Why the Sacrifice of Christ was Necessary

I've said before that we don't really believe in sin. "Sinners" are charming rogues, we think. Oh sure, I'm sinner. But I'm alright as is our charming, roguish little species. We get into a little trouble sometimes. We're only human after all. But at bottom, we're okay and don't need too much help from God. Certainly this dramatic "sacrifice" business is old-fashioned overkill. We'll pay respectful attention to Jesus' offer of advice, but all those demands for conversion of heart and death to self are not necessary any more. We are integrated adult personalities.

Here's a letter from a reader who puts into perspective just why Jesus had to endure such a sacrifice for us:

Sometimes I learn about something that casts a light on the reason for the desperate expedient of the Sacrifice.

The following is from a description of an NS trial - what we in this country call a war crimes trial - in Germany in the 70s.

It's from an essay in a book called The Healing Wound, by Gitta Sereny:

'The first defendant is called to the stand...He is a man of fifty-two, married, three children. Profession: grocer...

The judge: " Herr R, let me just read to you what this part of the accusation says, and then we'll see what you have to say about it."

He reads, without expression: "Johann R is accused, as SS chief of guards of the forced labor camp T in June 1943, on the course of the liquidation of the city's ghetto, to have caught about sixty children under ten years of age who had tried to hide...to have stood them up alongside a pit, to have killed them individually through repeated blows on their heads with a hammer, whereupon the bodies fell into the pit, while their parents were forced to watch...."

"Well now, Herr R, you've heard the accusation. What do you have to say?"

R (portentous and fluent): "I want to do everything to help the court, of course, but this was so long ago."

Judge: "One could hardly forget such a scene - unless of course it happened so often...."

"It is of course entirely untrue," R said very quickly. "Entirely a lie."

Judge: "Four witnesses are here to confirm what has just been read to you. They saw it happen. They will swear that they saw you do this."

R (straightening up): 'Whatever was done, whatever we did, all of us, any of us, we did under orders."

Judge: "Did you know that no one is obliged to obey a criminal order? Did you know that this was part of the Army code and applied all through the time of the Third Reich [note: There is no record that I am aware of that anyone was ever punished for refusing to carry out such an order during the Third Reich - A.]

R: "An order is an order."

Judge: "But these were children, small children." He stopped for a moment, a visible effort at control. "Tell me, Herr R did you consider Russians, Poles, Jews human, or not?"

[No answer. Defense counsel speaks with his client, then with the court.]

Judge: "You can go and sit down for a moment," he says stonily. "You will be recalled later."

[End of text]

Note, Herr R is not a theatrical monster from outer space. He's one of us. Blood of our blood. A human being.

When God became one of us and subjected himself to a horrible, prolonged death by flogging and crucifixion it was because we are, among other things, Herr R.

Do we recognize our humanity in Herr R, as well as in the judge? If we don't, we will be unable to understand the Sacrifice on Golgotha.

Arrrrrr! A beautiful way to bring humankind together, mateys

Iraq Calls for Suicide Squads to Strike American Targets & Interests

No need to be concerned though. They haven't actually done anything yet, so self-defense is out of the question.

Like Bill Clinton in the 8th year of his administration...

Jim Post of Voice of the Fuddled continues to try to figure out what the hell their core beliefs are and assure everybody that it's all under control and the critics are evil people conspiring against reform, not intelligent Catholics who agree that the Church needs reform but who disagree with VOTF's completely fuddled approach. Meanwhile David Alexander offers cogent critiques of VOTF.

Apropos recent discussions of Jew-hatred among Christians

Marvin Olasky, who was raised in Judaism and is now an Evangelical, has some rather sensible things to say on what Christians can learn from Judaism. The piece reminds me again of how close the Jewish and Catholic worldviews are in so many ways. I hope Olasky becomes Catholic some day. I think it would feel like a bit of a homecoming for him, judging from his affectionate and intelligent discussion of Jewish ways of piety.

More money paid out to sex abuse victims

I wonder how much will be paid in the end?

I don't recall likening the coming war with Dresden but...

a reader writes in with some intelligent comments:

I was struggling with the comparisons you and others made regarding the Dresden bombing and the Iraq War plans.

I was thinking if Dresden's bombing was really morally unjustifiable and the Nuremberg trials were about bringing justice to the men who committed atrocities -- why were the bombers of Dresden not included?

In my research I learned that one crime which Hermann Goering was not accused of was the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.The reason is obvious -- had this charge been included in the indictment, Air Chief Marshall Arthur Harris RAF would have been in the dock as well. This gives rise to the cynical thought that the victors write the rules after surrender.

