Andrew Sullivan Demonstrates "Flexibility" When It Comes to the Pole Star Around Which His Life Turns
Turns out there's no problem at all with a US Court dictating to Catholics on theological matters and suspending the law to do so, just so long as the Court is declaring that gays can do whatever they like. First amendment? That's for commoners, not gays. They can use the courts to dictate the theology of any Christian body that hurts their widdle feelings.
News bulletin for Sullivan: The Eucharist is not a civil right.
Friday, January 31, 2003
Amy has a terrific contribution to the ongoing discussion here
In particular, her cogent analysis of the Dark Side of Wick Allison's confrontation with Grahmann is well taken. There *is* a note of "We made you and we can break you" which can just as easily be seen as a number of Rich Men seeking to rule the Church as a confrontation between a good layman and a bad bishop. I'm not saying Allison is a rich man who seeks to make the Church his investment or plaything. I am saying, however, that we are never more in danger than when we are right. It blinds us to our own fallenness. Citizen Kane started out as a zealous reformer. He ends as a cynical manipulator and Power Player.
In particular, her cogent analysis of the Dark Side of Wick Allison's confrontation with Grahmann is well taken. There *is* a note of "We made you and we can break you" which can just as easily be seen as a number of Rich Men seeking to rule the Church as a confrontation between a good layman and a bad bishop. I'm not saying Allison is a rich man who seeks to make the Church his investment or plaything. I am saying, however, that we are never more in danger than when we are right. It blinds us to our own fallenness. Citizen Kane started out as a zealous reformer. He ends as a cynical manipulator and Power Player.
Fr. Rob Johansen's Hat is "ThrownBack" in to St. Blog's Ring
After four months off the air, he's back. Now all we need is Fr. Bryce Sibley's Saintly Salmagundi to return to the air and St. Blog's will have its clerical staff back.
After four months off the air, he's back. Now all we need is Fr. Bryce Sibley's Saintly Salmagundi to return to the air and St. Blog's will have its clerical staff back.
Caesar tries to tell the Church who can receive communion
Oh sure, they're guilty as charged. But the judge needed be the Voice of the Faithful so the law was dispensed with in order for Caesar to meddle in matters of theology. I wonder if the ACLU will protest?
Oh sure, they're guilty as charged. But the judge needed be the Voice of the Faithful so the law was dispensed with in order for Caesar to meddle in matters of theology. I wonder if the ACLU will protest?
Shrill Harridans Sport New Novelty Act
Lickspittle puff piece on the latest bit of freakishness from deep space feminism.
Lickspittle puff piece on the latest bit of freakishness from deep space feminism.
Yes, there is something so exquisitely suburban and self-satisfied about it, isn't there?
A reader writes below:
Proposed St. Joan improvement to the liturgy:
"May She Who Is accept this sacrifice at our hands, for the praise and glory of our name. For our self-satisfaction and the smugness of all our fellow suburbanites."
A reader writes below:
I'm trying to convince my wife to let me go to the St. Joan of Arc's "Aloha and Peace" thing in Hawaii. I'm not a Catholic, mind you, and I'm pro-Iraq war, and I'm not a raving liberal nutbar, but, gosh, it's Hawaii, and I'm all for that. That must be tough pilgrimage, doing anti-war rallying in Hawaii in the middle of winter.
Proposed St. Joan improvement to the liturgy:
"May She Who Is accept this sacrifice at our hands, for the praise and glory of our name. For our self-satisfaction and the smugness of all our fellow suburbanites."
Defending vs. Explaining
I keep getting the sensation that when I *explain* what I think the Pope is up to in his actions toward our bishops, people think I am necessarily *defending* his prudential judgments. "But Mark! What about this and that and the other thing?"
Please understand. You can plead with me all you like, but I'm not the guy making the decisions here. As I've already said, there are a number of bishops who, if it were up to me, would be gone.
It's not up to me. It's up to the Holy Father. Since it is up to the Holy Father, I figure the best thing I can do is try to educate myself (and others) on why he acts the way he does and what informs his thinking. I figure this because I have a basic conviction that the prudent thing to do is to always have a grasp of the world as it actually is, rather than of some fantasy world. So, for instance, when Rod complains below of how Rome's actions will *look* to people, I naturally grant that, of course, they will look that way. And I can do nothing about that.
What I *can* do is ask, "Okay. Rome's actions *look* like the Pope doesn't care. But is that really the case? Does anything we know of the Holy Father actually suggest that he does not care?" And of course, nothing that I know of does suggest this. So I'm forced to ask "What then *does* account for his actions?" and the answer I come up with is what I have already discussed.
It is an entirely separate question whether I think his Tradition-based prudential judgment is going to actually work and is, in all situations, the best. In fact, I am skeptical of this, at least in some cases. But, as I said before, given his track record in facing down other colossal evils, I'm willing to suppose the Holy Spirit is guiding him in ways I don't necessarily grasp.
One final thing: I don't buy the "Children are still in peril!!!!" line that goes with the complaint about leaving the Demonstrable Idiots in office. Priests may well be in danger (from bishops ready to perform human sacrifice on them at the drop of a miter). But I am highly skeptical that there will be a repeat performance of the past 20 years. There will, of course, be future cases of abuse. But the climate has altogether changed. A supercharged laity and unintimidated media and state will pound the living hell out of a cleric and his bishop in future, should abuse and coverup happen. And I doubt the coverup is likely. Irresponsible bishops are now much more likely to dump on their priests over flimsy accusations than to dump on victims for real ones. Note the resounding successes of McCormack when he tried to live on a business-as-usual basis in NH by sticking some gay priest into a parish and had whole congregations screaming at him. Note the happy situation in Dallas and the docile sheep like Wick Allison. It won't be business as usual anymore.
No. What seems to me to be the real objection is not that children are in danger but that there is One Proper Punishment for Demonstrable Idiots and One Only and that the Pope, failing to administer this, is failing to administer punishment. My contention is that the Pope is administering punishment but (as is characteristic for him) punishment with an eye to redemption and healing, not just for the idiot bishop, but for the culture that produced him and which he reflects. This is a Pope who believes in the possibility of radical redemption.
Again, I say this, not because I think this desperate attempt at remedy is going to work, but because I believe it to be essential that we understand the Pope's thinking if we are to navigate in the real world as it actually is and not in some fantasy world. Attempts to analyze the situation which begin, "The Pope, in his cold autocratic and monarchical indifference..." or "The Pope, hopelessly senile and drooling on his throne..." or "The Pope, secretly desiring to micromanage the American Church..." or "The Pope, egomaniacally seeking to fend off all challenges to his reputation as St. John Paul the Great..." are all attempts to navigate from false premises. We should at least begin our thinking by knowing how the Pope thinks, if only so we can argue a different strategy more effectively.
