to defend her. So the job falls to lay organizations like the Catholic League and to lay people who are not (except by ignoramuses like the CNN commentator) associated with the Scandal. I hope these dedicated folks are up to the job cuz it's theirs whether they are or not.
A major American corporation sponsors sex in St. Pat's on a solemn Catholic feast day. The response from the cardinal of New York?
Not a sound. Wanna know why?
CNN commentary: "I hardly think that the Catholic League is in the right position to be saying who should lose their job over indecent sex acts!"
Now the beauxeau on CNN is, of course, too ignorant to know that Catholic League is a) a lay organization and b) not exactly in the forefront of trying to offer justifications for our abusive priests or the bishops who love them. But the comment still points to the problem: the good Cardinal of New York, and so many of his fellow bishops, *have* put themselves in the position--for the rest of their lives--of being wholly unable to credibly challenge almost any assault on the Church from every degenerate wahoo out there. It's actually *better* if they keep their trap shut than if they moralize about desecration of the Eucharist when the very hands which have confected it have been down the pants of little boys--or have signed paperwork protecting such hands and endangering more little boys. They, who were supposed be a vital part of the Church's immune system from a world that still hates the Church and wishes to destroy her, are now largely rendered unable to defend her. So the job falls to lay organizations like the Catholic League and to lay people who are not (except by ignoramuses like the CNN commentator) associated with the Scandal. I hope these dedicated folks are up to the job cuz it's theirs whether they are or not.
Speaking of the Triumph of Pleasure
Sandra Miesel mentions to me that "the lead headline in this morning's Indy STAR is that three gay couples are suing the state for the right to marry. One lesbian pair has a son, made from donor sperm and the egg of one implanted in the other. (Resquisite picture of them with baby.)
And when we have gay marriage, can polygamy and incestuous unions be far behind?"
All of which brings us back to David Mills observation on the Touchstone blog the other day that pushing the sexual perversion envelope is an unstoppable process, since saying "no" to the form of perversion we find appalling might endanger the form of perversion we kinda like.
This is why (mark my words, you heard it here first), within a generation bishops will be condemned, not for permitting sex with children, but for forbidding it.
Sandra Miesel mentions to me that "the lead headline in this morning's Indy STAR is that three gay couples are suing the state for the right to marry. One lesbian pair has a son, made from donor sperm and the egg of one implanted in the other. (Resquisite picture of them with baby.)
And when we have gay marriage, can polygamy and incestuous unions be far behind?"
All of which brings us back to David Mills observation on the Touchstone blog the other day that pushing the sexual perversion envelope is an unstoppable process, since saying "no" to the form of perversion we find appalling might endanger the form of perversion we kinda like.
This is why (mark my words, you heard it here first), within a generation bishops will be condemned, not for permitting sex with children, but for forbidding it.
Christopher Lansdown is Puzzling over the Church's Objection to Artificial Contraception
It's an honorable attempt to grapple with the problem, but I think he makes some important mistakes. Most importantly, he conflates all technology with the attempt to "thwart" nature. It's not. Some technology thwarts nature. Some technology perfects or enhances nature. It's the difference between being shot with a bullet and being shot with penicillin when you are dying of a raging fever.
My basic reason for coming to accept the Church's position is that I can ultimately make little distinction between arguments for artificial contraception and arguments for the return of the regurgitarium. What lies at the back of both is the notion that the revealed purposes of some natural function are less important than My Sovereign Right to Pleasure. The revealed purpose of eating is nourishment, conviviality, and (in the Eucharist) communion with God. The revealed purpose of sex is union and fruitfulness (and, in the sacrament of matrimony) participation in and imaging of the cosmic union of Christ the Groom with the Bride who is the Church.
The insistence at the back of artificial contraception is that Pleasure is the goal and union and fruitfulness are merely by products or, worse still, positive evils to be overcome. I see no difference between that and the rationale for gorging yourself, puking it up, and doing it all again. It's just a question of which pleasure you happen to prefer more: orgasm, or taste.
Some will argue feebly that with the regurgitarium you hurt others in a starving world by wasting food. And so you do. But the exaltation of My Pleasure Uber Alles has racked up quite a body count in the abortuaries of the world too. Once pleasure is the guiding criteria, things cannot help but come to that pass.
It's an honorable attempt to grapple with the problem, but I think he makes some important mistakes. Most importantly, he conflates all technology with the attempt to "thwart" nature. It's not. Some technology thwarts nature. Some technology perfects or enhances nature. It's the difference between being shot with a bullet and being shot with penicillin when you are dying of a raging fever.
My basic reason for coming to accept the Church's position is that I can ultimately make little distinction between arguments for artificial contraception and arguments for the return of the regurgitarium. What lies at the back of both is the notion that the revealed purposes of some natural function are less important than My Sovereign Right to Pleasure. The revealed purpose of eating is nourishment, conviviality, and (in the Eucharist) communion with God. The revealed purpose of sex is union and fruitfulness (and, in the sacrament of matrimony) participation in and imaging of the cosmic union of Christ the Groom with the Bride who is the Church.
The insistence at the back of artificial contraception is that Pleasure is the goal and union and fruitfulness are merely by products or, worse still, positive evils to be overcome. I see no difference between that and the rationale for gorging yourself, puking it up, and doing it all again. It's just a question of which pleasure you happen to prefer more: orgasm, or taste.
Some will argue feebly that with the regurgitarium you hurt others in a starving world by wasting food. And so you do. But the exaltation of My Pleasure Uber Alles has racked up quite a body count in the abortuaries of the world too. Once pleasure is the guiding criteria, things cannot help but come to that pass.
Opie and Dopie Get the Heave-Ho from Viacom
If they get hired by anybody as a reward for their stunt then their advertisers should be informed that this a bad marketing strategy.
If they get hired by anybody as a reward for their stunt then their advertisers should be informed that this a bad marketing strategy.
Puny Radio Free HMS continues its insignificant rebellion
Meanwhile, a Great and Good Man struggles to bring Order to a blog thrown into chaos by the increasingly bizarre and frightening behavior of its power-crazed leader.
Meanwhile, a Great and Good Man struggles to bring Order to a blog thrown into chaos by the increasingly bizarre and frightening behavior of its power-crazed leader.
Peter Sean Bradley Finds Another Great Reason for Being Catholic
Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine
there is laughter and good red wine.
At least I've always heard it so.
Benedicamus Domino!
(Dunno if that's exactly right. But we does our bestest. Kudos to Hilaire Belloc who wrote this or something a great deal like it.)
Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine
there is laughter and good red wine.
At least I've always heard it so.
Benedicamus Domino!
(Dunno if that's exactly right. But we does our bestest. Kudos to Hilaire Belloc who wrote this or something a great deal like it.)
Very interesting article on the Reflections document!
The writer suggests, quite cogently, that it's an insult to Jews not to engage in evangelical conversation with them.
The writer suggests, quite cogently, that it's an insult to Jews not to engage in evangelical conversation with them.
A reader writes a good cut n' paste letter to the swine at Sam Adams Beer
Adapt as you like and mail it to them here:
How stupid do you have to be to be a brewer and then deliberately torque off Irish Catholics?
Adapt as you like and mail it to them here:
Dear Sam Adams brewers:
Since you first came out (in the late '80s), I've been one of your biggest fans. "Finally," I said, "beer that someone put some thought into, like they do in Germany."
I've been drinking it ever since and encouraging friends and family to do the same. They trust my judgment on very little, but when it comes to beer...I'm the man.
Fortunately, I think you guys started a beer revolution here in the U.S. so now there are lots of quality beers out there. I'm happy about this, because, sadly, Sam Adams will no longer be welcome in the Mulcahy home nor in the homes of everyone else I can convince. I got them all to drink it. I'll get them all to stop.
Why all this?
The only thing I love more than beer is my religion and my Church. So now I'm forced to choose.
Did you know that your ad money paid for a desecration of St. Patrick's cathedral in Manhattan on the Feast of the Assumption, courtesy of a contest put on by a couple of DJs there--YOUR DJs? Sam Adams and acts of religious bigotry and intolerance are now LINKED in my mind and in the minds of millions of Catholics.
We Catholics drink a lot of beer (especially this year)...we just won't be drinking yours.
How stupid do you have to be to be a brewer and then deliberately torque off Irish Catholics?
Seattle vs. Saginaw
A reader writes:
I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment of the glories of Seattle. There is no place on earth more beautiful in the summer especially.
It's a strange thing to hear Seattle held up as a model of Catholic orthodoxy. This tells me how bleak it must be in Saginaw more than anything else.
Apropos the close-minded and unfortunate exegesis of your homilist. A priest (not at my beloved Blessed Sacrament parish) also gave the strong impression that Jesus was a racist at the homily I attended. He allowed as how Our Lord permitted himself to be "converted" and that we need to imitate that.
No Padre. We need to be converted in order to conform to Christ who does not change, not in order to go along with an imaginary Christ who conforms to the opinions of the NY Times editorial board. Jesus was not "converted" from racism because he was not a racist. Remember him? He's the guy who shocked his racist and sexist countrymen by talking with women, Samaritans, and Roman centurions. He did not have his consciousness raised by the Canaanite woman. He challenged his Judean countrymen (and his bigoted disciples) by joshing with her and then honoring her faith (read the whole passage, not with the voice of Charlton Heston in your head, but with the playful sparring of a culture that highly values verbal ingenuity and it has a very different feel).
Remember, such passage cannot be read in isolation. Matthew locates this encounter in the middle of a long series of passages which show Jesus challenging the preconceptions of the Pharisee (and of his disciples) about just who was "in" and "out". Jesus has already made very clear that furriners are not the "dogs" that the common parlance of his countrymen thought they were. He does not suddenly don a Klan hood in this passage. He is playing. And playing with a woman who has a lot of moxie. Such women are not strangers in Scripture. They turn up in the Old Testament a number of times, often to challenge very important figures indeed with pleas to Do the Right Thing. She stands in a long biblical Tradition of women who pled their just case before everybody from Judah to King David. And Jesus, so far from recoiling from her, thoroughly likes her.
A reader writes:
I was in Seattle last week for a seminar for work. It's a gorgeous city. I really hope I get the chance to come back for a real family vacation some time. A trek to Mount Rainier seems like fun.
I was there during Assumption and I had the pleasure of attending Mass at your cathedral. It was a beautiful liturgy. I really felt like I was there worshipping the Lord. The music was beautiful, the reverence was beautiful and the homily was good. Besides the priest not saying "man" during the Creed, it was great. I wish that zeal were present more often.
Unfortunately, later that week, I had to attend a mass in the diocese of Saginaw for the first time. The kneelers were ripped out of the pews, the priest told us that Jesus's comments to the Gentile woman were "close-minded and unfortunate" and I can't hardly describe the music. The we/us to God ratio was rather high, if you know what I mean. They also had some cheesy "mood music" during the prayers, etc. Strange. So, I had both ends of the spectrum within a few days' time and I must say, the people of Seattle are blessed and we should pray for those who have to go to mass in the Saginaw diocese every week. It would be spiritually tough.