The difference which for me makes the Iraqi War plans a just war is that not a moral change but a technological one. The United States has the ability to achieve military victory without indiscriminate bombing of civilians. As is the case in the areas of the Palestinian Authority, Iraq violates the Geneva Conventions by co-locating military facilities in densely populated areas.

All of men connected to the Dresden bombing are now beyond human justice, and biographies of Churchill include his approval of this atrocity which he denied authorizing after the war.

As for the American leadership, I believe they can conduct the coming war as a just war and bring liberation to the Iraqi people.

No evidence for an Iraqi connection to terrorism? Reeeeeeally?

It's not proof, but it's rather compelling.

By the way, after a conversation with a friend I'm now leaning back toward favoring war with Iraq

Just keeping you posted. Iraq has violated international treaties signed after the last war and is seeking to build weapons of mass destruction. It has been without inspectors for 4 years and harrassed them while they were there. At the end of the day, Just War theory doesn't require I sit and wait till after my neighbor has stockpile guns in his living room, pinned targets on my kids *and* put a bullet into several of them before I act to stop him.

Some people are saying the OKC bombing and 9/11 might be linked to Iraq

Let's go question Timothy McVeigh! This might be a valuable lead. Oh, wait. That's right. We put him to death.

Capitalism has Something For all your Apocalyptic Needs

Cliff Garner pulls a David Brock

Blames everybody else, says he can't live a lie, then expects that, after a rich full life of keeping people in the dark about his involvement in outfits like St. Sebastian's, we should now take his word for it that he's telling the truth. Or rather, that he's "Living in the light of my own truth", which is perfectly accurate. Meanwhile, the guy who blew the whistle on St. Sebastian's Angels sets the record straight on Garner's whiny tissue of, uh, inaccuracies about the warm and fuzzy place that was St. Sebastians:

According to Mr. Garner, “The priests involved in that Web site were like me. They were looking for the kind of companionship and solidarity that would help them minister with integrity. …these were also deeply spiritual men, and their prayerful support and unconditional acceptance nurtured my soul.” Many of the members did indeed offer and ask for prayerful support. A priest from Atlanta asked for prayers when his married lover had to return to his wife and children in another state. An Australian priest shared a morning prayer he had written that, among other things, asked God to bless his “orgasm.”

Not to mention the support for Bp. Cawcutt's death wish for JPII and Garner's own celebration of hot young Latin males. Brady is all wet about the invalidity of orders for gay priests. But most of the rebuttal is a refreshing bit of clean air after Garner's self-pitying rant.

More on Just War

A reader writes:

I saw your blog post on the immorality of the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in light of Just War theory. I am inclined to agree with you, but allow me to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment. Consider this: how applicable is the demand to distinguish between soldiers and civilians to wars where one or more sides are so heavily militarized that this distinction has little if any basis in fact? Japan during the war was a totalitarian militaristic state - a society cannot get any more armed and warlike. And there is no question about there being significant pockets of Japanese society being held prisoner by the Empire's leaders; to the average Japanese person, Hirohito was a god and the allies were foreign barbarians, right up until the end came. Evidence of this can be found in the incredible mass suicides carried out by *thousands* of Japanese civilians on Okinawa and similar islands. All of these people chose to kill themselves and in some cases their children rather than see them fall into the hands of the Emperor's foreign enemies. There were serious plans in the works in the last months of the war to arm as many Japanese civilians as possible and fight a decisive battle somewhere on the main island in an attempt to stop the allied invasion; the Japanese gov't even concocted a slogan for the effort: "One Hundred Million will Die for Emperor and Country". One hundred million was the population of Japan at the time. Under such circumstances, when there is serious evidence of widespread animosity and a will to fight among the civilian population of one's adversaries, does it make sense to continue trying to distinguish between soldiers and noncombatants?

I would appreciate any comments you may make. Thank you.

Disturbingly, this was precisely the reasoning of the WTC bombers. "Americans vote for their leaders, therefore American civilians are legitimate targets since they approve the policies of leaders we regard as hostile, etc." The fact was One Hundred Million Japanese did not resist to the bitter end, as did a few nuts in the jungles of a couple of islands. So I remain unpersuaded that a country on a war-footing economy is therefore a legitimate target, as a whole, for military attacks. I think the basic Catholic paradigm which distinguishes between troops and civilians is still valid.

A reader writes...