I keep getting the sensation that when I *explain* what I think the Pope is up to in his actions toward our bishops, people think I am necessarily *defending* his prudential judgments. "But Mark! What about this and that and the other thing?"
Please understand. You can plead with me all you like, but I'm not the guy making the decisions here. As I've already said, there are a number of bishops who, if it were up to me, would be gone.
It's not up to me. It's up to the Holy Father. Since it is up to the Holy Father, I figure the best thing I can do is try to educate myself (and others) on why he acts the way he does and what informs his thinking. I figure this because I have a basic conviction that the prudent thing to do is to always have a grasp of the world as it actually is, rather than of some fantasy world. So, for instance, when Rod complains below of how Rome's actions will *look* to people, I naturally grant that, of course, they will look that way. And I can do nothing about that.
What I *can* do is ask, "Okay. Rome's actions *look* like the Pope doesn't care. But is that really the case? Does anything we know of the Holy Father actually suggest that he does not care?" And of course, nothing that I know of does suggest this. So I'm forced to ask "What then *does* account for his actions?" and the answer I come up with is what I have already discussed.
It is an entirely separate question whether I think his Tradition-based prudential judgment is going to actually work and is, in all situations, the best. In fact, I am skeptical of this, at least in some cases. But, as I said before, given his track record in facing down other colossal evils, I'm willing to suppose the Holy Spirit is guiding him in ways I don't necessarily grasp.
One final thing: I don't buy the "Children are still in peril!!!!" line that goes with the complaint about leaving the Demonstrable Idiots in office. Priests may well be in danger (from bishops ready to perform human sacrifice on them at the drop of a miter). But I am highly skeptical that there will be a repeat performance of the past 20 years. There will, of course, be future cases of abuse. But the climate has altogether changed. A supercharged laity and unintimidated media and state will pound the living hell out of a cleric and his bishop in future, should abuse and coverup happen. And I doubt the coverup is likely. Irresponsible bishops are now much more likely to dump on their priests over flimsy accusations than to dump on victims for real ones. Note the resounding successes of McCormack when he tried to live on a business-as-usual basis in NH by sticking some gay priest into a parish and had whole congregations screaming at him. Note the happy situation in Dallas and the docile sheep like Wick Allison. It won't be business as usual anymore.
No. What seems to me to be the real objection is not that children are in danger but that there is One Proper Punishment for Demonstrable Idiots and One Only and that the Pope, failing to administer this, is failing to administer punishment. My contention is that the Pope is administering punishment but (as is characteristic for him) punishment with an eye to redemption and healing, not just for the idiot bishop, but for the culture that produced him and which he reflects. This is a Pope who believes in the possibility of radical redemption.
Again, I say this, not because I think this desperate attempt at remedy is going to work, but because I believe it to be essential that we understand the Pope's thinking if we are to navigate in the real world as it actually is and not in some fantasy world. Attempts to analyze the situation which begin, "The Pope, in his cold autocratic and monarchical indifference..." or "The Pope, hopelessly senile and drooling on his throne..." or "The Pope, secretly desiring to micromanage the American Church..." or "The Pope, egomaniacally seeking to fend off all challenges to his reputation as St. John Paul the Great..." are all attempts to navigate from false premises. We should at least begin our thinking by knowing how the Pope thinks, if only so we can argue a different strategy more effectively.
A reader writes:
I'll leave it to you other amateur law scholars to hash this out.
I don't know how much of the conversation you were following in the comment box that followed your praise of Bush's call for an end to partial-birth abortion. I was one of the three commentors, and was inexplicably attacked by both the atheist and the pro-life advocate in trying to articulate why an end to abortion is unlikely to occur in the current legal arena.
Having thought over some of the reasons why both found reasons to dispute my assertion (that abortion is bad but SCOTUS is unlikely to allow any laws against it to stand), I realize it is because I was trying to argue from a position that neither was comfortable with. I think I have found out why the US is so backwards in its laws regarding abortion and I think it goes back to the Founders and their conception of post-Enlightenment natural law. Whether the founders were primarily theists or deist, the one thing they most certainly were not (at least in any significant way) was Catholic. They ultimately understood that government was to have a very limited role in the live of the people (part of social contract theory is that people contract with governments to be protected from outsiders and free to do what they will otherwise). This is very different from the Catholic worldview where the role of government is to help people on the way to salvation (which is the duty of everyone). Whether Caesar tends to do this or not, kings were held responsible for the morality of their people which is why Enrico IV crawled in the snow to have his excommunication lifted. So we're already starting with the founders with a concept of government that is not primarily involved in legislating morality. Its main job is to stay out of people's business.
The other tendency which was problematic from the beginning was that if there is a Natural Law, we still have no idea what it is. Because the founders are mostly Protestant, they already are having problems within a generation of the Founding of interpretation of the law. The Constitution and its supporting documents and commentaries do not a Sacred Tradition protecting their interpretation. Modern judges are thus left with precedent and stare decisis (holding to past precedent) and the common law. They don't have an external check like the Church to say that they are straying from the Natural Law because every man with a Bible is finding a different Natural Law. So even the appeals to God's law fall apart once one finds that no one can articulate what that law is. (You noted in By What Authority that there is not way to come to a pro-life position from the Bible without the lens of Tradition.) So once we have the Protestant difficulties of discerning the Natural Law, Natural Law is thrown out in favor of positive law which is interpreted as the judge sees fit. Now the justice of the law coming from the bench is determined by two things: 1) the formation of the judges in their moral judgement, and 2) the precedent of previous judges for finding the same opinion.
You can see where this is leading. The moral quandary we have found ourselves in is continued because the Courts have found themselves seeking deeper and deeper into bad judgements which they can't dig themselves out of. Because there is precious little legal precedent for protecting the life of the unborn (I'm not kidding here. I am helping my husband study for his Criminal and Constitutional law classes and the historical definition of human being has been a person who has been born. Now that ought to change because our science has given us greater insight into the life of the unborn.) they continue to show little respect for that life. Because the government is supposed to be staying out of the private lives of people, the Court has decided that states don't have the rights to regulate the aspect of a private life that includes abortion. Because we have traveled so far from the source of Law, there is no voice of reason saying that we are ignoring what we know to be true: that abortion is as private a matter as incest or domestic abuse (which is to say, family matter or not, it is criminal as well).
Because of the corner the Court has argued itself into, I think we might make greater strides in the legal front by going for an utterly different tactic, as far as legislature goes. A Constitutional amendment that does for the unborn what the post-Civil War amendments did for slaves. Recognize what every sane person knows to be true: that the unborn are persons worthy of the same rights as anyone that is already born.