Anyway, I'm thinking of writing a letter to the pastor there. I tend to complain about bad liturgies but I'm sure the priests during liturgy properly would appreciate the support, since the pressure from the liturgist community is probably great.
I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment of the glories of Seattle. There is no place on earth more beautiful in the summer especially.
It's a strange thing to hear Seattle held up as a model of Catholic orthodoxy. This tells me how bleak it must be in Saginaw more than anything else.
Apropos the close-minded and unfortunate exegesis of your homilist. A priest (not at my beloved Blessed Sacrament parish) also gave the strong impression that Jesus was a racist at the homily I attended. He allowed as how Our Lord permitted himself to be "converted" and that we need to imitate that.
No Padre. We need to be converted in order to conform to Christ who does not change, not in order to go along with an imaginary Christ who conforms to the opinions of the NY Times editorial board. Jesus was not "converted" from racism because he was not a racist. Remember him? He's the guy who shocked his racist and sexist countrymen by talking with women, Samaritans, and Roman centurions. He did not have his consciousness raised by the Canaanite woman. He challenged his Judean countrymen (and his bigoted disciples) by joshing with her and then honoring her faith (read the whole passage, not with the voice of Charlton Heston in your head, but with the playful sparring of a culture that highly values verbal ingenuity and it has a very different feel).
And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
Remember, such passage cannot be read in isolation. Matthew locates this encounter in the middle of a long series of passages which show Jesus challenging the preconceptions of the Pharisee (and of his disciples) about just who was "in" and "out". Jesus has already made very clear that furriners are not the "dogs" that the common parlance of his countrymen thought they were. He does not suddenly don a Klan hood in this passage. He is playing. And playing with a woman who has a lot of moxie. Such women are not strangers in Scripture. They turn up in the Old Testament a number of times, often to challenge very important figures indeed with pleas to Do the Right Thing. She stands in a long biblical Tradition of women who pled their just case before everybody from Judah to King David. And Jesus, so far from recoiling from her, thoroughly likes her.
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
What would be fitting justice, I wonder?
Having sex on the desk of the Chairman of the Board of Sam Adams during a board meeting? No. That would be contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
Flooding their offices with, uh, used beer? Again, vandalism is a sin. Can't do it.
How about just burying them in mail and a boycott of their horse piss that will make them rue the day they thought they could sponsor a desecration of the Mass?
Having sex on the desk of the Chairman of the Board of Sam Adams during a board meeting? No. That would be contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
Flooding their offices with, uh, used beer? Again, vandalism is a sin. Can't do it.
How about just burying them in mail and a boycott of their horse piss that will make them rue the day they thought they could sponsor a desecration of the Mass?
I Matter Again!
Nihil Obstat has criteecked my grammer again! Its grate to have you back N.O.! You're droll wit is not unappreeshiated by every body.
Nihil Obstat has criteecked my grammer again! Its grate to have you back N.O.! You're droll wit is not unappreeshiated by every body.
Just a note on Rod's piece
Rod tells me it won't be free online till Sunday. Then you'll be able to read it at OpinionJournal.com. Just FYI.
Rod tells me it won't be free online till Sunday. Then you'll be able to read it at OpinionJournal.com. Just FYI.
I Don't Buy the "Armchair Quarterback" view of Rod's Complaint
A reader objects that "What's most troubling to me is the attitude of those who, from their armchairs, think themselves able to outdo the Pope, a man of known brilliance and sanctity, on matters of prudential judgment."
I reply that the Persians debated every matter twice: once when sober, once when drunk. There's wisdom in that. A view of a volatile situation from a great height is valuable. So is a view from Ground Zero. The Pope has a crucial perspective we don't and (as I have argued on this blog) we ignore that fact to our peril if we allow entirely secular categories to dominate our minds and never consider the possibility that the Pope is acting out of some very basic principles in the Catholic Tradition in making this prudential judgment about whether to keep these bishops.
But!
Somebody like Rod, who has had to deal with the lies of bishops, the suicides of victims, and the grief and rage of families has a hugely important perspective too. I think Rod's voice is important here and not presumptuous. I think he clearly writes out of love for the Church (and for the Holy Father) and that his view from Ground Zero is *also* a perspective that must be heard. We are, after all, talking about a prudential judgment and, while it's still a matter for debate about whether the Pope's strategy is the best one, it's absolutely certain that he's not the only informed player here. On the whole I'm glad of Rod's piece (which I've now read). I still disagree with him that the Pope is obviously failing to govern by choosing the course of action he has. But I think it vital that the cry of anguish he represents be heard. He is not writing from an armchair but from intimate familiarity with many of the victims most cruelly harmed by the abuse, neglect, and lies of our shepherds.
A reader objects that "What's most troubling to me is the attitude of those who, from their armchairs, think themselves able to outdo the Pope, a man of known brilliance and sanctity, on matters of prudential judgment."
I reply that the Persians debated every matter twice: once when sober, once when drunk. There's wisdom in that. A view of a volatile situation from a great height is valuable. So is a view from Ground Zero. The Pope has a crucial perspective we don't and (as I have argued on this blog) we ignore that fact to our peril if we allow entirely secular categories to dominate our minds and never consider the possibility that the Pope is acting out of some very basic principles in the Catholic Tradition in making this prudential judgment about whether to keep these bishops.
But!
Somebody like Rod, who has had to deal with the lies of bishops, the suicides of victims, and the grief and rage of families has a hugely important perspective too. I think Rod's voice is important here and not presumptuous. I think he clearly writes out of love for the Church (and for the Holy Father) and that his view from Ground Zero is *also* a perspective that must be heard. We are, after all, talking about a prudential judgment and, while it's still a matter for debate about whether the Pope's strategy is the best one, it's absolutely certain that he's not the only informed player here. On the whole I'm glad of Rod's piece (which I've now read). I still disagree with him that the Pope is obviously failing to govern by choosing the course of action he has. But I think it vital that the cry of anguish he represents be heard. He is not writing from an armchair but from intimate familiarity with many of the victims most cruelly harmed by the abuse, neglect, and lies of our shepherds.
When He's right, He's Right
Gerard Serafin took me to task for a cheap shot against the American Bishops. He's right. I'm wrong. The cheap shot is gone from my blog. My apologies.
Gerard Serafin took me to task for a cheap shot against the American Bishops. He's right. I'm wrong. The cheap shot is gone from my blog. My apologies.
On the other hand... here's something you can do
VOTF is making noises about having a balanced roster of speakers invited to their shindigs. In keeping with Pete Vere's letter below, Dave Pawlak suggests the following people be added to that roster:
Fr. George Rutler
Fr. Frank Pavone
James and Helen Hull Hitchcock
Jesse Romero
Donna Steichen
If you have people you'd like to speak to a VOTF shindig, why not write them and suggest it? Couldn't hoit!
VOTF is making noises about having a balanced roster of speakers invited to their shindigs. In keeping with Pete Vere's letter below, Dave Pawlak suggests the following people be added to that roster:
Fr. George Rutler
Fr. Frank Pavone
James and Helen Hull Hitchcock
Jesse Romero
Donna Steichen
If you have people you'd like to speak to a VOTF shindig, why not write them and suggest it? Couldn't hoit!
Battle is joined
The Kairos Guy is miffed... just cuz I sentenced him to death on HMS Blog. Some people are soooooo touchy.
The Kairos Guy is miffed... just cuz I sentenced him to death on HMS Blog. Some people are soooooo touchy.
"It takes three to make a quarrel.
The full potentialities of human fury cannot be fully realized until a friend tactfully intervenes." - GK Chesterton
I'm working under a double disadvantage in that I've not yet read Rod's piece (I don't get WSJ and it's not online that I know of) and I'm very short for time.
So, some very inadequate observations on the discussion in the comments box below Tom Hoopes' letter. Don't hate me for what I don't touch on. I'm writing in haste.
Some readers took Tom's opening remark as a call for me to rebut Rod. I didn't read it that way. I thought Tom was just saying my blog was a logical place for him to publish his post. Since I try to keep the blog open to interesting posts, even when if I disagree with them, I did so.
In any case, I'm in not position to rebut Rod since I haven't read his piece, nor am I altogether convinced that I would want to. Readers of my blog know it's no secret that while Rod and I agree on the Big Thing (i.e Never Again!) we (semi-) disagree on the question of what John Paul is or should be doing. Rod is more confident than I am that The Thing to Do is to fire a number of bishops and that JP is being neglectful of his task of governance in failing to do so. On odd numbered days, this looks like a mighty tempting explanation to me too. And if he did axe a number of bishops whose names have appeared on this blog tomorrow I would not weep.
At the same time, an extremely important touchstone for my own thoughts is to try, as best I can, to grasp what it is that informs the Pope's thinking. One of my earliest convictions in becoming Catholic is that the Faith scandalizes us (different people in different ways) and that the scandal is a judgment on us, not on the Faith. It's the lesson of John 6. It's the lesson I think everybody who approaches the Church has to cope with sooner or later: something in the Church forces us to the question: "What about you? Are you leaving too?" The most important conversation I've had in that department is the one with my priest several months ago who argued very cogently (to my scandalized mind) that John Paul is practicing the very risky medicine of the Cross by forcing these guys to bear the consequences of their actions and face the opprobrium they have done so much to earn. I find this persuasive still, particularly given what I know of JPII's Carmelite outlook. Do I like this? No. Do I think it is, in fact, what is going on? Yes. Do I think it will succeed? I have only hope to go on. My crystal ball is on the fritz.
Re: Tom's note. I thought (from a biblical perspective) that the most persuasive part was the appeal to biblical models. A remarkable amount of exhortation from Jesus and the apostles directed at bad churches and their leaders. Not a lot of "heads must roll" action, even in the case of Church leaders who directly defied Sts. Paul (Galatians) and John (3 John). That gave me pause. (I also thought Karl's point was well taken: it would not be a couple bishops, it would be a huge number, if consistently applied. And this could well engender a lot more problems than it solved.) I did think Tom's language seemed to veer rather close to the suggestion that people who are offended at the Pope's apparent inaction are "weak in faith" and was out of line. (So, by the way, was the language of at least one commenter who referred to other readers as "neo-Catholics" for the sin of disagreeing with his position.) I would like to ask both sides to cease and desist such mind reading. I appreciated Fr. Wilson's solid defense of Rod on that point.
Finally (and you knew I'd do this) I don't have any final answers myself. But then, what difference would it make if I did? The thing we all have to remember is that this is a blog, not a Ruling Plenipotentiary Body in Control of Papal Actions. Some of my readers tend to forget this and talk as though positions taken by me or one of my readers are going to make one iota of difference in whether our present ecclesiats remain or don't. Some have even gotten quite angry at me, as though I have it in my power to change things. I am, I assure you, as powerless as you are. So the best use we can make of our time is to decide how *we* should live in faithfullness to the Lord given certain immutable facts.