Here in the archdiocese of Oklahoma City we are especially involved in the statements being made by Gov. Keating that have caused an uproar (to leave our dioceses for Mass, etc.) - especially with our own Archbishop Beltran. But then, we pick up the diocesan newspaper and find that the author of the report at the link is coming to speak at our own cathedral. As a writer who has written in defense of our bishop against Gov. Keating's statements in the local newspaper, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if I've lost my sanity. Thought you might be interested.

Read the link. Baby boomer narcissism in chemical purity. "We, we, we" What an unbelievably fabulous generation we Boomers are!

"Remember. Imagine. We are involved in the civil rights struggle. We teach in inner city schools and begin community organizations. We conduct and participate in "undoing racism" workshops.
Vietnam is happening. We are choosing whether or not to go to Vietnam. We march, protest, demonstrate, serve as draft counselors, go to prison. We exercise loyal dissent in the country that we love. After the end of the war, we teach and lobby for an end to nuclear weapons and for the passage of disarmament treaties.

We participate in the first Earth Day. We experience the rebellions in Watts, Newark, Detroit, and we recommit ourselves to the city, to the disenfranchised. We participate in the feminist movement calling for equality in our society and participation in decision-making. We begin to acknowledge that our brothers and sisters are gay and lesbian."

And so on endlessly for one self-congratulatory paragraph after another, concluding with (get this): "To enter into contemplation is to lose one's ego". That's rich.

To all Gen Y and Millennium Gen folks, remember Kathy Shaidle's happy words of consolation: In thirty years they'll all be dead.

So why not round these guys up and deport them? It seems rather convenient that they will all be in one place.

Klinghoffer on the Insanity of Liberal Jews

Condemning anti-semitic twaddle is not the same as saying Jews are above criticism. David Klinghoffer does a nice job of spotlighting one of the great idiocies of Jewish life in the US: the absolutely crazy rancor directed at Evangelicals by outfits like the ADL and the AJC. As Rabbi Daniel Lapin notes, the real religion for a huge number of American Jews is liberalism, not Judaism. Just as Catholics have to contend with AmChurch, many Jews have to contend with Judaism Lite, a religion whose holy text is the NY Times, whose sacred ritual food is the bagel, whose defining sacred event in religious history is not the Exodus, but the Holocaust, whose prophet is Barbara Streisand, and whose congregation is not a synagogue but the mailing list of NARAL. (Remember: these are the rabbi's observations, not mine--admittedly paraphrased and with apologies if I'm not remembering them precisely.) It is taking many Jews an inordinately long time to realize they are stuck in a ghetto of the Democratic party's construction and are so devoted to it that they consistently spit at their real friends and allies out of sheer habit and bigotry against conservatives and Christians. A pity.

Science sheds a little more light on the evil of abortion

Planned Parenthood spokesman issues the following statement: "LALALALA! We're not listening!"

"I'm so judgmental" says a reader...

Went to the rehearsals for the "Rolling Requiem" concert this week.

I've sung the Mozart a few times before, and didn't have anybody particular in mind while singing "Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis". The September 11 angle changes that.

Pavel Chichikov...

in addition to being a fine poet, is also a good photographer.

Integrity takes Nihil Obstat a lot more seriously than I do

Personally, I find N.O. amusing. But then that could be because we're the same person, according to some rumors by people with way too much tendency to buy into conspiracy theories. The truth is, however, I spend far too much time arguing with Gerard Serafin to waste time proofreading everybody's blogs. Besides, as my blog attests, I'm hardly in a position to fault others' proofreading.

Anyway, to all those who fuss because of N.O.: lighten up!

Bishop Ad Hoc Sex Abuse Panel Gets Re-Configured

Happily, Bp. McCormack, the man who didn't notice anything amiss when people complained that Paul Shanley was publicly advocating sex with children, is out. My question: how did he get on the panel in the first place? Oh well, he's gone now, so that's good enough for me.

Thou art Peter...

And upon this rock I will build my new movement within Judaism that is to evolve into Christianity. (Somebody named Rev. Edward Franks, an Episcopalian engaged in (surprise!) "gay" causes (support for "gay marriage") corrects John Mallon for taking Jesus seriously.)

From our bulging "Relapsed Catholic is Back" file

Memo to Jew Haters: Buh-bye!