The problem with the arguments that work great on the front-lines of pro-life work is that the Court is insane. They have decided, rightly or wrongly, that morality is not the issue. Rather they are merely deciding what government is or is not capable of regulating. We must change the rules of the game to get laws that protect the unborn for more than the time period it takes for a court to overturn them. And meanwhile I continue to pray that hearts and minds convert so that the demand for abortion will end as surely as its legality ought to.
Just two cents from an amateur law scholar.
I'll leave it to you other amateur law scholars to hash this out.
Thursday, January 30, 2003
Rod asks a good question down below and I think I'd like to blog my response
...since I think I'm safe in saying that my take on what the Pope is up to compelling our hapless bench of bishop to stay is definitely a minority--and unpopular--opinion with many of my readers.
Rod asks:
I do wonder, though, what would have to happen for you to change your mind, and to see the Pope's strategy as a matter of a serious failure to govern the Church properly, period.
I s'pose I'd have to have a better grasp of ecclesiology to answer that with certainty. As it stands, certain common sense things come to mind of course. If JPII did what Law did, for instance, and deliberately a) endangered children while b) lying to parents about it and c) putting the squeeze on witnesses to shut up, I'd call that bad governance. Likewise, if he deliberately had let O'Connell stay on, endangering kids, that would have been a clear act of bad governance, I think.
What I see with JPII is a deliberate (though counter-intuitive, as he frequently is) attempt to live according to the Tradition, particularly the theology of the Cross and the Church's teaching on the grace of ordination, born out of a deep conviction that *only* fidelity to the Tradition and not secular templates, whether "conservative" or "liberal" hold any hope for the authentic restoration of the Church. Given his track record in asserting the Tradition against eastern forms of secularism a decade and a half ago, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, while recalling all the while that we are talking about prudential judgments and not doctrine. Maybe he's making a bad call here. Humans make mistakes and this is a tough call. What I will *never* believe is that he is being deliberately irresponsible. It's not in the man.
In reviewing the above, I realize that you spoke, not of hypothetical bad things the Pope *might* do, but of his "strategy" (i.e., what he is doing). I should have addressed that better.
I think only time can tell whether his current strategy will pay off. The reality has always been that the Pope is not, for a large number of reasons, in a position to fire a huge number of bishops. It would, as I have already pointed out, been an exercise of papal power that would make Hildebrand blush and this Pope is not a Hildebrand but a Pope of the Second Vatican Council and the author of Ut Unum Sint. The "stroke of a pen" to get rid of "legions of bad bishops" was never gonna happen and *could* never happen given John Paul's view (a correct view, I think) of his relation to his brother bishops. Myriad problems arise from such a seemingly simple solution ranging from "Why assume the replacements will be better?" to "Kiss reconciliation with the Eastern Church goodbye" to "Who the hell does the Pope think he is writing Ut Unum Sint and then acting like the autocratic King of the Church?"
Further, of course, is the problem I've mentioned in the past: the fact that it's not, in the Pope's view, just a problem with the clergy, but a deep deep problem in American culture that needs to be addressed. We are one sick bunch of puppies, as an evening's worth of television will establish beyond reasonable doubt. I remind you again of the lawyer for Shanley's victims who said of Shanley, "If he weren't a damned pervert, he'd be my hero." That the tortured state of American Catholicism and a bishopectomy won't fix that.
So if he can't can large numbers of the "hapless bench of bishops" and "fix it" what can he do? Well, it seems to me that he's stuck doing what it appears to me he's trying to do: steer the American (and, really, the English-speaking Church) toward the way of the cross and a corporate struggle for renewal. I think, by the way, that in doing this he's agreeing to do his own cross-embracing in the form of the inevitable blame and hostility he'll get for "not acting" etc. etc. Some of the "Destroy them all!" Brigade reserve their special hatred for him. That too, is part of the cross. But as I consider the matter, I am compelled to agree that it appears the only way out is through the cross, not around it. So through we must go.
How it will all work out I don't know. I don't even know *that* it will work out. Failure is part of life and maybe JPII will fail here. He's not guaranteed success and neither are we. What failure would look like would be, I suppose, something like Grahmanns and McCormacks becoming more numerous, more whiny, more arrogant, and more clueless rather than the opposite. The main test of *complete* failure would be a repeat performance, not of clerical abuse (that will happen till the end of time because priests are sinners) but of yet another complex of coverups, intimidation and the failure of episcopal oversight that was the real heart of the crisis. And that's something that we can't evaluate for several years at the minimum.
But whether he fails or not (and the results will not be known in his lifetime), I think he's trying extremely hard to do right by the Tradition (which means he is also trying very hard to do right by victims, betrayed sheep, the mercy and justice of God for wicked shepherds, and most of all, by Our Lord). I think one of the most tragic things about this time in our history is that to say that is to invite catcalls of "papalotry" from some of my readers, as though the presumption of good will in the absence of any evidence to the contrary is a sin or an act of lickspittle obsequiousness. For these, it doesn't matter that I have expressed real disagreement with the Holy Father on certain prudential judgments. It doesn't even matter that, if it were up to me, there are certain bishops who'd be outta there long ago. No, for those who loathe him, I must condemn JPII as personally wicked and morally corrupt or I'm a "papalotor" who never ever ever admits the Pope is wrong about anything ever.
Nonetheless, though I disagree with him on several prudential judgments, I will not accuse the Pope of being a wicked man because I believe from the bottom of my heart that he is a very good and very great man. I know you agree with this assessment of his character, Rod, because you've said it yourself. I hope some of my more rabid readers will rethink their loathing of JPII and thank God for the gift of his pontificate. He's in a tough spot, trying to deal with the catastrophe the American Church dealt him. I don't know if his approach will work, but I have no doubt whatever that he is trying to do what God wills.
...since I think I'm safe in saying that my take on what the Pope is up to compelling our hapless bench of bishop to stay is definitely a minority--and unpopular--opinion with many of my readers.
Rod asks:
I do wonder, though, what would have to happen for you to change your mind, and to see the Pope's strategy as a matter of a serious failure to govern the Church properly, period.
I s'pose I'd have to have a better grasp of ecclesiology to answer that with certainty. As it stands, certain common sense things come to mind of course. If JPII did what Law did, for instance, and deliberately a) endangered children while b) lying to parents about it and c) putting the squeeze on witnesses to shut up, I'd call that bad governance. Likewise, if he deliberately had let O'Connell stay on, endangering kids, that would have been a clear act of bad governance, I think.