Finally, a question: My understanding was that Cdl. Law attempted to resign and was refused. Is this true or am I mistaken? If true, I think this would lend powerful weight to my contention that JPII's policy is deliberate and not merely a sign of inaction.
Sorry, I'm not more thorough, but I gotta run!
The full potentialities of human fury cannot be fully realized until a friend tactfully intervenes." - GK Chesterton
I'm working under a double disadvantage in that I've not yet read Rod's piece (I don't get WSJ and it's not online that I know of) and I'm very short for time.
So, some very inadequate observations on the discussion in the comments box below Tom Hoopes' letter. Don't hate me for what I don't touch on. I'm writing in haste.
Some readers took Tom's opening remark as a call for me to rebut Rod. I didn't read it that way. I thought Tom was just saying my blog was a logical place for him to publish his post. Since I try to keep the blog open to interesting posts, even when if I disagree with them, I did so.
In any case, I'm in not position to rebut Rod since I haven't read his piece, nor am I altogether convinced that I would want to. Readers of my blog know it's no secret that while Rod and I agree on the Big Thing (i.e Never Again!) we (semi-) disagree on the question of what John Paul is or should be doing. Rod is more confident than I am that The Thing to Do is to fire a number of bishops and that JP is being neglectful of his task of governance in failing to do so. On odd numbered days, this looks like a mighty tempting explanation to me too. And if he did axe a number of bishops whose names have appeared on this blog tomorrow I would not weep.
At the same time, an extremely important touchstone for my own thoughts is to try, as best I can, to grasp what it is that informs the Pope's thinking. One of my earliest convictions in becoming Catholic is that the Faith scandalizes us (different people in different ways) and that the scandal is a judgment on us, not on the Faith. It's the lesson of John 6. It's the lesson I think everybody who approaches the Church has to cope with sooner or later: something in the Church forces us to the question: "What about you? Are you leaving too?" The most important conversation I've had in that department is the one with my priest several months ago who argued very cogently (to my scandalized mind) that John Paul is practicing the very risky medicine of the Cross by forcing these guys to bear the consequences of their actions and face the opprobrium they have done so much to earn. I find this persuasive still, particularly given what I know of JPII's Carmelite outlook. Do I like this? No. Do I think it is, in fact, what is going on? Yes. Do I think it will succeed? I have only hope to go on. My crystal ball is on the fritz.
Re: Tom's note. I thought (from a biblical perspective) that the most persuasive part was the appeal to biblical models. A remarkable amount of exhortation from Jesus and the apostles directed at bad churches and their leaders. Not a lot of "heads must roll" action, even in the case of Church leaders who directly defied Sts. Paul (Galatians) and John (3 John). That gave me pause. (I also thought Karl's point was well taken: it would not be a couple bishops, it would be a huge number, if consistently applied. And this could well engender a lot more problems than it solved.) I did think Tom's language seemed to veer rather close to the suggestion that people who are offended at the Pope's apparent inaction are "weak in faith" and was out of line. (So, by the way, was the language of at least one commenter who referred to other readers as "neo-Catholics" for the sin of disagreeing with his position.) I would like to ask both sides to cease and desist such mind reading. I appreciated Fr. Wilson's solid defense of Rod on that point.
Finally (and you knew I'd do this) I don't have any final answers myself. But then, what difference would it make if I did? The thing we all have to remember is that this is a blog, not a Ruling Plenipotentiary Body in Control of Papal Actions. Some of my readers tend to forget this and talk as though positions taken by me or one of my readers are going to make one iota of difference in whether our present ecclesiats remain or don't. Some have even gotten quite angry at me, as though I have it in my power to change things. I am, I assure you, as powerless as you are. So the best use we can make of our time is to decide how *we* should live in faithfullness to the Lord given certain immutable facts.
Finally, a question: My understanding was that Cdl. Law attempted to resign and was refused. Is this true or am I mistaken? If true, I think this would lend powerful weight to my contention that JPII's policy is deliberate and not merely a sign of inaction.
Sorry, I'm not more thorough, but I gotta run!
Express Party!
Here's something different for summer. Today, my family (including a wacky uncle and aunt) will have an "Express Party" supper. What's that? We get lots of messy food and eat out on the lawn. When somebody asks you to pass something, you send it their way--express (i.e. you throw it). We will not be dress in nice clothes for this but, gee, it sounds like fun!
Here's something different for summer. Today, my family (including a wacky uncle and aunt) will have an "Express Party" supper. What's that? We get lots of messy food and eat out on the lawn. When somebody asks you to pass something, you send it their way--express (i.e. you throw it). We will not be dress in nice clothes for this but, gee, it sounds like fun!
The View from the Core on Reparations Follies
On the bright side of the political news, both Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney lost yesterday.
On the bright side of the political news, both Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney lost yesterday.
Pete Vere Writes an Insightful Letter to David Alexander
Dave, you will recall, is one of the valiant souls attempting to keep VOTF from becoming simply another Nazgul for CalltoActionCatholicsforaFreeChoiceWeAreChurch. Pete writes the following about their apology and it's eerie similarity to the behavior of the bishops they are allegedly trying to reform:
Dave, you will recall, is one of the valiant souls attempting to keep VOTF from becoming simply another Nazgul for CalltoActionCatholicsforaFreeChoiceWeAreChurch. Pete writes the following about their apology and it's eerie similarity to the behavior of the bishops they are allegedly trying to reform:
Hi Dave,
I've bcc'd this to half of St. Blog's, as well as some other friends who are at least keeping tabs on VOTF, to say I share your cynicism concerning VOTF's latest so-called apology. I still maintain they're following the same procedure as the bishops in handling abuse, with the so-called apology being the equivalent to what happened in Dallas. "Since the [conservative] media is making a big deal out of this and people now our integrity is being called into question, even though we felt her credentials justified her invitation, we kinda apologize for inviting Debra Haeffner since it upset a few people and we don't like how this response is snowballing, however we're not going to admit or apologize for having attempted to suppress the discussion before the media caught wind of this, nor or any heads among the leadership going to roll over this..blah..blah...blah...."
They say they want conservatives to come back to the table, it was just a big misunderstanding, etc... Yeah right. I will believe it when I see concrete action. In the meantime, I cannot say that I am any less cynical than everyone else at St. Blog's. In short, let's see the following speakers extended serious invitations to speak at VOTF's next large gathering, and then maybe I will believe them:
1) You
2) Dr. Janet Smith
3) Fr. Benedict Groeschel
4) Fr. Peter Stravinskas
5) Jason Evert
6) Philip Lawler
7) Deal Hudson
Pax Christi,
Pete Vere
Tom Hoopes from National Catholic Register writes:
Mark, sorry to dump this long e-mail on you but I'm worried about this whole Rod Dreher-is-disappointed-in-the-Pope WSJ thing and you seem the logical guy to make the opposite case. Why do I care about it? Because it will drive a wedge between souls and Christ. I'd make these three points to you:
1. The Church has never functioned in the way he wishes JPII would run it. Not in the times of the Cristological heresies, when the Church lived in another practical schism. Not before the Reformation. Not after Trent. Not at Vatican I, either, Lord knows (dissenting bishops stayed in place even as they renounced Papal infallibility). Lord knows it wasn't that way in the 1950s. It's incredibly naive to expect JPII to be able to do the impossible. The Pope isn't the police chief, he's the Vicar of Christ.
2. Play an imagine game: what would the Church be like if JPII had made heads roll from the beginning? There was no one who could have taken over the posts in the Churches. There were no lay movements, except in nascent form, no World Youth Day alums, no Steubenville grads, no St. Ignatius Institute people, no Christendom, no living, energetic, healthy orthodox community to "take over" in place of the bishops whose heads may have rolled. The American Church might very well have schismed (ithe thread holding some of them to Rome was thin indeed) and literally millions would have been denied the sacraments. What is it like after JPII's approach? The only life in the Church is orthodoxy. The bad guys have lost. All that's left is for them to start turning over their sectors of the Church, which will happen slowly, the way things always happen in the Church. He has done for us what he did for Poland: created “facts” that will be the only thing left as the other guys fall.
3. Repeat after me: The Church is here to save souls through the sacraments. It isn't primarily a teaching body (though, yes, yes, yes, this is vital, it isn't primary) any more than Christ was primarily a teacher (though that, too, is an important part of his ministry, I don't deny it). Christ came to give his life to us -- a giving that continues in the sacraments -- not simply to deliver the sermon on the mount. The Church, in times of trouble, similarly has to be understood according to the basics, and decisions that are made regarding the Church have to be made according to the principle: How can I save the most souls? You don't sacrifice the main thing, the availability of the sacraments, to “fix” the teaching with a blunt instrument. You do what JPII did: keep the Church together while purifying the teaching by promulgating encyclopedic encyclicals and the Catechism.
4. Arguments like Dreher's are very much a product of precisely the circumstance he criticizes: There is a lack of solid Christian formation. It seems that people who came into the Church (I don't know how Dreher did) through apologetics were totally unprepared for the current scandal. They believe because the Church is eminently believable; it makes sense intellectually. But when faced with sinful pastors, the intellect isn't enough to hold the faith together. Apologetics alone produces a weak faith. Catholic faith has to be based on love for a person, Christ, and trust in him and the knowledge that he is at the heart of the Church, which is his body. That requires prayer. When you know him you aren't as scandalized by some of the things that happen. You know that he is the Lord of the wheat and the tares (and this parable not only applies, it is in the Gospels in order to speak directly to today's situation as much as any other), the Lord who chose Peter and Judas, the Lord who made sinful men and not angels the ministers of his sacraments, the Lord whose ways we can't fathom. You believe with St. Catherine that his popes and bishops should be confronted privately, not publicly, you believe with St. Paul (and Christ in Revelations and JPII) that his erring churches need to be set straight through exhortation.
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
Cardinal Keeler issues clarification on Reflections document
"What? Somebody reads what we write?! Good heavens! We never meant it to come to that!"
"What? Somebody reads what we write?! Good heavens! We never meant it to come to that!"
Mike Epstein (aka Prolife Guy) is a theological genius
Asked to give his Jewish Man in the Street Response to the "Reflections" document and his general way of dealing with missionary types, he says in 15 words what the Subcommittee of Verbose and Elliptical Religious Functionaries took zillions of words to never quite get around to saying concerning evangelistic conversation with Jews:
"So my general advice is to do your thing until asked to tone it down."
What refreshingly plain speech. Christians, say your piece until asked to tone it down. (And try to be polite enough that nobody has to ask you to tone it down). Jews, likewise. Nobody has to shut up. Nobody has to pretend to believe what they don't. Nobody has to suppress what they believe.
Ah, Blogdom. So good at cutting through the fog.
Asked to give his Jewish Man in the Street Response to the "Reflections" document and his general way of dealing with missionary types, he says in 15 words what the Subcommittee of Verbose and Elliptical Religious Functionaries took zillions of words to never quite get around to saying concerning evangelistic conversation with Jews:
"So my general advice is to do your thing until asked to tone it down."