I'm not a complete libertarian in the realm of ideas. There are conversations I don't believe it is worth my time to have--or moderate. If somebody wants to fill up my comments boxes on the "question" of whether Hitler got a bad rap, or "Incest: A Sensitive Reappraisal" or "Let's Take a Second Look at Stalin: Was He Really So Bad?" or "The Jews Had it Coming" or "Favorite Jokes about Karen Ann Quindlen" I feel no moral obligation to give them a forum and I feel completely impervious to their cries of "censorship!" There are some conversations just not worth the powder to blow them to a well-deserved hell. The internet is a big place. They can get their own blog.

Therefore, I have taken the step, for the first time, of banning a reader who insists on defending Jew-smearing poison. I mention this for two reasons: First, to redeem this reader's participation in my blogs by letting his life serve as a warning to others and second, out of fairness, so that his interlocutors (thankfully, there are several of these) will not think he simply clammed up on them.

I clammed him up. He has a perfect right to his vile and evil opinions and to his defense of the vile and evil opinions of other Jew-bashers. He does not have a perfect right to use my blog to express them. Let him get his own blog.

It's the weekend, so I'm mostly outta here

However, you can read my piece on The Uncle Walt Fallacy over on Catholic Exchange.

Also, if you live in Seattle, why not stop by Blessed Sacrament parish today (just north of 50th on 9th, in the U District) for our annual Greenspire Medieval Faire. We'll be there. Lotsa fun and food, with SCA guys beating each other up with swords, as well as music, poetry, juggling and much other cool stuff. Check it out! And bring the kidlets!

When I read stuff like this

It reminds me of this:

Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody's system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody's sense of reality: to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense. Each started with a paradox: a peculiar point of view demanding the sacrifice of what they would call a sane point of view. That is the one thing common to Hobbes and Hegel, to Kant and Bergson. to Berkeley and William James. A man had to believe something that no normal man would believe, if it were suddenly propounded to his simplicity; as that law is above right, or right is outside reason, or things are only as we think them, or everything is relative to a reality that is not there. The modern philosopher claims, like a sort of confidence man, that if once we will grant him this, the rest will be easy; he will straighten out the world, if once he is allowed to give this one twist to the mind.

It will be understood that in these matters I speak as a fool; or, as our democratic cousins would say, a moron; anyhow as a man in the street; and the only object of this chapter is to show that the Thomist philosophy is nearer than most philosophies to the mind of the man in the street. I am not, like Father D'Arcy, whose admirable book on St. Thomas has illuminated many problems for me, a trained philosopher, acquainted with the technique of the trade. But I hope Father D'Arcy will forgive me if I take one example from his book, which exactly illustrates what I mean. He, being a trained philosopher, is naturally trained to put up with philosophers. Also, being a trained priest, he is naturally accustomed, not only to suffer fools gladly, but (what is sometimes even harder) to suffer clever people gladly. Above all, his wide reading in metaphysics has made him patient with clever people when they indulge in folly. The consequence is that he can write calmly and even blandly sentences like these. "A certain likeness can be detected between the aim and method of St. Thomas and those of Hegel. There are, however, also remarkable differences. For St. Thomas it is impossible that contradictories should exist together, and again reality and intelligibility correspond, but a thing must first be, to be intelligible."

Let the man in the street be forgiven, if he adds that the "remarkable difference" seems to him to be that St. Thomas was sane and Hegel was mad. The moron refuses to admit that Hegel can both exist and not exist; or that it can be possible to understand Hegel, if there is no Hegel to understand. Yet Father D'Arcy mentions this Hegelian paradox as if it were all in the day's work; and of course it is, if the work is reading all the modern philosophers as searchingly and sympathetically as he has done. And this is what I mean saying that all modern philosophy starts with a stumbling-block. It is surely not too much to say that there seems to be a twist, in saying that contraries are not incompatible; or that a thing can "be" intelligible and not as yet "be" at all.

Against all this the philosophy of St. Thomas stands founded on the universal common conviction that eggs are eggs. The Hegelian may say that an egg is really a hen, because it is a part of an endless process of Becoming; the Berkeleian may hold that poached eggs only exist as a dream exists; since it is quite as easy to call the dream the cause of the eggs as the eggs the cause of the dream; the Pragmatist may believe that we get the best out of scrambled eggs by forgetting that they ever were eggs, and only remembering the scramble. But no pupil of St. Thomas needs to addle his brains in order adequately to addle his eggs; to put his head at any peculiar angle in looking at eggs, or squinting at eggs, or winking the other eye in order to see a new simplification of eggs. The Thomist stands in the broad daylight of the brotherhood of men, in their common consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or mere practical assumptions; but things attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God. - St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox by G.K. Chesterton

JPII Points out Obvious to AmChurch Types Who are Too Clever and Brilliant to See the Obvious

Here, here, and here.