What I see with JPII is a deliberate (though counter-intuitive, as he frequently is) attempt to live according to the Tradition, particularly the theology of the Cross and the Church's teaching on the grace of ordination, born out of a deep conviction that *only* fidelity to the Tradition and not secular templates, whether "conservative" or "liberal" hold any hope for the authentic restoration of the Church. Given his track record in asserting the Tradition against eastern forms of secularism a decade and a half ago, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, while recalling all the while that we are talking about prudential judgments and not doctrine. Maybe he's making a bad call here. Humans make mistakes and this is a tough call. What I will *never* believe is that he is being deliberately irresponsible. It's not in the man.
In reviewing the above, I realize that you spoke, not of hypothetical bad things the Pope *might* do, but of his "strategy" (i.e., what he is doing). I should have addressed that better.
I think only time can tell whether his current strategy will pay off. The reality has always been that the Pope is not, for a large number of reasons, in a position to fire a huge number of bishops. It would, as I have already pointed out, been an exercise of papal power that would make Hildebrand blush and this Pope is not a Hildebrand but a Pope of the Second Vatican Council and the author of Ut Unum Sint. The "stroke of a pen" to get rid of "legions of bad bishops" was never gonna happen and *could* never happen given John Paul's view (a correct view, I think) of his relation to his brother bishops. Myriad problems arise from such a seemingly simple solution ranging from "Why assume the replacements will be better?" to "Kiss reconciliation with the Eastern Church goodbye" to "Who the hell does the Pope think he is writing Ut Unum Sint and then acting like the autocratic King of the Church?"
Further, of course, is the problem I've mentioned in the past: the fact that it's not, in the Pope's view, just a problem with the clergy, but a deep deep problem in American culture that needs to be addressed. We are one sick bunch of puppies, as an evening's worth of television will establish beyond reasonable doubt. I remind you again of the lawyer for Shanley's victims who said of Shanley, "If he weren't a damned pervert, he'd be my hero." That the tortured state of American Catholicism and a bishopectomy won't fix that.
So if he can't can large numbers of the "hapless bench of bishops" and "fix it" what can he do? Well, it seems to me that he's stuck doing what it appears to me he's trying to do: steer the American (and, really, the English-speaking Church) toward the way of the cross and a corporate struggle for renewal. I think, by the way, that in doing this he's agreeing to do his own cross-embracing in the form of the inevitable blame and hostility he'll get for "not acting" etc. etc. Some of the "Destroy them all!" Brigade reserve their special hatred for him. That too, is part of the cross. But as I consider the matter, I am compelled to agree that it appears the only way out is through the cross, not around it. So through we must go.
How it will all work out I don't know. I don't even know *that* it will work out. Failure is part of life and maybe JPII will fail here. He's not guaranteed success and neither are we. What failure would look like would be, I suppose, something like Grahmanns and McCormacks becoming more numerous, more whiny, more arrogant, and more clueless rather than the opposite. The main test of *complete* failure would be a repeat performance, not of clerical abuse (that will happen till the end of time because priests are sinners) but of yet another complex of coverups, intimidation and the failure of episcopal oversight that was the real heart of the crisis. And that's something that we can't evaluate for several years at the minimum.
But whether he fails or not (and the results will not be known in his lifetime), I think he's trying extremely hard to do right by the Tradition (which means he is also trying very hard to do right by victims, betrayed sheep, the mercy and justice of God for wicked shepherds, and most of all, by Our Lord). I think one of the most tragic things about this time in our history is that to say that is to invite catcalls of "papalotry" from some of my readers, as though the presumption of good will in the absence of any evidence to the contrary is a sin or an act of lickspittle obsequiousness. For these, it doesn't matter that I have expressed real disagreement with the Holy Father on certain prudential judgments. It doesn't even matter that, if it were up to me, there are certain bishops who'd be outta there long ago. No, for those who loathe him, I must condemn JPII as personally wicked and morally corrupt or I'm a "papalotor" who never ever ever admits the Pope is wrong about anything ever.
Nonetheless, though I disagree with him on several prudential judgments, I will not accuse the Pope of being a wicked man because I believe from the bottom of my heart that he is a very good and very great man. I know you agree with this assessment of his character, Rod, because you've said it yourself. I hope some of my more rabid readers will rethink their loathing of JPII and thank God for the gift of his pontificate. He's in a tough spot, trying to deal with the catastrophe the American Church dealt him. I don't know if his approach will work, but I have no doubt whatever that he is trying to do what God wills.
A reasonable complaint
Disputations takes issue both with this blog and with Wick Allison for pointing out that Bp. Grahmann and other bishops such as Bp. McCormack are, in my opinion, lousy bishops who have badly betrayed their flock and who give little evidence that they see very far beyond how much this inconveniences them. My reasons for pointing out their miscreancy has to do with what I think the purpose of the Holy Father is in leaving them in office. As I have maintained all along, this policy is not passive, it is active. The Holy Father takes seriously the theology of the cross and the theology of Holy Orders, including the grace of ordination which enables schleps to become pastors. Rather than deal with the problem of the American Church according to secular templates dictated by Bill Gates (Defective part? Replace it with a shiny new part from the factory!) the Pope has very deliberately opted to compel bad bishops to sit in the midst of the mess they have created, embrace the cross, and let the grace of ordination (finally) begin to make shepherds out of them (and perhaps save their souls). This is always a dicey proposition but I think JPII sees no way out but through. It involves, as I have pointed out, the reality that the flock will also have to embrace the cross (something Americans dislike since what could *possibly* be sick or deranged about our culture? No, it's all just the bishop's problem!). It's also dicey because, of course, there's always the chance a bishop will simply refuse to embrace the cross and go on looking for way to shift responsibility. When a bishop does this (such as McCormack or Keeler or, I think, Grahmann) I think it's the duty of the laity to tell the bishop that he's being a bad shepherd and to make life uncomfortable for him. It seems to me that, if it is truly the purpose of the Pope to compel the bishops to face the people they have hurt and betrayed, then it is the duty of the betrayed to speak clearly to those bishops about just how they have (and in some cases, continue to) hurt us by their lousy fidelity to their office.
I am not, I think, a member of the "Destroy them all!" brigade that appear to infest some comments boxes. I reject the impulse of some I see in cyberspace to be as cynical as possible about everything a bishop says or does and to assume, at all times, the worst about them. God knows I am a sinner and I want people to hope for me, not constantly say, "You loser! There's no hope for you!" Likewise, I want holy bishops and I think I've been willing (and desire to continue) to give bishops the benefit of the doubt. Heck, I even went to bat for Law when he was doing his duty and articulating the bishop's misgivings about war and everybody else was spitting on him. But I also want people to tell me when I'm full of crap because I know my sins blind me as well as kill me. So I see no good reason to affirm McCormack or Grahmann in their okayness when they still do not seem to be grasping the gravity of what they have done to their flocks. If my take on the Pope's approach is right, I think he *expects* the laity to make life uncomfortable for bishops till they truly demonstrate some seriousness about living in fidelity to the Tradition.