What refreshingly plain speech. Christians, say your piece until asked to tone it down. (And try to be polite enough that nobody has to ask you to tone it down). Jews, likewise. Nobody has to shut up. Nobody has to pretend to believe what they don't. Nobody has to suppress what they believe.
Ah, Blogdom. So good at cutting through the fog.
Glad I live in Washington
Memo to the State of California Educational Ubergruppenfuehrers: Go to hell.
Memo to the State of California Educational Ubergruppenfuehrers: Go to hell.
"Second Virginity" is becoming trendy
Sometimes it's due to a sincere repentance for fornication. Usually, it's done as a sop to conscience or out of a consumerist desire to make sex hotter after the wedding day.
Here's a bogus factoid from the article: "Sexual abstinence is nothing new, of course: it is prescribed for Muslims from sunrise to sunset during Ramadan, Roman Catholics during Lent and Orthodox Jews during a woman's menstrual period."
"Of course"? I missed the memo from the Vatican instructing all Catholics to abstain from sex during Lent. I thought maybe the reporter mistook the movie "40 Days" for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But Stephen Riddle tells me she probably just fell into a time warp since this was a practice in medieval times. Which just goes to show that NY Times reporters should check their facts every thousand years or so.
Sometimes it's due to a sincere repentance for fornication. Usually, it's done as a sop to conscience or out of a consumerist desire to make sex hotter after the wedding day.
Here's a bogus factoid from the article: "Sexual abstinence is nothing new, of course: it is prescribed for Muslims from sunrise to sunset during Ramadan, Roman Catholics during Lent and Orthodox Jews during a woman's menstrual period."
"Of course"? I missed the memo from the Vatican instructing all Catholics to abstain from sex during Lent. I thought maybe the reporter mistook the movie "40 Days" for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But Stephen Riddle tells me she probably just fell into a time warp since this was a practice in medieval times. Which just goes to show that NY Times reporters should check their facts every thousand years or so.
A convert friend from a Jewish background writes:
Excellent questions all. And note this depressing fact: It sounds at first blush like we were discussing the Scandals. We weren't. We were discussing the Reflections document and the ecclesial bafflegab of which it is composed.
As a late convert to the faith - in my late forties - I've never been stuck with a childhood, child-like faith and awe in priests - they've always seemed to me to be guys who happen to be members of a very important order of the Church, but by no means out of the ordinary as people.
But I do expect priests to understand that they're not just playing a game, or running a public relations firm or an advertising agency.
Once in my life I've had just an intimation of what He is really like - I can't express it - something greater, more glorious, more sane, more timeless, more unified, more filled with peace, more wonderful than any human being can come close to describing. Something so very good - welcoming, joyous, glorious.
With Him, there is nothing to be afraid of, and pure bliss to look forward to.
Don't these bishops know that? What is the matter with them? Are they half-dead?
Where is the bishops' zeal? Jesus is their Master, but they don't sound like they know it.
Excellent questions all. And note this depressing fact: It sounds at first blush like we were discussing the Scandals. We weren't. We were discussing the Reflections document and the ecclesial bafflegab of which it is composed.
Bosch and Gustave Dore had it wrong
They've filled our imaginations with damned creatures in dramatic poses like this
In reality, the face of damnation is that of a well groomed, serious urban professional who doesn't need to raise his voice and who likes to pose for the camera, like this
.
To find out more about this face of evil (and may God grant him swift and full repentance) go here.
They've filled our imaginations with damned creatures in dramatic poses like this
In reality, the face of damnation is that of a well groomed, serious urban professional who doesn't need to raise his voice and who likes to pose for the camera, like this
.
To find out more about this face of evil (and may God grant him swift and full repentance) go here.
Chris from Midwest Conservative Journal takes issue with me in my comments box below
He writes (with my replies interspersed):
Read the excerpt from By What Authority?. It describes how I figure.
I know it does. Because you are reading it (as I did) through the lens of Sacred Tradition without realizing it. Really, read the excerpt and you'll see what I mean.
Yes. I know. My book (trust me) takes those passages fully into account. It turns out that's not all Jesus has to say about Tradition. Nor is it all the apostles have to say.
Sometimes, yes. Though more often it's a case of agreeing with Catholic Tradition without being aware of it.
Umm, no. For where Luther and Calvin are teaching the Tradition correctly they are merely handing on what was already there before them. And, by the way, Luther would take issue with you about monogamy as the "clear" teaching of Scripture. He, in fact, said:
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter."
Luther, by the way, was not alone in this view. John Milton, a Puritan who was no slouch in his extreme familiarity with and devotion to Scripture, likewise said that polygamy was perfectly acceptable.
Typically, at this point, my Protestant friends will say something like "Well, Protestants don't think Luther or Milton were infallible." I quite agree. And this would mean something if I were arguing they did think this. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that serious Protestant voices who were not flakes but quite mainstream exponents of sola scriptura noticed the same thing I did: that the case for monogamy in Scripture is actually quite weak when you remove Scripture from the environment of Sacred Tradition. Happily, most Protestants don't do this and so continue (at least at present) to Teach the Right Thing. But the Unitarians are blazing the same trail that pro-contraception and then pro-abortion people have. And, like them, they will exploit the Protestant insistence on a sort of vague "scripture only" view of revelation to weaken the committment of Christians to monogamy since they will have the same success in showing that Scripture really isn't all that clear on the matter, so it's a matter of "Christian liberty". As long as there is a greater committment to an unbiblical doctrine of "scripture alone" (and this is typically fueled by a fear of getting too cozy with Catholics) than there is to preserving authentic Christian truth, Christians will be easy marks for the rats who are nibbling away at the Christian revelation. Many good Christians will attempt to resist the rats and will have hearts in the right place, but will be helpless to give a coherent account of *why* polygamy is wrong, or homosexual practice is contrary to the teaching of Christ, or (dare I say it?) contraception is likewise a sin. They will confidently point to the verses you have pointed to, and then be roundly defeated in clean combat by pro-polygamy forces who will deploy all the arguments John Milton employed, with devastating effect.
Really. Honest. The case against monogamy as the one and only form of marriage is very strong--if you buy the notion that Scripture alone is the sole source of revelation and Sacred Tradition is not a vehicle of revelation as well. There are other essential Christian teachings in danger as well. I only mentioned that one cuz the Unitarians brought it up.
He writes (with my replies interspersed):
Monogamy's not the "clear teaching of Scripture?" How do you figure?
Read the excerpt from By What Authority?. It describes how I figure.
Christ quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 and it seems pretty clear to me.
I know it does. Because you are reading it (as I did) through the lens of Sacred Tradition without realizing it. Really, read the excerpt and you'll see what I mean.
In Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus also had quite a bit to say about the excessive exaltation of anyone's religious "tradition."
Yes. I know. My book (trust me) takes those passages fully into account. It turns out that's not all Jesus has to say about Tradition. Nor is it all the apostles have to say.
We Protestants agree with you about something so we agree with Catholic tradition without admitting it?
Sometimes, yes. Though more often it's a case of agreeing with Catholic Tradition without being aware of it.
That's as valid as saying you Catholics agree with us about some matter so you agree with the Luther and Calvin without admitting it.
Umm, no. For where Luther and Calvin are teaching the Tradition correctly they are merely handing on what was already there before them. And, by the way, Luther would take issue with you about monogamy as the "clear" teaching of Scripture. He, in fact, said:
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter."
Luther, by the way, was not alone in this view. John Milton, a Puritan who was no slouch in his extreme familiarity with and devotion to Scripture, likewise said that polygamy was perfectly acceptable.
Typically, at this point, my Protestant friends will say something like "Well, Protestants don't think Luther or Milton were infallible." I quite agree. And this would mean something if I were arguing they did think this. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that serious Protestant voices who were not flakes but quite mainstream exponents of sola scriptura noticed the same thing I did: that the case for monogamy in Scripture is actually quite weak when you remove Scripture from the environment of Sacred Tradition. Happily, most Protestants don't do this and so continue (at least at present) to Teach the Right Thing. But the Unitarians are blazing the same trail that pro-contraception and then pro-abortion people have. And, like them, they will exploit the Protestant insistence on a sort of vague "scripture only" view of revelation to weaken the committment of Christians to monogamy since they will have the same success in showing that Scripture really isn't all that clear on the matter, so it's a matter of "Christian liberty". As long as there is a greater committment to an unbiblical doctrine of "scripture alone" (and this is typically fueled by a fear of getting too cozy with Catholics) than there is to preserving authentic Christian truth, Christians will be easy marks for the rats who are nibbling away at the Christian revelation. Many good Christians will attempt to resist the rats and will have hearts in the right place, but will be helpless to give a coherent account of *why* polygamy is wrong, or homosexual practice is contrary to the teaching of Christ, or (dare I say it?) contraception is likewise a sin. They will confidently point to the verses you have pointed to, and then be roundly defeated in clean combat by pro-polygamy forces who will deploy all the arguments John Milton employed, with devastating effect.
Really. Honest. The case against monogamy as the one and only form of marriage is very strong--if you buy the notion that Scripture alone is the sole source of revelation and Sacred Tradition is not a vehicle of revelation as well. There are other essential Christian teachings in danger as well. I only mentioned that one cuz the Unitarians brought it up.
blogs4god has massively re-done its policy
Warning: Anyone caught complaining will personally receive their best Ernest Angely style healing!
Warning: Anyone caught complaining will personally receive their best Ernest Angely style healing!
Monday, August 19, 2002
Another "Toldja So!" from Your Scribe
In 1996 I wrote a little book called By What Authority? that (among other things) pointed out how certain doctrines which we Evangelicals assumed to be "the clear teaching of Scripture" are, in fact, quite unclear if'n it's just you and your Bible and are, in fact, impossible to account for apart from looking at Scripture through the indispensible lens of Sacred Tradition. Among these is the case for monogamy.
Now the Unitarians very thoughtfully undertake to spearhead a campaign for... well, "polyamory"as a fabulous way to live the good life. It will be healthy for Evangelicals to have to really examine the basis for what they believe about monogamy as our culture begins to ask "Why not polygamy?". Evangelicals are right, of course, that the revealed paradigm is one man and one woman for life in the covenant of marriage. They are wrong, however, in thinking this is the "clear teaching of Scripture". It's not. It's the clear teaching of Scripture, as read by the Body of Christ in union with the bishops and Peter in light of Sacred Tradition. Evangelicals have, in this department, been living off Catholic capital without realizing it. For the reality is not that Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition while Evangelicals don't. It's that Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition and know they do, while Evangelicals believe in Sacred Tradition, but don't know they do.
By the way, read David Mills observations. A concise explanation of why modern heresy begins in the groin and why this latest lunacy will soon be the problem, not of a few Unitarians, but of "mainstream" religion and culture, so called.
In 1996 I wrote a little book called By What Authority? that (among other things) pointed out how certain doctrines which we Evangelicals assumed to be "the clear teaching of Scripture" are, in fact, quite unclear if'n it's just you and your Bible and are, in fact, impossible to account for apart from looking at Scripture through the indispensible lens of Sacred Tradition. Among these is the case for monogamy.