In other news, Richard "Set my Superior Chromosomes Free!" McBrien condescendingly explains to aging, unpopular, out-of-touch Pope why superior Americans don't need the sacrament of reconciliation any more.

Fellow Blogger John Mallon Has an Editorial on VOTF in the Boston Globe

Selections from Sungenis' Piece on the Jews for People who Don't have Time to Read Endless Internet Tomes

Numerous people have briefly scanned the Sungenis piece and then written me asking, "What's the big deal? He's critical of the bishop's dumb "Reflections" document which wiggle waggle all over the place and can't seem to make up it mind about whether Jews should be presented with the gospel or not? Why are you upset?"

I'm upset because Bob doesn't seem to be able or willing (take you pick) to content himself with criticizing the bishop's document (something I myself have done). No. He can't just say, "The bishops should have been clearer that Christ is the only savior and that the Church is bound to evangelize the world without exceptions." Instead, he has to go out and find the most vile collection of ancient falsehoods about the Jews that he could find and cut 'n paste them into his screed without a moment's reflection and without, apparently, ever stopping to wonder if they were any more accurate than a Jack Chick tract portrayal of the Catholic Church. To wit,

"The Talmud is an assortment of every subject imaginable. Unfortunately, it is filled with obscenities and blasphemies of the highest order. It seeks to reverse many biblical moral teachings on theft, murder, sodomy, perjury, treatment of children and parents. It has an unrelenting and virtually insane hatred of Christ, Christians and every aspect of Christianity."

Smears refuted here.

"Talmudic laws discriminate against the non-Jew, ranking them as human animals."

Smear refuted here and here.

"Gitten has some other interesting commentaries. In Gitten 56b-57a it speaks about the punishment of Christ in hell. In Gitten 51a and Sanhedrin 106b Jesus is referenced under the name of Balaam, the false prophet of Israel."

Smear refuted here.

"In the section known as Moed, there are various other unpleasantries. Seder Nashim contains the most vile filth and obscenities. Kethuboth (on the sum due a wife who is divorced) occupies 2 volumes in the Soncino edition with 728 pages of sexual perversions (e.g. a baby girl being fair prey for adult men): "When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than three years old it is as if one puts the finger into the eye-tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years." (Kethuboth 11b; Exh. 180)."

Smear refuted here.

"In the section known as Nashim, the Seder Nezikin (damages), contains the Baba Kamma (the first gate), which is 719 pages of Talmudic ramblings, including a general law of damages that teaches that destroying Gentile property is permissible; but doing the same to Jewish property is like assaulting the Divine, for only "Jews" are men but non-Jews rank as animals."

Smear refuted here.

"The Nazir contains vows of hair-splitting judgments, and the Kol Nidre oath -- an oath made on the Day of Atonement which allows the Jew to break any promise or oath he may make during the coming year."

Smear refuted here.

This is but a sample of what Bob chose to publish. There's a lot more where that came from. However, it's close to the bottom of his ponderous tome and most people, happily, do not choose read his article because they have better things to do like take a nap.

By the way, kudos to Shawn McElhinney and others in my comments box for rebutting the one or two boobs attempting to defend this trash. I'm happy to see that there are a lot more of Shawn and his kind than there are low rent defenders of swill worthy of Der Sturmer.

Oh! Dear me, did that offend? Well, offended people can always take their defenses of trash elsewhere. I can manage without them. Then they needn't be offended. But on this blog, they will get the scorn they deserve.

Then again, there are saintly priests, even in California

Why I find Cardinal Mahony's behavior so revolting

A well-placed source told this digit that Mahony's minions had these anti-protest protesters brought in to make it appear that the archdiocese's hugely Hispanic membership supports the cardinal. When one of the protesters was asked in Spanish what the sign he was carrying proclaimed, he said he didn't know. He said a priest in South L.A. had asked him and his cohorts to appear. This monolingual digit was able to find two people in the group who spoke halting English. "We are here to protect our church. I don't want nobody to damage our church," a woman who identified herself as Maria said. "Those people who are protesting don't know nothing about our religion." When The Finger asked another counterprotester nearby if he'd heard of the pedophilia scandal racking the church, he said he hadn't. "That cannot be true!" he declared.