Okay, now feel free to tell me I'm all wet. I'm really trying to think with the Church here. So help me do it.
Disputations takes issue both with this blog and with Wick Allison for pointing out that Bp. Grahmann and other bishops such as Bp. McCormack are, in my opinion, lousy bishops who have badly betrayed their flock and who give little evidence that they see very far beyond how much this inconveniences them. My reasons for pointing out their miscreancy has to do with what I think the purpose of the Holy Father is in leaving them in office. As I have maintained all along, this policy is not passive, it is active. The Holy Father takes seriously the theology of the cross and the theology of Holy Orders, including the grace of ordination which enables schleps to become pastors. Rather than deal with the problem of the American Church according to secular templates dictated by Bill Gates (Defective part? Replace it with a shiny new part from the factory!) the Pope has very deliberately opted to compel bad bishops to sit in the midst of the mess they have created, embrace the cross, and let the grace of ordination (finally) begin to make shepherds out of them (and perhaps save their souls). This is always a dicey proposition but I think JPII sees no way out but through. It involves, as I have pointed out, the reality that the flock will also have to embrace the cross (something Americans dislike since what could *possibly* be sick or deranged about our culture? No, it's all just the bishop's problem!). It's also dicey because, of course, there's always the chance a bishop will simply refuse to embrace the cross and go on looking for way to shift responsibility. When a bishop does this (such as McCormack or Keeler or, I think, Grahmann) I think it's the duty of the laity to tell the bishop that he's being a bad shepherd and to make life uncomfortable for him. It seems to me that, if it is truly the purpose of the Pope to compel the bishops to face the people they have hurt and betrayed, then it is the duty of the betrayed to speak clearly to those bishops about just how they have (and in some cases, continue to) hurt us by their lousy fidelity to their office.
I am not, I think, a member of the "Destroy them all!" brigade that appear to infest some comments boxes. I reject the impulse of some I see in cyberspace to be as cynical as possible about everything a bishop says or does and to assume, at all times, the worst about them. God knows I am a sinner and I want people to hope for me, not constantly say, "You loser! There's no hope for you!" Likewise, I want holy bishops and I think I've been willing (and desire to continue) to give bishops the benefit of the doubt. Heck, I even went to bat for Law when he was doing his duty and articulating the bishop's misgivings about war and everybody else was spitting on him. But I also want people to tell me when I'm full of crap because I know my sins blind me as well as kill me. So I see no good reason to affirm McCormack or Grahmann in their okayness when they still do not seem to be grasping the gravity of what they have done to their flocks. If my take on the Pope's approach is right, I think he *expects* the laity to make life uncomfortable for bishops till they truly demonstrate some seriousness about living in fidelity to the Tradition.
Okay, now feel free to tell me I'm all wet. I'm really trying to think with the Church here. So help me do it.
Knowing who they are killing makes a lot fewer doctors able to bear the thought of killing him or her
No wonder Planned Parenthood wants the public to be mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed b*******. Hence the opposition to "Right to Know" initiatives. May God solemnly damn Planned Parenthood.
No wonder Planned Parenthood wants the public to be mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed b*******. Hence the opposition to "Right to Know" initiatives. May God solemnly damn Planned Parenthood.
Former Screenwriter for M*A*S*H finds she's a warmonger
I was noting last week how creaky, antique, and self-righteously 70s M*A*S*H sounds these days. Apparently, even some of the people who helped make it are thinking this.
I was noting last week how creaky, antique, and self-righteously 70s M*A*S*H sounds these days. Apparently, even some of the people who helped make it are thinking this.
Myth No. 9337234
Large corporations are all run by rich conservatives who affirm the religious status quo.
In reality, the rich are frequently as Jesus has described them: people who have chosen Mammon over God.
Large corporations are all run by rich conservatives who affirm the religious status quo.
In reality, the rich are frequently as Jesus has described them: people who have chosen Mammon over God.
Only the Christian Church can offer any rational objection to a complete confidence in the rich. For she has maintained from the beginning that the danger was not in man's environment, but in man. Further, she has maintained that if we come to talk of a dangerous environment, the most dangerous environment of all is the commodious environment. I know that the most modern manufacture has been really occupied in trying to produce an abnormally large needle. I know that the most recent biologists have been chiefly anxious to discover a very small camel. But if we diminish the camel to his smallest, or open the eye of the needle to its largest -- if, in short, we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least that they could mean, His words must at the very least mean this -- that rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy. Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world. For the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption, not that the rich are necessary (which is tenable), but that the rich are trustworthy, which (for a Christian) is not tenable. You will hear everlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man. The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt. There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck. It is not demonstrably un-Christian to kill the rich as violators of definable justice. It is not demonstrably un-Christian to crown the rich as convenient rulers of society. It is not certainly un-Christian to rebel against the rich or to submit to the rich. But it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor. - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
More Mysteries of the Atheistic Worldview
Down below, one of my atheist readers makes two blithe statements which baffle me. At one point he declares that such and so would be wrong because "conscience and reason" tell him so. He also declares he has a "right to life".
Question: Conscience and reason are, on the atheist's showing, products of mindless forces at work on our biology, just as appetite or sexuality are products of mindless forces (allegedly). We are, according to the atheist, free to artificially thwart our appetites and sexuality and I think our atheist friends would argue that there's nothing wrong with that, no? Why are we not then guiltless if we thwart conscience and reason too? They are, after all, just another by-product of molecular activity. If you tell me we are evolutionarily "programmed" to obey conscience I answer that we are evolutionarily programmed to reproduce. Yet somehow it is morally neutral to practice contraception of the reproductive system (allegedly) but "wrong" to practice contraception of conscience and reason when they get in the way of what we want. Why, it's almost as if there is a Judge in the background, saying we are, oh, what's the word I'm looking for... sinning?...if we ignore our conscience.
Second question: why do you think the idea of a "spirit" is baseless superstition (since it cannot be subjected to scientific measurement), yet you subscribe to the existence of odorless, colorless, massless "rights"? If never seen, heard, tasted, felt, smelt, weighed or measured a "right", yet you seem to insist they exist anyway? Where do "rights" come from?
Down below, one of my atheist readers makes two blithe statements which baffle me. At one point he declares that such and so would be wrong because "conscience and reason" tell him so. He also declares he has a "right to life".