Now the Unitarians very thoughtfully undertake to spearhead a campaign for... well, "polyamory"as a fabulous way to live the good life. It will be healthy for Evangelicals to have to really examine the basis for what they believe about monogamy as our culture begins to ask "Why not polygamy?". Evangelicals are right, of course, that the revealed paradigm is one man and one woman for life in the covenant of marriage. They are wrong, however, in thinking this is the "clear teaching of Scripture". It's not. It's the clear teaching of Scripture, as read by the Body of Christ in union with the bishops and Peter in light of Sacred Tradition. Evangelicals have, in this department, been living off Catholic capital without realizing it. For the reality is not that Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition while Evangelicals don't. It's that Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition and know they do, while Evangelicals believe in Sacred Tradition, but don't know they do.
By the way, read David Mills observations. A concise explanation of why modern heresy begins in the groin and why this latest lunacy will soon be the problem, not of a few Unitarians, but of "mainstream" religion and culture, so called.
A reader notes
Re: the Cardinal Mahony vs. Bishop Curry All-Star Mud Wrestling Extravaganza:
Thanks for the clarification. Oh, and "tarradiddles" is a way cool word.
Re: the Cardinal Mahony vs. Bishop Curry All-Star Mud Wrestling Extravaganza:
Regarding Bishop Curry. Bear in mind that the "Bishop of Santa Barbara" designation does not refer to a separate diocese. Thomas Curry is an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. "Santa Barbara" is one of the "regions" of the Archdiocese as designated by Cardinal Mahony. Each auxiliary bishop is assigned to a region. Their authority seems to be minimal, not unlike an area dean. (Or maybe an archdeacon; or is that just in Barchester and the Church of England?)
So when he claims that the most eminent Lord Cardinal Mahony is resorting to tarradiddles, he is, in fact, referring to his immediate superior. Something most of us don't like to do unless absolutely necessary. It seems the prospect of a term in the slammer may make the proper appropriation of blame of more moment than usual.
Is it now a case of "I know nothing!" vs. "I vas only following orders!"?
Thanks for the clarification. Oh, and "tarradiddles" is a way cool word.
Here's something hopeful in a bleak sort of way
Rod Dreher writes me to point out that Amy links to a piece in the LA Times (registration required, sorry!) in which Cdl. Mahony works on his Sergeant Schultz impression too. Wherever responsibility was, he wasn't. It's all the fault of some underling.
Problem is, the underling is the bishop of Santa Barbara and he seems to be unwilling to just bend over and take it from the good cardinal.
Rod sez that Mahony tells the paper that he was shocked, SHOCKED! to learn recently of a particular case in Long Beach - but the Times points out that not only was the case reported in the paper there, but the report brought a long letter of protest to the paper from Mahony's own spokesman! (Mark's note: Recall that Mahony has a reputation in his archdiocese as a control freak. Not a sparrow falls without him knowing, according to reports I've read.) So, Mahony tries the Cardinal Law excuse of saying that subordinates, like a former aide named Curry (now bishop of santa Barbara), handled things w/o his knowledge. Curry, responding through a lawyer, says this is... um, a bovine by-product, that nothing was done w/o Mahony's knowledge and consent.
In short, it appears we have one bishop calling a cardinal a liar. This is going to get very interesting.
Well, since the good cardinal still seems to be playing for the cameras rather than for God, I don't think it could happen to a nicer guy. He doesn't seem to me to fear God. Maybe he will fear bad press if even bishops begin now to point out his mendacity.
Rod Dreher writes me to point out that Amy links to a piece in the LA Times (registration required, sorry!) in which Cdl. Mahony works on his Sergeant Schultz impression too. Wherever responsibility was, he wasn't. It's all the fault of some underling.
Problem is, the underling is the bishop of Santa Barbara and he seems to be unwilling to just bend over and take it from the good cardinal.
Rod sez that Mahony tells the paper that he was shocked, SHOCKED! to learn recently of a particular case in Long Beach - but the Times points out that not only was the case reported in the paper there, but the report brought a long letter of protest to the paper from Mahony's own spokesman! (Mark's note: Recall that Mahony has a reputation in his archdiocese as a control freak. Not a sparrow falls without him knowing, according to reports I've read.) So, Mahony tries the Cardinal Law excuse of saying that subordinates, like a former aide named Curry (now bishop of santa Barbara), handled things w/o his knowledge. Curry, responding through a lawyer, says this is... um, a bovine by-product, that nothing was done w/o Mahony's knowledge and consent.
In short, it appears we have one bishop calling a cardinal a liar. This is going to get very interesting.
Well, since the good cardinal still seems to be playing for the cameras rather than for God, I don't think it could happen to a nicer guy. He doesn't seem to me to fear God. Maybe he will fear bad press if even bishops begin now to point out his mendacity.
Whew! Well that's a relief!
Remember last week when I was talking about how dangerous Phillip Pullman's books are. Well, you can forget your worries. You see, according to a review of Morris Berman's The Twilight of American Culture:
So Pullman won't be a danger until somebody makes the books into a movie.
Remember last week when I was talking about how dangerous Phillip Pullman's books are. Well, you can forget your worries. You see, according to a review of Morris Berman's The Twilight of American Culture:
"Berman relates that 60% of [American] adults have never read a book; only 6% read one book a year, even when the criteria for a book includes Harlequin romances and self-help manuals."
So Pullman won't be a danger until somebody makes the books into a movie.
One more bit on Reparations
It is a funny thing that those who think there might be something in an argument for reparations are often the same sort of people who think there is nothing in the Catholic doctrine of original sin. That doctrine does not teach that since your grandfather was a slave owner you are guilty and must pay. It simply says that when Adam and Eve lost the life of God they did not have it to pass on to us. It is, as Chesterton observed, the only Christian doctrine that can be proved by opening a newpaper. It's not that we are guilty of our first parents actual sin, merely that we have the hole in our being that resulted from their loss.
Reparations chatter is a sort of perverted doctrine of original sin, not unlike the perverted notion that labeled Jews living long after the Crucifixion in nations far from the event "Christ-killers". It is the attempt to charge descendants with the actual sins of their ancestors. But, as I've already said, it's primarily an attempt to shake down a lot of people for a lot of money. If Africa were the moneyed place and America the poor one, the shakedown artists would direct their simulated outrage there.
Curious how so many modern evils are dependent on the perversion of some Catholic doctrine for their power.
It is a funny thing that those who think there might be something in an argument for reparations are often the same sort of people who think there is nothing in the Catholic doctrine of original sin. That doctrine does not teach that since your grandfather was a slave owner you are guilty and must pay. It simply says that when Adam and Eve lost the life of God they did not have it to pass on to us. It is, as Chesterton observed, the only Christian doctrine that can be proved by opening a newpaper. It's not that we are guilty of our first parents actual sin, merely that we have the hole in our being that resulted from their loss.
Reparations chatter is a sort of perverted doctrine of original sin, not unlike the perverted notion that labeled Jews living long after the Crucifixion in nations far from the event "Christ-killers". It is the attempt to charge descendants with the actual sins of their ancestors. But, as I've already said, it's primarily an attempt to shake down a lot of people for a lot of money. If Africa were the moneyed place and America the poor one, the shakedown artists would direct their simulated outrage there.
Curious how so many modern evils are dependent on the perversion of some Catholic doctrine for their power.
Stuff like this cracks me up
"I'm the biggest kook!"
"No! I'm the biggest kook!"
This march should be as resounding a success as the Reparations March.
"I'm the biggest kook!"
"No! I'm the biggest kook!"
This march should be as resounding a success as the Reparations March.
American Bishops Continue to Win Friends and Influence People
Mind you, Dale is an ardent and intelligent Catholic and loves the Faith. Imagine how favorably they impress the enemies of the Church.
One consolation: Do you know anybody--anybody in the world--who ever came to the Catholic faith saying, "I just had to be Catholic because those bishops are so magnetic." Treasures in jars of clay indeed.
Mind you, Dale is an ardent and intelligent Catholic and loves the Faith. Imagine how favorably they impress the enemies of the Church.
One consolation: Do you know anybody--anybody in the world--who ever came to the Catholic faith saying, "I just had to be Catholic because those bishops are so magnetic." Treasures in jars of clay indeed.
Shakedown Convention in DC
One hundred and fifty years ago, my ancestors were a) in Canada, b) in Scotland, c) poor Irish farmers and immigrant horse thieves and d) far away from the awesome economic benefits slavery was allegedly conferring on "us". I'm not related to anybody who ever owned a slave. I am related (by marriage) to somebody who fought to free slaves. I don't know anybody who was a slave. Nor do you. My people, at the time in question where both Irish being oppressed by the English and Englishmen oppressing the Irish. They eventually came to America and Canada and married each other. Which raises an interesting question: will Tiger Woods and Halle Berry pay or receive reparations?
Listened to Michael Medved interview with Mary Hoover, some black academic from some college, who was making an incredibly spectacular ass of herself trying to palm this shakedown attempt off as something within hailing distance of Justice. The jig was up when Medved asked if she would demand reparations from African nations for selling her ancestors into slavery. She launched into this elaborate circumlocution about how slavery was culturally acceptable in Africa at the time (note: it's *still* culturally acceptable in some parts of Africa, lady) and so it was all really okay, blah blah. Basic message: "We hope to use the politics of envy to soak somebody for a lot of cash. Africans don't have this, so we're not interested."
God grant the black community in this country more Condoleeza Rices and a lot fewer Mary Hoovers, Sharptons and Jacksons. They are utter traitors to the cause of civil rights. How any rational person can even respect such people, much less take them seriously is beyond me.
The bright side? Look at the numbers: 2,000-3,000 in attendance. That's rather a comedown from the 1963 March on Washington which was *really* about justice.
One hundred and fifty years ago, my ancestors were a) in Canada, b) in Scotland, c) poor Irish farmers and immigrant horse thieves and d) far away from the awesome economic benefits slavery was allegedly conferring on "us". I'm not related to anybody who ever owned a slave. I am related (by marriage) to somebody who fought to free slaves. I don't know anybody who was a slave. Nor do you. My people, at the time in question where both Irish being oppressed by the English and Englishmen oppressing the Irish. They eventually came to America and Canada and married each other. Which raises an interesting question: will Tiger Woods and Halle Berry pay or receive reparations?
Listened to Michael Medved interview with Mary Hoover, some black academic from some college, who was making an incredibly spectacular ass of herself trying to palm this shakedown attempt off as something within hailing distance of Justice. The jig was up when Medved asked if she would demand reparations from African nations for selling her ancestors into slavery. She launched into this elaborate circumlocution about how slavery was culturally acceptable in Africa at the time (note: it's *still* culturally acceptable in some parts of Africa, lady) and so it was all really okay, blah blah. Basic message: "We hope to use the politics of envy to soak somebody for a lot of cash. Africans don't have this, so we're not interested."