He bobs, he weaves, he plays the media like a fiddle. He faces his own neglect of office by hiring a public relations firm. He declares he's been an advocate of zero tolerance for years while keeping Carl Sutphin around. He paints himself as the Voice of Reform and assures us that, oh yes, that awful Cdl. Law has to go, I, the Voice of Reform, will see to that. And now this revolting exploitation of pious Hispanics. I hope the author of this piece has gotten a bum steer and his source was wrong. I don't enjoy regarding Cdl. Mahony with horror and revulsion. But so far he's given me many reasons to and precious little reason not to. When I read of SNAP people shut out and glitterati sashaying in, I can't help but think of the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man.

Girl power!

You ask and It is Done!

Behold, a web site, written by Jews who actually know something about the Talmud.

For the record...

I once contributed an essay to Not By Scripture Alone which Bob Sungenis edited and which is a good compendium of Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Catholic Critique of Sola Scriptura but May Never have Even Thought to Ask. But I completely and totally disassociate myself from this sort of stuff. I daresay virtually every Catholic would. Geocentrism is eccentric but harmless. This is poison.

Niggardly! Niggardly! Niggardly!

There. I said it. And if you are offended, then I am extremely happy, for you are a censorious Neanderthal who is too dumb to open a dictionary and find out the meaning and origin of the word and too wrapped up in your precious "sensitive feelings" to deal with reality.

The only thing more ridiculous than the idiot who brought the complaint is the cowards who made the teacher apologize for refusing to keep her students as stupid and ignorant as their parents.

How Not to Convince Me that War with Iraq is Unjust

The argument "Hey! We made Saddam Hussein so we are hypocrites for wanting to destroy his regime" makes no sense to me. As Christopher Hitchens cogently argued last years against Lefty lunatics like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, who idiotically opposed the war against the Taliban because "we made the Taliban and bin Laden during the Afghan conflict with the Soviets", it is all the more incumbent upon us to do something about evils which we ourselves have had a hand in creating. Arguing against war with Iraq because Saddam is, in part, a creature of past US machinations is like arguing it would be hypocritical to clean your room because you were the one who made the mess.

How to Not Convince Me that War with Iraq meets Just War criteria

Several commenters down below have gone at it hammer and tongs and have gotten periodically diverted into arguing that the nuclear attacks on civilian populations in Japan were just.

Ahem: Noncombatant Immunity: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians;

This is an integral part of Just War teaching in the Catholic tradition. Tossing out cliches like "War is hell" and so forth, does not square the circle for me. There is simply no way to reconcile something like the targeting of civilians at Nagasaki or Dresden with Just War. Period. So repeated appeals to these as somehow constituting a legitimate precedent for whatever it is we might choose to do in Iraq is a really bad way to begin an argument for war, in my book.

This does not mean I have rejected the idea of war with Iraq. It merely means that those who are arguing for it need to make their case more tightly.

Just a slight course correction for all arguers. Continue.

Hey! I just realized something!

My Village Atheist was explaining to us rubes just the other day that the resemblance of Christ to various "pagan Christs" such as Osiris and Mithras is due entirely to the fact that Christianity borrowed motifs like death and resurrection and virgin birth from pagan mystery religions. It is not, of course, due to the fact that that the God behind the world was dimly perceived by the pagan mind which created portraits of dying and rising gods in reflection of that reality. Nope. There is no God who entered the world in the Incarnation. The apostles just got all het up about a rabbi they knew and somehow got the notion he rose from the dead in fulfillment, not only of his own words, not only of the Scriptures but of much in pagan imagination as well. Now I know I'd certainly be willing to die a grisly death for a literary parallel, and so would you. Why just the other day I saw a religious teacher named Benedict Groeschel in gray clothes with a beard who reminds me of Gandalf a little bit and I can hardly wait till he's dead so I can announce his resurrection and spend the rest of my life in misery trying to convince people he is God incarnate and the savior of the world. So it's only natural to presume the same of the apostles.

But now I discover just how deep their knowledge of comparative religion and literature was! For according to Amphibious Goat, Quetzlcoatl "was the god who, at the cost of some self-sacrifice, created the humans of this age. Not surprisingly, he was also a great patron to them, introducing them to many arts, crafts, and sciences for their benefit. So benevolent was this god that he became a man himself. (Note: the name "feathered serpent" is supposed to evoke the idea of a union between heaven and earth.) A young virgin found a feather that had descended from the heavens, and when she put it in her dress for safekeeping, she became pregnant. During his earthly life as a priest, Quetzalcoatl taught the people that sacrificing other humans had no spiritual benefit. Instead, they had to reform their own lives and learn to sacrifice themselves through ascetic practices. The other gods did not like this, so Tezcatlipoca disguised himself as an old man and tricked Quetzalcoatl into breaking his priestly vows and committing a sin. When Quetzalcoatl awoke from his stupor, he was overcome with sorrow, and sacrificed himself (to death) in order to atone for his sin and the sins of other humans. From death, he rose to new life in the heavens. (There are many variations to this story, both in nuances and in details. For more information, I recommend starting with Laurette Sejourne's Burning Water: Thought & Religion in Ancient Mexico.)"