Question: Conscience and reason are, on the atheist's showing, products of mindless forces at work on our biology, just as appetite or sexuality are products of mindless forces (allegedly). We are, according to the atheist, free to artificially thwart our appetites and sexuality and I think our atheist friends would argue that there's nothing wrong with that, no? Why are we not then guiltless if we thwart conscience and reason too? They are, after all, just another by-product of molecular activity. If you tell me we are evolutionarily "programmed" to obey conscience I answer that we are evolutionarily programmed to reproduce. Yet somehow it is morally neutral to practice contraception of the reproductive system (allegedly) but "wrong" to practice contraception of conscience and reason when they get in the way of what we want. Why, it's almost as if there is a Judge in the background, saying we are, oh, what's the word I'm looking for... sinning?...if we ignore our conscience.
Second question: why do you think the idea of a "spirit" is baseless superstition (since it cannot be subjected to scientific measurement), yet you subscribe to the existence of odorless, colorless, massless "rights"? If never seen, heard, tasted, felt, smelt, weighed or measured a "right", yet you seem to insist they exist anyway? Where do "rights" come from?
This could be entertaining
In my book, By What Authority?, I argue that, on the basis of the bare text of Scripture alone, there is no ironclad case for monogamy as the only legitimate conception of marriage. The real reason figures like James Dobson imagine that it is, is because they have imbibed Sacred Tradition without realizing it. (Martin Luther, by the way, agrees with me.)
Now comes this helpful fellow, a bible centered Polish Christian who argues the biblical case for polygamy and declares the anti-polygamist to be an enemy of God.
If you are a Christian who rejects the Catholic idea of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as the "twin streams" of revelation, feel free to use my comments box to construct an argument against this guy on the basis of the bare text of Scripture alone. Remember, you can't just show that monogamy is okay with God. You have to got the distance and show that monogamy is the *only* legitimate Christian conception of marriage and you have to do it without an implicit or explicit appeal to Sacred Tradition.
That is your mission, should you choose to accept it. This blog will now self-destruct in ten seconds.
In my book, By What Authority?, I argue that, on the basis of the bare text of Scripture alone, there is no ironclad case for monogamy as the only legitimate conception of marriage. The real reason figures like James Dobson imagine that it is, is because they have imbibed Sacred Tradition without realizing it. (Martin Luther, by the way, agrees with me.)
Now comes this helpful fellow, a bible centered Polish Christian who argues the biblical case for polygamy and declares the anti-polygamist to be an enemy of God.
If you are a Christian who rejects the Catholic idea of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as the "twin streams" of revelation, feel free to use my comments box to construct an argument against this guy on the basis of the bare text of Scripture alone. Remember, you can't just show that monogamy is okay with God. You have to got the distance and show that monogamy is the *only* legitimate Christian conception of marriage and you have to do it without an implicit or explicit appeal to Sacred Tradition.
That is your mission, should you choose to accept it. This blog will now self-destruct in ten seconds.
Found this on Amy's Blog
It's another demonstration of Chesterton's remark that when you neglect the big laws (against, f'rinstance, abuse of children) you don't get freedom and you don't even get anarchy. You get the small laws.
Look for lots of "zero tolerance" thinking as our culture insanely over-reacts to the sins of clerics.
It's another demonstration of Chesterton's remark that when you neglect the big laws (against, f'rinstance, abuse of children) you don't get freedom and you don't even get anarchy. You get the small laws.
Look for lots of "zero tolerance" thinking as our culture insanely over-reacts to the sins of clerics.
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Bravo to Wick Allison!
...for his challenge to Bp. Charles Grahmann, the lousy bishop of Dallas who is beginning to pull into the lead for the coveted Worst Still-Serving American Bishop award.
You can't jerk your flock around forever, Bishop.
In Persian, they say, "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin". In Dallas, it's "Don't Mess with Texas."
...for his challenge to Bp. Charles Grahmann, the lousy bishop of Dallas who is beginning to pull into the lead for the coveted Worst Still-Serving American Bishop award.
You can't jerk your flock around forever, Bishop.
In Persian, they say, "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin". In Dallas, it's "Don't Mess with Texas."
There are Christians who Define Themselves in Terms of What They Are Not
Some Protestants spend virtually no time proclaiming their Faith because they are too busy Not Being Catholic (like the guys at what I affectionately refer to as NotRoman.org. Theoretically, they are about Jesus. Really, they are about attacking Catholics.
Likewise, there are Catholics whose principal self-defining characteristic is that they are not Protestant, not neo, not Novus Ordo, not rigid, not orthodox, not this, not that. At the Reactionary Dissent end of the spectrum, we just met the helpful people at Novus Ordo Watch today. At the liberal Dissent end are the extremely self-satisfied suburbanites at St. Joan of Arc parish, who are all about not being "rigid pre-Vatican II" Catholics (or Catholics in any discernible sense at all).
Well, it turns out the Orthodox are fallen in this regard too. For some, it's more important to be Not Roman than to be Orthodox.
Some Protestants spend virtually no time proclaiming their Faith because they are too busy Not Being Catholic (like the guys at what I affectionately refer to as NotRoman.org. Theoretically, they are about Jesus. Really, they are about attacking Catholics.
Likewise, there are Catholics whose principal self-defining characteristic is that they are not Protestant, not neo, not Novus Ordo, not rigid, not orthodox, not this, not that. At the Reactionary Dissent end of the spectrum, we just met the helpful people at Novus Ordo Watch today. At the liberal Dissent end are the extremely self-satisfied suburbanites at St. Joan of Arc parish, who are all about not being "rigid pre-Vatican II" Catholics (or Catholics in any discernible sense at all).
Well, it turns out the Orthodox are fallen in this regard too. For some, it's more important to be Not Roman than to be Orthodox.
A Problem That May Be Coming Down the Pike Someday for Christians
is the insistence by some conservative Jews that the Temple be rebuilt after the razing of the Dome of the Rock.
I've given this little thought myself, but I suspect it will throw Evangelical supporters into a tailspin while the Catholic Church (as is its custom) will be more deliberate about its response. Obviously, for Christians, the reinstitution of Temple worship and animal sacrifices is absolutely unnecessary. Hebrews is all about this. However, the fact that Christianity and Temple worship could co-exist for 40 years suggests that it could co-exist again, should Jews succeed (which is a *very* long shot) in rebuilding the Temple on the Temple Mount.