God grant the black community in this country more Condoleeza Rices and a lot fewer Mary Hoovers, Sharptons and Jacksons. They are utter traitors to the cause of civil rights. How any rational person can even respect such people, much less take them seriously is beyond me.
The bright side? Look at the numbers: 2,000-3,000 in attendance. That's rather a comedown from the 1963 March on Washington which was *really* about justice.
Donald Sensing Muses about Hell
In the words of Lewis, "The Gates of hell are barred from the inside."
Sensing also argues there is salvation outside the Church. I think he's wrong, since "the Church" is ultimately the company of the saved and therefore it is a tautology to say there is no salvation outside the Church. Is there salvation outside the *visible* Church? Yes. But all who are saved will find, in the end, that they were in some sense united with the Church. And in heaven, that union with the Church will be perfected. It cannot be otherwise, since Christ is the savior of all and the Church is his Body. Salvation is incorporation into Christ.
In the words of Lewis, "The Gates of hell are barred from the inside."
Sensing also argues there is salvation outside the Church. I think he's wrong, since "the Church" is ultimately the company of the saved and therefore it is a tautology to say there is no salvation outside the Church. Is there salvation outside the *visible* Church? Yes. But all who are saved will find, in the end, that they were in some sense united with the Church. And in heaven, that union with the Church will be perfected. It cannot be otherwise, since Christ is the savior of all and the Church is his Body. Salvation is incorporation into Christ.
Greg Krehbiel offers a bleat of complaint about the recent bit of ecclesial bafflegab (with a tip of the hat to John Knox)
In the Lord of the Rings, there is a moment when Bilbo deliberately antagonizes a crowd of well-wishers by telling them "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." This subcommittee of ecclesial functionaries have done something similar with this Reflections document--and to people who have no particular reason to wish them well. After repeated analyses, one can--with struggle--decode the document to the point where, if one is willing to be extremely nuanced in one's reading, you can see that they have not abandoned the faith. But the fact that you have to struggle this hard to figure out what is going on is telling. Greg is a very serious and committed Catholic. But, like me, he's a Catholic who prefers plain speech over bafflegab. I don't think the document is the renunciation of Christ that the papers were proclaiming last week. Nor (once it is carefully parsed), do I think it says that Catholics have to shut up about Jesus.
But, that said, think about what faint praise that is! "American Bishops Document Barely Keeps Grip on Elementary Catholic Teaching!" It's that sort of thing that makes life so hard for a faithful Catholic like Greg (and me). Who can blame him for being offended?
In the Lord of the Rings, there is a moment when Bilbo deliberately antagonizes a crowd of well-wishers by telling them "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." This subcommittee of ecclesial functionaries have done something similar with this Reflections document--and to people who have no particular reason to wish them well. After repeated analyses, one can--with struggle--decode the document to the point where, if one is willing to be extremely nuanced in one's reading, you can see that they have not abandoned the faith. But the fact that you have to struggle this hard to figure out what is going on is telling. Greg is a very serious and committed Catholic. But, like me, he's a Catholic who prefers plain speech over bafflegab. I don't think the document is the renunciation of Christ that the papers were proclaiming last week. Nor (once it is carefully parsed), do I think it says that Catholics have to shut up about Jesus.
But, that said, think about what faint praise that is! "American Bishops Document Barely Keeps Grip on Elementary Catholic Teaching!" It's that sort of thing that makes life so hard for a faithful Catholic like Greg (and me). Who can blame him for being offended?
Fr. Rob Johansen asks:
Yep. Though there is also heterosexual abuse too. And they are, of course, right to tell the American bishops to address it. Let's hope they do.
"The Vatican "re-do" instructions to the American bishops expressed concern that the bishops have not addressed the 'root causes of sexual abuse.' Do you think that's a veiled reference to the problems of homosexuals in the priesthood?"
Yep. Though there is also heterosexual abuse too. And they are, of course, right to tell the American bishops to address it. Let's hope they do.
Saturday, August 17, 2002
Just checking in!
New piece up on Catholic Exchange. Check it out. Also, read Deal Hudson's piece at the same place.
New piece up on Catholic Exchange. Check it out. Also, read Deal Hudson's piece at the same place.
Friday, August 16, 2002
I'm outta here early today
Gonna go to my brother's house, play in the lake, sleep under the stars, have a party, and go to Mass. It doesn't get any better than that.
By the way, let me just say that I am as firmly convinced as ever that God is in charge, that our light and momentary sufferings are winning for us an eternal weight of glory, and that Jesus Christ still knows the way out of the grave. This blog, being rather newsy, focuses (perhaps overmuch) on this passing world, which we know from revelation has been subjected to frustration. In order to counter that, it is vital to remember that this is not the end of the story:
That's not just religious jargon, that is a laser-accurate diagnosis of Reality. And it is the key to the proper perspective on all our present woes, whether it be scandal, war, or the Boston Red Sox. If reading all this stuff about Scandal get you down as it does me, work on memorizing this passage. This creation is just the mock-up. It exists so that God can bring about the New Creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth. It's not the end of the story.
Gonna go to my brother's house, play in the lake, sleep under the stars, have a party, and go to Mass. It doesn't get any better than that.
By the way, let me just say that I am as firmly convinced as ever that God is in charge, that our light and momentary sufferings are winning for us an eternal weight of glory, and that Jesus Christ still knows the way out of the grave. This blog, being rather newsy, focuses (perhaps overmuch) on this passing world, which we know from revelation has been subjected to frustration. In order to counter that, it is vital to remember that this is not the end of the story:
I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:18-25)
That's not just religious jargon, that is a laser-accurate diagnosis of Reality. And it is the key to the proper perspective on all our present woes, whether it be scandal, war, or the Boston Red Sox. If reading all this stuff about Scandal get you down as it does me, work on memorizing this passage. This creation is just the mock-up. It exists so that God can bring about the New Creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth. It's not the end of the story.
You really have got to read the proposals to the Divine Miss Em at HMS Blog!
They bring new meaning to the phrase "Exceptional Marriages".
They bring new meaning to the phrase "Exceptional Marriages".
My pal Dale Ahlquist, Supreme Intergalactic Plenipotentiary and Lord High Chancellor of the American Chesterton Society writes
If you aren't familiar with Chesterton yet, then for heaven's sake log off this entirely trivial blog and go read Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox, all his Father Brown stories, The Man Who Was Thursday, The Napoleon of Notting Hill, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic and... oh... that should keep you busy for a while.
Dear Chesterton Friend,
I just wanted to let you know that The Apostle of Common Sense is returning to EWTN in September with all new episodes. Chuck Chalberg and I had the privilege of putting together 13 new shows on G.K. Chesterton. It starts September 4, and will continue each Wednesday at 11 pm (10 pm Central), with rebroadcasts Saturdays at 5 pm (4 pm Central) and Sundays 4 am (3 am Central). Please join us and keep us in your prayers. And tell others to watch: a great way to get them to discover the everlasting wisdom of GKC.
Your servant,
Dale Ahlquist
President,American Chesterton Society
4117 Pebblebrook Circle
Minneapolis, MN 55437
952-831-3096
Your donations are greatly appreciated.
If you aren't familiar with Chesterton yet, then for heaven's sake log off this entirely trivial blog and go read Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox, all his Father Brown stories, The Man Who Was Thursday, The Napoleon of Notting Hill, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic and... oh... that should keep you busy for a while.
Thanks!
I've sent thanks privately, but I wanted to acknowledge publicly my deep gratitude to all those kind and generous folk who responded to my tin cup rattling at the door of St. Blog's the other day. Your generosity is deeply appreciated!
Oh, and just for signing up with PayPal, you get $5 and I get $5 for referring you. Win, win! Check it out!
I've sent thanks privately, but I wanted to acknowledge publicly my deep gratitude to all those kind and generous folk who responded to my tin cup rattling at the door of St. Blog's the other day. Your generosity is deeply appreciated!
Oh, and just for signing up with PayPal, you get $5 and I get $5 for referring you. Win, win! Check it out!
A Jewish fan!
Prolife guy writes:
I think it's a great site and I hope God blesses your work for his little ones a million times over. Check it out people! And check out Jews For Life too!
Shalom!
Prolife guy writes:
First, I thought you'd want to know that there's at least one Jew out there who likes your site. It has taught me a lot about Catholicism.
Second, I wanted to invite you to check out the blog: Prolife Guy's Take I've just started.
I'd love to know what you think.
I think it's a great site and I hope God blesses your work for his little ones a million times over. Check it out people! And check out Jews For Life too!
Shalom!
Thursday, August 15, 2002
David Morrison asks excellent questions
The more I look at the behavior of some of our bishops, the more I simply have to wonder how indeed, they can sleep at night. I think I can't be appalled more than I already am, and then it all hits you in the face afresh: Law's deposition that I don't know how to take as anything other than a tissue of intellectually insulting falsehood... or the draconian silencing of Fr. Sibley... or the mendacity of Cardinal Mahony... or the callousness and falsehoods of Bishop Imesch... or the appalling negligence of Bp. McCormack or.... well, you get the idea. Yeah, I wouldn't weep to see several ecclesiat heads summarily roll after a day like today.
And then a little voice says, "Suppose I keep them there in my mysterious purposes? Will you bear that cross?"
It's worth asking, since the omnipotent God seems to be taking his time about removing these guys. I wonder why. I really do. Is it simply due to sinful refusal by mortal men to obey him and kick them out? Is it self-evident that God obviously wants them out, or is there some reason he continues to allow them to afflict us with their scandalous behavior and hurt so many people, even when they don't appear to be gaining any wisdom? God is never more inscrutable than in moments of pain. And yet, the Cross insists that we are, in such moments, often closer to God than at any other. What can we profit from this pain and frustration? Where is Christ crucified present in this?
No answers here. Just mulling.
The more I look at the behavior of some of our bishops, the more I simply have to wonder how indeed, they can sleep at night. I think I can't be appalled more than I already am, and then it all hits you in the face afresh: Law's deposition that I don't know how to take as anything other than a tissue of intellectually insulting falsehood... or the draconian silencing of Fr. Sibley... or the mendacity of Cardinal Mahony... or the callousness and falsehoods of Bishop Imesch... or the appalling negligence of Bp. McCormack or.... well, you get the idea. Yeah, I wouldn't weep to see several ecclesiat heads summarily roll after a day like today.
And then a little voice says, "Suppose I keep them there in my mysterious purposes? Will you bear that cross?"
It's worth asking, since the omnipotent God seems to be taking his time about removing these guys. I wonder why. I really do. Is it simply due to sinful refusal by mortal men to obey him and kick them out? Is it self-evident that God obviously wants them out, or is there some reason he continues to allow them to afflict us with their scandalous behavior and hurt so many people, even when they don't appear to be gaining any wisdom? God is never more inscrutable than in moments of pain. And yet, the Cross insists that we are, in such moments, often closer to God than at any other. What can we profit from this pain and frustration? Where is Christ crucified present in this?
No answers here. Just mulling.