Of course, there is only one explanation for this: the apostles were profoundly influenced by Aztec religion and borrowed many of their religious images ideas from the Aztecs in inventing Jesus Christ. My Village Atheist is a genius!

The Quetzlcoatl Complaint Continues

My reader continues...

Apparently the concern is not with the outer doors, which depict Mary in various guises, but with the inner doors, which depict not only the "Southwest Indian Flying Serpent" (a form of Quetzalcoatl, I'm guessing), but a number of signs and symbols of pagan religion. You can see the whole list on the cathedral website at: http://www.olacathedral.org/index.html

If anybody thinks that these pagan images are incorporated into the doors of Roger Mahony's cathedral as a sign of Christianity triumphing over them, I'll cut them a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.

I looked at the link, but couldn't figure out where these images were to be found, nor could I find any mention of them in text. Since my comments boxes are starting to fill up with various factoids about Quetzlcoatl (there were two?) and with various arguments for and against the idea that this myth (or was it the historical king) is a "seed of the Word" in Meso-American culture, I'm gonna withhold judgement. At least one good friend startles me with the revelation that Quetzlcoatl was part of what God used to make her a (very serious and orthodox) Catholic. Since I have had less than 24 hours to digest what fragments of Meso-American religious culture have suddenly been thrust upon me, and I know nothing of the imagery on the doors, and even less of the relationship between Catholic faith and the indigenous religions of the Americas, I will just sit and listen for now.

Shocking Facts about Naked Mole Rats

and discussion of Just War too, continue on HMS Blog! It turns out they aren't all female and asexual (naked mole rats, not Just Warriors). And it turns out they have some strong reservations about war with Iraq (Just Warriors, not naked mole rats).

A Belgian-American writes:

Since I'm not Native American in the PC sense of the term I can't properly have a Native American animal spirit guide. But being almost entirely of Gaulish/Teutonic stock I feel entitled to a European vegetable guide to spirits. I'm pleased to tell you that I've managed a very satisfying relationship with brewers' yeast. What more could a Belgian ask for?

THE LOGICAL VEGETARIAN
by G.K. Chesterton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why shouldn't I have a purely vegetarian drink? Why shouldn't I take vegetables in their highest form, so to speak? The modest vegetarians ought to stick to wine or beer, plain vegetable drinks, instead of filling their goblets with the blood of bulls and elephants, as all conventional meat-eaters do, I suppose"--Dalroy.

You will find me drinking rum,
Like a sailor in a slum,
You will find me drinking beer like a Bavarian
You will find me drinking gin
In the lowest kind of inn
Because I am a rigid Vegetarian.

So I cleared the inn of wine,
And I tried to climb the sign,
And I tried to hail the constable as "Marion."
But he said I couldn't speak,
And he bowled me to the Beak
Because I was a Happy Vegetarian.

Oh, I know a Doctor Gluck,
And his nose it had a hook,
And his attitudes were anything but Aryan;
So I gave him all the pork
That I had, upon a fork
Because I am myself a Vegetarian.

I am silent in the Club,
I am silent in the pub.,
I am silent on a bally peak in Darien;
For I stuff away for life
Shoving peas in with a knife,
Because I am a rigid Vegetarian.

No more the milk of cows
Shall pollute my private house
Than the milk of the wild mares of the Barbarian
I will stick to port and sherry,
For they are so very, very,
So very, very, very, Vegetarian.

More on the Quetzlcoatl Thang from a Serious and orthodox Catholic Convert

Michael Rose apparently threatens suit against Fr. Rob Johansen for criticizing Goodbye Good Men

I'm really surprised by this, and deeply disappointed.

In other news, the Crisis piece on GGM is online.

Dunno if they'll get the same letter. I'm sure we'll hear about it if they do.

The great thing about Homeschooling...

is the field trips. To inaugurate our year, we are at the zoo today. Sadly, we will not be searching for Native American Animal Spirit Guides.

By the way, Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo features a memorial to Jimi Hendrix (go here and scroll down to read about it), put there through the pluck and determination of listeners of KZOK, Seattle's "classic rock" station. I know a woman who's a leader in the Seattle African-American community who was approached by these guys, begging for her support for this vitally needed community project.