Personally, I don't think it's ever gonna happen. The hard reality is that Israel exists as long as the US is a superpower. When we go away, it will, in all likelihood go away (unless it can befriend anothe superpower). And I seriously doubt the US is going to plump for backing the razing of the Dome of the Rock and the rebuilding of the Temple. So, both politically and theologically, I see no good reason for it. Neither divine nor human power seems to me to back up this dream.
is the insistence by some conservative Jews that the Temple be rebuilt after the razing of the Dome of the Rock.
I've given this little thought myself, but I suspect it will throw Evangelical supporters into a tailspin while the Catholic Church (as is its custom) will be more deliberate about its response. Obviously, for Christians, the reinstitution of Temple worship and animal sacrifices is absolutely unnecessary. Hebrews is all about this. However, the fact that Christianity and Temple worship could co-exist for 40 years suggests that it could co-exist again, should Jews succeed (which is a *very* long shot) in rebuilding the Temple on the Temple Mount.
Personally, I don't think it's ever gonna happen. The hard reality is that Israel exists as long as the US is a superpower. When we go away, it will, in all likelihood go away (unless it can befriend anothe superpower). And I seriously doubt the US is going to plump for backing the razing of the Dome of the Rock and the rebuilding of the Temple. So, both politically and theologically, I see no good reason for it. Neither divine nor human power seems to me to back up this dream.
The "Progression" from Rational to Irrational Atheism
In the good old days, atheists were bold, muscular manly men who courageously offered that they were paragons of Reason bringing the light of Truth to a world huddling in fear and ignorance due to the hoodoo and priestcraft of benighted fools. Science and Reason were the new colossi which would sweep aside medieval superstition that kept us in darkness and ignorance. Light would come, not through mystical mysteries, but through true rationality based on scientific investigation. This was the ringing cry that found its voice in the Enlightenment and hit its stride in the 19th Century.
Alas, this robust and simple-minded certainty that Reason rather than Faith was the wave of the future is all but spent now. Carl Sagan was one of the last of the antique Rational Atheists. Now atheism sounds much more like Andy in my comments box: "Ah, so Mind (whatever that is) is rooted in the fundamental Reason (whatever that is) that is the mind of God (whatever that is)."
Andy, as is his custom, is mostly trying to score points by ridicule rather than actual argument. But he points out his own problem inadvertantly. For the atheist, at the end of the day, is now reduced to saying "I don't know what Mind is, but mine is still superior to a theist's. I don't know what Reason is, but it's still superior to Faith. I don't know what the Mind of God is, but I'm sure that it can't possibly exist. Why? Because my mind (whatever that is) tells me that God's existence is contrary to Reason (whatever that is)."
In short, atheism comes down to saying "No!" to God for any reason or no reason. Atheism is not about reason ultimately. It's quite willing to reject the very idea of reason if reason begins to point to God. The children of heresy always kill their parents. Irrational atheists are now in the process of destroying, not Christianity, but rationalism.
In the good old days, atheists were bold, muscular manly men who courageously offered that they were paragons of Reason bringing the light of Truth to a world huddling in fear and ignorance due to the hoodoo and priestcraft of benighted fools. Science and Reason were the new colossi which would sweep aside medieval superstition that kept us in darkness and ignorance. Light would come, not through mystical mysteries, but through true rationality based on scientific investigation. This was the ringing cry that found its voice in the Enlightenment and hit its stride in the 19th Century.
Alas, this robust and simple-minded certainty that Reason rather than Faith was the wave of the future is all but spent now. Carl Sagan was one of the last of the antique Rational Atheists. Now atheism sounds much more like Andy in my comments box: "Ah, so Mind (whatever that is) is rooted in the fundamental Reason (whatever that is) that is the mind of God (whatever that is)."
Andy, as is his custom, is mostly trying to score points by ridicule rather than actual argument. But he points out his own problem inadvertantly. For the atheist, at the end of the day, is now reduced to saying "I don't know what Mind is, but mine is still superior to a theist's. I don't know what Reason is, but it's still superior to Faith. I don't know what the Mind of God is, but I'm sure that it can't possibly exist. Why? Because my mind (whatever that is) tells me that God's existence is contrary to Reason (whatever that is)."
In short, atheism comes down to saying "No!" to God for any reason or no reason. Atheism is not about reason ultimately. It's quite willing to reject the very idea of reason if reason begins to point to God. The children of heresy always kill their parents. Irrational atheists are now in the process of destroying, not Christianity, but rationalism.
Scott Hahn's Salvation History Site has a Blog!
Christopher Cuddy is on the air! Salvation History is a great resource for Catholic biblical study, by the way. Check it out!
Christopher Cuddy is on the air! Salvation History is a great resource for Catholic biblical study, by the way. Check it out!
Shoutin' Bill Donahue sez...
A Voice of the Fuddled member is the driving force behind yet another attempt to destroy the Seal of the Confessional.
But of course. Voice of the Fuddled does not have a *clue* what the Faith is. Naturally, its loopier and most embittered members are going to launch attacks on the very heart of the Faith they claim to be protecting. God, defend your sacraments from the victims of Stockholm Syndrome who now seek to carry on the work of destruction that men like Paul Shanley began.
A Voice of the Fuddled member is the driving force behind yet another attempt to destroy the Seal of the Confessional.
But of course. Voice of the Fuddled does not have a *clue* what the Faith is. Naturally, its loopier and most embittered members are going to launch attacks on the very heart of the Faith they claim to be protecting. God, defend your sacraments from the victims of Stockholm Syndrome who now seek to carry on the work of destruction that men like Paul Shanley began.
Glob of chemicals named "Andy" struggles to show that its epiphenomena are "true"
while Christian globs of chemicals have epiphenomena that are "false" and even "ridiculous".
Actually, Andy, the point is that, on your showing "mind" is simply one contortion on the idiotic face of matter. Why should I think it "higher" or more important than any other? And why should I think the contortions on the accidental brain chemistries of atheists "better" than the contortions on the brain chemistries of believers. It's like arbitrarily declaring that this piece of driftwood is "better" or "superior to" or "smarter than" that one. On the Judeo-Christian showing, mind is the creation of Mind. It is rooted in fundamental Reason that is the mind of God. Mind is not necessarily rational because it is the creation of spirit rather than idiotic matter. It is (or can be) rational if it is the creation of Reason. There's nothing specially fine about mere spirit, since spirit is not necessarily rational. The devil, in Christian reckoning, is a spirit, but one that has perverted all its faculties (including reason) to fundamentally absurd ends. So Christians do not believe that a mind arising from mere spirit is somehow automatically rational. A mind under the influence of that spirit called Satan is, indeed, profoundly irrational.
while Christian globs of chemicals have epiphenomena that are "false" and even "ridiculous".