Bleak
Remember the sex predator in Mississippi, Cardinal?
"Oh yeah. That was the bishop's responsibility. Not mine."
Remember the sex predators in Boston when you were archbishop?
"Oh yeah. That was my subordinates' responsibility, not mine."
God deliver us from Clintonesque shepherds. How long, O Lord?
Remember the sex predator in Mississippi, Cardinal?
"Oh yeah. That was the bishop's responsibility. Not mine."
Remember the sex predators in Boston when you were archbishop?
"Oh yeah. That was my subordinates' responsibility, not mine."
God deliver us from Clintonesque shepherds. How long, O Lord?
There is a torrid romantic whirlwind building on HMS Blog
Perhaps one of you would like to be Emily's next suitor?
Perhaps one of you would like to be Emily's next suitor?
Dave's wrong
He's essentially abandoning the fact that Christ is the only savior and positing a sort of di-theism. There's only one God and only one heaven. All who are there will have to deal with the reality that God is a Trinity and Jesus is, in fact, God the Son. Jews and Christians will not have separate heavens and separate Gods. It is no sin to say this: it is simply an affirmation of the most basic teaching of Christianity: that all who are saved are saved by Christ. It only becomes sinful when a Christian attempts to compel a non-Christian to agree with him. Christians don't need to do this. If their doctrine is true, "every knee shall bow" to the truth of it in God's own sweet time. Our task is to bear witness to Jesus as Lord, to propose, not impose, as JPII says. It is not to give noogies to those who do not agree with us until they cry uncle. But neither is it to abandon the basics of our faith out of a false notion that this is somehow affirming non-Christians in their okayness. Both Jews *and* Christians are bound to obey their consciences.
He's essentially abandoning the fact that Christ is the only savior and positing a sort of di-theism. There's only one God and only one heaven. All who are there will have to deal with the reality that God is a Trinity and Jesus is, in fact, God the Son. Jews and Christians will not have separate heavens and separate Gods. It is no sin to say this: it is simply an affirmation of the most basic teaching of Christianity: that all who are saved are saved by Christ. It only becomes sinful when a Christian attempts to compel a non-Christian to agree with him. Christians don't need to do this. If their doctrine is true, "every knee shall bow" to the truth of it in God's own sweet time. Our task is to bear witness to Jesus as Lord, to propose, not impose, as JPII says. It is not to give noogies to those who do not agree with us until they cry uncle. But neither is it to abandon the basics of our faith out of a false notion that this is somehow affirming non-Christians in their okayness. Both Jews *and* Christians are bound to obey their consciences.
Today is the Day to Pray for Healing for our Sore-Beset Church
If it's any help, Shaken by Scandals has a section in the back full of relevant scriptural texts, reflections, and prayers that are intended for use on just such a day as this. Lord, hear our prayer.
If it's any help, Shaken by Scandals has a section in the back full of relevant scriptural texts, reflections, and prayers that are intended for use on just such a day as this. Lord, hear our prayer.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"I've pretty much used up my advance, and now my editors are hoping that I'll outlive the pope."
ROBERT BLAIR KAISER,who is 71, on a book he will write on Pope John Paul II's successor.
The reader who sent this in sez: "Serves 'em right, the old vultures, for presuming that JPII was so fragile . . ."
Speculating on the next pope is a journalistic pastime with all the social and scientific reliability of examining goat entrails.
"I've pretty much used up my advance, and now my editors are hoping that I'll outlive the pope."
ROBERT BLAIR KAISER,who is 71, on a book he will write on Pope John Paul II's successor.
The reader who sent this in sez: "Serves 'em right, the old vultures, for presuming that JPII was so fragile . . ."
Speculating on the next pope is a journalistic pastime with all the social and scientific reliability of examining goat entrails.
A reader speculates
I'm afraid you are wrong about the "second chance to repent after death part". The Church teaches that probation ends at death. If you have definitively rejected Jesus in this life (and only he knows whether you have) there is no second chance after death. (Rejecting a label called "Jesus" does not necessarily mean you have rejected the person of Christ.) If you have not, however tentatively, "come to the Father" before death, you cannot do so afterward. It is true that Purgatory exists and that those whose sincere attempts to "coming to the Father" in this life have been marred by sin or ignorance will be fully cleansed in the next. It's also true that this will all be through the grace of Christ, since he is God the Son. But it's not true that those who lack justifying faith and simply refuse to come to the Father in this life will have the chance to do so in the next. That's the catechism's teaching, not just mine.
I think the way it works for everybody is roughly like this: Jesus said No one comes to the Father except through Me, but He never said it had to be on this side. I believe for everyone it happens on the other side, first thing, and without the operation of free will as we know it here. A man's life gives the answer to this question, his religious brand loyalties aside (and irrelevant, although some religions are far better than others at getting people ready for that moment). Because of this I think pious Jews like the Orthodox guy who gave his life to save the helpless man on 9/11 will be overjoyed to see Jesus, and vice-versa. We'll run and jump into the fires of Purgatory too, just to be with Him later. If we're lucky. :)
I'm afraid you are wrong about the "second chance to repent after death part". The Church teaches that probation ends at death. If you have definitively rejected Jesus in this life (and only he knows whether you have) there is no second chance after death. (Rejecting a label called "Jesus" does not necessarily mean you have rejected the person of Christ.) If you have not, however tentatively, "come to the Father" before death, you cannot do so afterward. It is true that Purgatory exists and that those whose sincere attempts to "coming to the Father" in this life have been marred by sin or ignorance will be fully cleansed in the next. It's also true that this will all be through the grace of Christ, since he is God the Son. But it's not true that those who lack justifying faith and simply refuse to come to the Father in this life will have the chance to do so in the next. That's the catechism's teaching, not just mine.
Science writer tiptoes up to admitting Romans 1:20 is right about You Know Who
...but also hedges his language so the kids at the science playground won't ostracize him from the peer group ("But creationists should not rejoice: even a god such as this can't explain how things got so strange."). Mustn't be caught associating with those awful "creationists".
I wonder how he knows what God is and is not capable of explaining, or even that he owes us an explanation. I also wonder how the fact that, as JBS Haldane observed, "The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it's queerer than we can imagine" is prima facie evidence that creationists are wrong to ascribe Creation to an infinite (and admittedly mysterious) God? I do hope theology one day regains her place as Queen of the Sciences. As Newman pointed out, when you get rid of theology, other and lesser sciences try to fill the vacuum, with the result that scientists make dumb magisterial pronouncements about what God can and cannot "explain" and Carl Sagan declares the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be--as though he knows.
Just FYI, all believing Jews and Christians are "creationists". Not all believing Jews and Christians are *six day* creationists or *young earth* creationists or *everything about evolutionary theory is a lie* creationists. We all acknowledge "God created the heavens and the earth" (contra shallow ninnies like Richard Dawkins and other Saganesque materialists). We simply are fuzzy on the details of how. Genesis is primarily interested in who and why questions regarding creation. Science is picking over the how, when and what questions.
...but also hedges his language so the kids at the science playground won't ostracize him from the peer group ("But creationists should not rejoice: even a god such as this can't explain how things got so strange."). Mustn't be caught associating with those awful "creationists".
I wonder how he knows what God is and is not capable of explaining, or even that he owes us an explanation. I also wonder how the fact that, as JBS Haldane observed, "The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it's queerer than we can imagine" is prima facie evidence that creationists are wrong to ascribe Creation to an infinite (and admittedly mysterious) God? I do hope theology one day regains her place as Queen of the Sciences. As Newman pointed out, when you get rid of theology, other and lesser sciences try to fill the vacuum, with the result that scientists make dumb magisterial pronouncements about what God can and cannot "explain" and Carl Sagan declares the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be--as though he knows.
Just FYI, all believing Jews and Christians are "creationists". Not all believing Jews and Christians are *six day* creationists or *young earth* creationists or *everything about evolutionary theory is a lie* creationists. We all acknowledge "God created the heavens and the earth" (contra shallow ninnies like Richard Dawkins and other Saganesque materialists). We simply are fuzzy on the details of how. Genesis is primarily interested in who and why questions regarding creation. Science is picking over the how, when and what questions.
Some of my readers are debating the question of whether JPII is a good or bad CEO
This is deeply ironic to me, since it is precisely because our bishops have conceived of themselves as CEO's and not priests that we are in this jam. Lesson #1: if you want to try to comprehend JPII's thinking (even if you disagree with it) you have to begin with the fact that he is trying to think with the Tradition and not merely applying secular templates. You may still disagree with his actions. But you will not even comprehend his actions or the motivation behind them if you don't start there. From what I can see, JPII's thinking is informed by his conception of what a priest is, by his theology of the cross, and by his faith in the grace of Holy Orders to convert the hard hearts and darkened minds of some of our episcopacy. In short, he is approaching this problem supernaturally and in an attempt to work with the Tradition. He is not asking the sorts of questions that have led our bishops to their present pass ("What will the lawyers advise? How will this play on the evening news? How's my hair? What would Bill Gates do?") As I say, the results are, so far, mixed. But I think the attempt to apply secular templates here is leading some "Restorationist Catholics" (who have a strong critique of the success of this approach) to adopt a schizophrenic view of JPII as a deeply compassionate man who doesn't give a rip. I think he does give a rip and that he is attempting a very risky form of medicine by leaving these men to bear the scorn they bring on themselves by their CEO thinking until they stop thinking like Bill Gates and acquire the mind of Christ.
Whether that will be successful is, in my view, rather dubious. But I think we have to at least begin by understanding what is being attempted or we will not even be in a position to critique well. We'll instead fall into precisely the secular categories that our bishops' minds appear to inhabit when they conceive of their offices--the categories that got them where they are.
Homework assignment: Read the section on the critiques of John Paul's papacy (particularly the section on the Restorationist Critique) in the epilogue to Witness to Hope by George Weigel. There are some sound Restorationist critiques, as Weigel acknowledges. But to keep "Restorationist" from becoming "Reactionary" it is important to understand what the wellsprings of JPII's thought and action are. And to do that, it is absolutely necessary to break away from secular analytical templates and remember that he cannot be understood from the outside, but only from the inside--from a mind steeped in the Tradition and not in secular categories. Does this render him flawless in his governance of the Church? No. But it will make his mistakes more comprehensible and not simply the inexplicable contradiction of a compassionate/utterly uncaring CEO that secular analyses fall back on.