Her question: "Why the zoo? Doesn't that send a rather odd message?" She declined to support the project.

Nothing daunted, they soldiered on, and now there's a plaque to Jimi in the zoo.

And yes, it does send a very weird message.

"65 per cent of Europeans said that the European Union should become a superpower similar to the US"

Something to add to my oxymoron collection!

"Jumbo Shrimp"
"Profoundly Shallow"
"Honest Clintonite"

and now....

"Weenie Superpower"

Progress on the Catholic School Native American Animal Spirit Guide Front in Plymouth, Michigan

Greg Popcak has discovered that his Native American Animal Spirit Guide is a Naked Mole Rat. (He revealed all--figuratively speaking--on the air with me today.) Me, I'm channeling my Inner Oyster.

Meanwhile, Our Guy in Michigan, Victor Lams, has been contacted by Powerful Forces with strict order to investigate, and is on the case, trying to figure out which Catholic school sponsored this goofiness. I can practically envision the Chick cartoon parody.

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.

My Reader Writes Back

...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.

A reader says

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

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.

It turns out abstinence can make a dent in AIDS

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!"

Doug Sirman on Fr. David Jaeger

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.

Evangelical Atheist=Jerk

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.

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.

Speaking of which...

Support Our Aging Religious

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.

Heliocentrism and Relativity May Well Lead to Homosexual Abuse, Robert Sungenis Suggests While Insisting He is not Suggesting it

No comment

Hey! It's Labor Day Weekend!

So I'm outta here. But there is an article up on Catholic Exchange. See you Tuesday!

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!

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.

Grizzly Mauls Animal Rights Activist

I can't improve on that headline.

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.

Nota Bene is having an interesting conversation

with a Pentecostal pastor about "Who is a follower of Christ?"

New Blog!

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.

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."

David Alexander, Our Man In Voice of the Faithful, Takes Issue with Fr. Doyle's Wrong-Headed Defense of VOTF

A reader sez:

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

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:

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.

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 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?

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!

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.

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.

A Priest in Medicine Hat with Spine
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

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.

Anchor Hold on Vespers in Milwaukee

Tim Drake on Our Lady of Hollywood, Dreher and Signs

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."

Got the Apology 2.0 GrovelSpam from Jim Koch at Boston Beer this AM

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

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?

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.

Hey! St. Blog's Gets Results!

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.

Sometimes, Jeff, the Answer to Your Prayer is "No."

Bill Cork on Neuhaus on the Dumb Zero Tolerance Machine

Some Gutsy Orthodox Attack Sexual Abuse in Their Communion

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.

No Mention of the Immaculate Conception can Fail to Elicit the Famous Romans 3:23 Objection

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.

Another Encomium to Josef Pieper

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?

Ratzinger, Jesus and the Jews on Mark Brumley's blog

Sounds like the name of outre punk band

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.

Who Says Canon Lawyers aren't Wild Party Animals?

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.

A reader says:

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.

Anchor Hold has some Notes on the Interview with Bp. Dolan of Milwaukee

A reader writes:

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 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.

New Blog!

ACLU Sues Itself Over Question of Origins

Not as funny as Victor Lams, but still pretty funny.

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"?

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.)

Final arguments in Johansen vs. Dreher

Welcome to Corkscrew's Religion Chatroom!

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.

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:

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.

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.

Mark Shea Catches Nihil Obstat in a Typo! Alert the Media!

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.

Dale Price Weighs in on Dreher vs. Hoopes

The Ikea catalogue may already have overtaken the Bible as the world's most widely distributed publication.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

It's Official: Everybody has Been Subsumed by a Media Culture

Dave Alexander Weighs in on the Ongoing "Should the Pope Can Bad American Bishops" debate: "It's the other way around, Mark"

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.

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:

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 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.

New blog!

Rod Dreher replies to Fr. Rob Johansen

More Machiavellian Intrigue over on HMS Blog

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?

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.

Fr. Rob Johansen weighs in on the Rod's piece and the vigorous debate over here on C&EI.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Battle is joined

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!

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!

David Alexander remains indomitable and writes to VOTF again

The View from the Core on Reparations Follies

On the bright side of the political news, both Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney lost yesterday.

More proof that Victor Lams is a comic genius

And don't forget this too.

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:

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.

Cardinal Keeler issues clarification on Reflections document

"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.

Glad I live in Washington

Memo to the State of California Educational Ubergruppenfuehrers: Go to hell.