This is deeply ironic to me, since it is precisely because our bishops have conceived of themselves as CEO's and not priests that we are in this jam. Lesson #1: if you want to try to comprehend JPII's thinking (even if you disagree with it) you have to begin with the fact that he is trying to think with the Tradition and not merely applying secular templates. You may still disagree with his actions. But you will not even comprehend his actions or the motivation behind them if you don't start there. From what I can see, JPII's thinking is informed by his conception of what a priest is, by his theology of the cross, and by his faith in the grace of Holy Orders to convert the hard hearts and darkened minds of some of our episcopacy. In short, he is approaching this problem supernaturally and in an attempt to work with the Tradition. He is not asking the sorts of questions that have led our bishops to their present pass ("What will the lawyers advise? How will this play on the evening news? How's my hair? What would Bill Gates do?") As I say, the results are, so far, mixed. But I think the attempt to apply secular templates here is leading some "Restorationist Catholics" (who have a strong critique of the success of this approach) to adopt a schizophrenic view of JPII as a deeply compassionate man who doesn't give a rip. I think he does give a rip and that he is attempting a very risky form of medicine by leaving these men to bear the scorn they bring on themselves by their CEO thinking until they stop thinking like Bill Gates and acquire the mind of Christ.
Whether that will be successful is, in my view, rather dubious. But I think we have to at least begin by understanding what is being attempted or we will not even be in a position to critique well. We'll instead fall into precisely the secular categories that our bishops' minds appear to inhabit when they conceive of their offices--the categories that got them where they are.
Homework assignment: Read the section on the critiques of John Paul's papacy (particularly the section on the Restorationist Critique) in the epilogue to Witness to Hope by George Weigel. There are some sound Restorationist critiques, as Weigel acknowledges. But to keep "Restorationist" from becoming "Reactionary" it is important to understand what the wellsprings of JPII's thought and action are. And to do that, it is absolutely necessary to break away from secular analytical templates and remember that he cannot be understood from the outside, but only from the inside--from a mind steeped in the Tradition and not in secular categories. Does this render him flawless in his governance of the Church? No. But it will make his mistakes more comprehensible and not simply the inexplicable contradiction of a compassionate/utterly uncaring CEO that secular analyses fall back on.
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
Squishy liberal modernist ecumenical interreligious flake alert
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious."
This flaky bit of indifferentist modernism is brought to you by....St. Justin Martyr (2nd Century) in his First Apology, Chapter XLVI
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious."
This flaky bit of indifferentist modernism is brought to you by....St. Justin Martyr (2nd Century) in his First Apology, Chapter XLVI
Proof of the existence of evil spirits
Somebody made a portrait of Elvis out of 4,000 pieces of toast.
No merely human depravity can account for things like this.
Somebody made a portrait of Elvis out of 4,000 pieces of toast.
No merely human depravity can account for things like this.
So why is Law still a bishop?
Some of my readers seem to think that Law's continuance as a bishop shows JPII to be the locus of evil in the universe.
Anyway, as I've said before, I think JPII is still attempting to put the US bishops in the position of carrying the crosses they tried to lay on the shoulders of innocents. It's a risk (though not, I think, a risk for more innocent children), but a risk rather that the bishops will simply not learn and go on trying to shirk their burden. Law's testimony is depressing, but remember that it's months old. Some sources have indicated that in the intervening period, he seems to be learning some responsibility and taking up his cross. Others are not so hopeful. Right now, I'm in "Charity hopeth all things" mode. Other bishops strike me as less responsive. In any case, it's a pastoral strategy by John Paul to try to form bishops who are serious about carrying the cross. (And one, it seems to me, that calls for laity to hold bishops accountable.) There's no guarantee it will work, but it's nobly attempted. Particularly since, as Richard John Neuhaus points out, it's not like there's a second string team of bishops waiting in the wings. Throw them all out and replace them with new ones and you will have... a bunch of bishops who are just as clueless about their office as the ones we have now.
Nor is it set in stone. There may still well come a time when it is obvious to Rome that some bishop is just flat refusing to bear his cross and learn his office. Such a bishop will go, I think. What I don't think is that the Holy Father's policy is prima facie evidence that he is the locus of evil in the universe.
Some of my readers seem to think that Law's continuance as a bishop shows JPII to be the locus of evil in the universe.
Anyway, as I've said before, I think JPII is still attempting to put the US bishops in the position of carrying the crosses they tried to lay on the shoulders of innocents. It's a risk (though not, I think, a risk for more innocent children), but a risk rather that the bishops will simply not learn and go on trying to shirk their burden. Law's testimony is depressing, but remember that it's months old. Some sources have indicated that in the intervening period, he seems to be learning some responsibility and taking up his cross. Others are not so hopeful. Right now, I'm in "Charity hopeth all things" mode. Other bishops strike me as less responsive. In any case, it's a pastoral strategy by John Paul to try to form bishops who are serious about carrying the cross. (And one, it seems to me, that calls for laity to hold bishops accountable.) There's no guarantee it will work, but it's nobly attempted. Particularly since, as Richard John Neuhaus points out, it's not like there's a second string team of bishops waiting in the wings. Throw them all out and replace them with new ones and you will have... a bunch of bishops who are just as clueless about their office as the ones we have now.
Nor is it set in stone. There may still well come a time when it is obvious to Rome that some bishop is just flat refusing to bear his cross and learn his office. Such a bishop will go, I think. What I don't think is that the Holy Father's policy is prima facie evidence that he is the locus of evil in the universe.
One of my reader's points out these quotes from the Reflections document:
"The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God's kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people."
and
"Sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted."
Okay. Work with me here, you guys who are telling me the Church is abandoning its mission in this document. What again is the problem? I'm asking sincerely. The document affirms that Jesus is the savior of all (whether they realize it or not). So it's not proposing that Jews don't need the salvation of Christ, it's merely saying they can encounter him by fidelity to the covenant (since the covenant is from God and is, according to Roman 11 and Nostra Aetate, not abrogated). It affirms in the statement above that the Church will "always" witness to Jews. So it doesn't seem to be abandoning its mission either. I'm willing to hear the case that its missiology is all messed up. But so far I'm not seeing it. Help me out here. Right now it looks to me like the Church basically says much the same sort of thing that it said with respect to other Christian traditions: they participate, in various ways and degrees, in the revelation of God (the fullness of which is in the Catholic Church) and, by faithful adherence to that revelation, they can enter into relationship with God. The old covenant is also a true revelation of God which can be transcended (by baptism and entry into the new covenant) but it cannot be broken. So just as I don't "evangelize" Evangelicals (since they are already participants in the revelation) but still can call them to full participation in the life, teaching and worship of the Church which is present in the Catholic communion, so Jews (who are also participants in the revelation) should not be "converted" (as though they were not already participants in the revelation as, for instance, an animist is not) but I can still speak of my faith with them (and they with me) as a fellow participants in the revelation. Just as, with Evangelicals, I believe the Catholic faith completes and perfects what is found there, so I think the same with Judaism. Catholic faith denies nothing that Judaism affirms. Karl Stern, an orthodox Jewish convert noted the same thing.
Anyway, I'm having a hard time seeing the heinousness of this document again. I hope my reader whom I quote below can help me see the problem with the missiology better, if there is one.
"The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God's kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people."
and
"Sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted."
Okay. Work with me here, you guys who are telling me the Church is abandoning its mission in this document. What again is the problem? I'm asking sincerely. The document affirms that Jesus is the savior of all (whether they realize it or not). So it's not proposing that Jews don't need the salvation of Christ, it's merely saying they can encounter him by fidelity to the covenant (since the covenant is from God and is, according to Roman 11 and Nostra Aetate, not abrogated). It affirms in the statement above that the Church will "always" witness to Jews. So it doesn't seem to be abandoning its mission either. I'm willing to hear the case that its missiology is all messed up. But so far I'm not seeing it. Help me out here. Right now it looks to me like the Church basically says much the same sort of thing that it said with respect to other Christian traditions: they participate, in various ways and degrees, in the revelation of God (the fullness of which is in the Catholic Church) and, by faithful adherence to that revelation, they can enter into relationship with God. The old covenant is also a true revelation of God which can be transcended (by baptism and entry into the new covenant) but it cannot be broken. So just as I don't "evangelize" Evangelicals (since they are already participants in the revelation) but still can call them to full participation in the life, teaching and worship of the Church which is present in the Catholic communion, so Jews (who are also participants in the revelation) should not be "converted" (as though they were not already participants in the revelation as, for instance, an animist is not) but I can still speak of my faith with them (and they with me) as a fellow participants in the revelation. Just as, with Evangelicals, I believe the Catholic faith completes and perfects what is found there, so I think the same with Judaism. Catholic faith denies nothing that Judaism affirms. Karl Stern, an orthodox Jewish convert noted the same thing.
Anyway, I'm having a hard time seeing the heinousness of this document again. I hope my reader whom I quote below can help me see the problem with the missiology better, if there is one.
Rome to US Bishops re: Stupid Zero Tolerance Policy Machine: "Re-do"
Thanks to Super Scooper Dom Bettinelli.
Oh, and let me be the first to say, "Told you so."
Thanks to Super Scooper Dom Bettinelli.
Oh, and let me be the first to say, "Told you so."
Cardinal Law perfects his Sergeant Schultz Impression
My question: How are depositions done? Is it really conceivable that Cardinal Law made no preparations for his deposition? Never checked the records for the period of time under review? Never examined his files to slightly jog his memory about about what, in the past, he might have done with respect to sexual abuse? Did he really just wander into the deposition without any preparation at all? I mean, I don't remember what I was doing in 1985 either. So if you asked me cold what I was doing, I might mumble too. But then, I'm not a bishop with a bureaucratic paper trail 20 miles long and a staff of people who can find the files I need. Particularly files that pertain to the gravest crisis the American Church has ever faced. What's wrong with this picture?
Q. Who is Archbishop Levada?
A. He is the Archbishop of San Francisco.
Q. Where was he in 1985?
A. Oh, I can't remember. I'm not even sure he was a bishop in 1985. I'm really not certain where he was in 1985.
Q. He was the secretary to your committee at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops; is that correct?
A. Bishop Levada? Archbishop Levada?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't recall what he was doing in 1985. I'd have to check the records.
Q. But you don't know whether he was ever secretary to the committee that you chaired?
A. Well, as I recall, he would not have been a staff -- he never was a staff person of the conference, and so we wouldn't have had a secretary to the committee. The committee would be a group of bishops. If he was a bishop member of the committee, it's -- he would have been a member of the committee.
Q. Right.
A. He would not have had the title of secretary.
Q. But my question is --
A. I cannot recollect whether in 1985 he was a bishop or not.
Q. My question -- I think you may have answered it, but just for the record, so it's clear, you have no recollection whatsoever of having any involvement with setting up an ad hoc committee to deal with the issue of sexual abuse in the clergy. Is that your testimony?
A. I have no recollection of that. However, it's conceivable that our committee did set up -- that I did set up a subcommittee. I just have no recollection of that.
My question: How are depositions done? Is it really conceivable that Cardinal Law made no preparations for his deposition? Never checked the records for the period of time under review? Never examined his files to slightly jog his memory about about what, in the past, he might have done with respect to sexual abuse? Did he really just wander into the deposition without any preparation at all? I mean, I don't remember what I was doing in 1985 either. So if you asked me cold what I was doing, I might mumble too. But then, I'm not a bishop with a bureaucratic paper trail 20 miles long and a staff of people who can find the files I need. Particularly files that pertain to the gravest crisis the American Church has ever faced. What's wrong with this picture?