Actually, Andy, the point is that, on your showing "mind" is simply one contortion on the idiotic face of matter. Why should I think it "higher" or more important than any other? And why should I think the contortions on the accidental brain chemistries of atheists "better" than the contortions on the brain chemistries of believers. It's like arbitrarily declaring that this piece of driftwood is "better" or "superior to" or "smarter than" that one. On the Judeo-Christian showing, mind is the creation of Mind. It is rooted in fundamental Reason that is the mind of God. Mind is not necessarily rational because it is the creation of spirit rather than idiotic matter. It is (or can be) rational if it is the creation of Reason. There's nothing specially fine about mere spirit, since spirit is not necessarily rational. The devil, in Christian reckoning, is a spirit, but one that has perverted all its faculties (including reason) to fundamentally absurd ends. So Christians do not believe that a mind arising from mere spirit is somehow automatically rational. A mind under the influence of that spirit called Satan is, indeed, profoundly irrational.
By the way...
Loved the call for a ban on cloning and partial birth abortion. Let's see if the Stupid Party tries to weasel with the "health of the mother" escape hatch that renders the ban null and void.
Loved the call for a ban on cloning and partial birth abortion. Let's see if the Stupid Party tries to weasel with the "health of the mother" escape hatch that renders the ban null and void.
Heard the SOTU
Like always, came away liking W and trusting in his basic goodness and intelligence. (Yes, intelligence. Bush lacks verbal intelligence, which is the only sort of intelligence the chattering classes recognize. If you are verbally gifted (like Richard Dawkins) you can be an absolutely blithering idiot in other forms of intelligence (like Richard Dawkins) and the chattering classes will never notice. Bush is gifted in other forms of intelligence, which is why his chattering classed enemies consistently...misunderestimate...him. Professing to be wise, they became fools....)
Anyway, like Greg Krehbiel, I thought he stated his case for war with clarity and simplicity. Show me the evidence at the Security Council next week and I'm with you, W.
Like always, came away liking W and trusting in his basic goodness and intelligence. (Yes, intelligence. Bush lacks verbal intelligence, which is the only sort of intelligence the chattering classes recognize. If you are verbally gifted (like Richard Dawkins) you can be an absolutely blithering idiot in other forms of intelligence (like Richard Dawkins) and the chattering classes will never notice. Bush is gifted in other forms of intelligence, which is why his chattering classed enemies consistently...misunderestimate...him. Professing to be wise, they became fools....)
Anyway, like Greg Krehbiel, I thought he stated his case for war with clarity and simplicity. Show me the evidence at the Security Council next week and I'm with you, W.
She's been so kind to this blog and I've been so remiss
So, without further ado, let me point you to a fun new addition to St. Blog's, Karen Hall's Disordered Affections.
So, without further ado, let me point you to a fun new addition to St. Blog's, Karen Hall's Disordered Affections.
Celebrity Death Match
In this cornah, the Lidless Eyes from Novus Ordo Watch (a bunch of really courageous guys who give absolutely no information on who they are, but who follow the ancient apostolic command to bitch and complain and despair and point fingers.)
vs.
In this cornah, The Lidless Eye Inquisition (happy warriors for the actual Catholic Faith who have been rescued by the Holy Spirit from Reactionary Dissent). Unlike the chickens at Novus Ordo Watch, these guys tell you who they are.
In this cornah, the Lidless Eyes from Novus Ordo Watch (a bunch of really courageous guys who give absolutely no information on who they are, but who follow the ancient apostolic command to bitch and complain and despair and point fingers.)
vs.
In this cornah, The Lidless Eye Inquisition (happy warriors for the actual Catholic Faith who have been rescued by the Holy Spirit from Reactionary Dissent). Unlike the chickens at Novus Ordo Watch, these guys tell you who they are.
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Down below...
I mentioned that both Sts. Ignatius and Teresa noticed the difference between their shallow Catholic youth and the genuine life of conversion they embarked on as adults. Somebody asked what I was talking about.
Both saints had profound experiences of deepening conversion in their adult lives which led to them abandoning their former ways and going all out for God. Since they were Catholics, living in a Catholic culture, they recognized that this did not mean their Catholic upbringing had been a waste and now they were "born again".
(This, by the way, is a real rather than semantic difference between Evangelical and Catholic theology. To be "born again" in common Evangelical understanding is to have a "living encounter" with Jesus--usually accompanied by emotion. For Catholics, to be born again is an ontological reality normatively given through the sacrament of baptism which is quite independent of emotions. One may or may not *feel* born again when one is baptized. But if you are baptized, you are born again. The upside of Evangelical parlance is that it stresses that relationship with Christ should be a living reality, not an abstraction. The downside is that it is often a semi-Pelagianism: you are "really a Christian" if you achieve a particular emotional state and use a particular jargon acceptable to Evangelicals. Otherwise, your salvation is suspect. The downside of the Catholic approach is that it can tend to dismiss all appeals to living discipleship as emotivism. The upside is that it directs our eyes to the objective fact of our baptism as the lynchpin of our incorporation into the life of the Blessed Trinity, rather than to an introspective hall of mirrors in which we are continually fretting about whether we really meant it when we asked Jesus to be our personal Lord and Savior. And, of course, the Catholic approach is the biblical one whereas the Evangelical method of "asking Jesus into your heart" is of extremely recent vintage and without biblical precedent.
Because baptism, not a "born again experience" as understood by Evangelical, is the biblical and Catholic gateway to union with Christ, both Ignatius and Teresa saw their profound conversion experience as God revealing what the grace of their baptism had given them. Often, today, cradle Catholics will have similar experiences, but assume that they mean their Catholic upbringing was mere empty religion. The experience of deepening conversion is quite real (and Catholics sneer at it to their peril), but the "born again" Catholic often pits the experience of deepening conversion *against* their baptism and upbringing, often because this experience happens through contact with lively Evangelicalism. For this reason, many leave the Church. Sometimes, they find their way back to the Catholic faith. Perhaps the best book I know which describes this process of both leaving and returning is Jeff Cavins' powerful and moving My Life on the Rock. It is honest, direct, powerful, funny and intensely painful and joyful as it recounts how he left the Church at 18 after a "born again" experience set him at odds with his Catholic family, and how he eventually returned after 12 years as an Assembly of God pastor. Catholics trying to get a sense of the powerful dynamics that drive such conversions can scarcely do better than to read this book. It's a story that millions of Catholic families have lived and it provide real hope that reconciliation and healing is possible by the grace of God.
I mentioned that both Sts. Ignatius and Teresa noticed the difference between their shallow Catholic youth and the genuine life of conversion they embarked on as adults. Somebody asked what I was talking about.
Both saints had profound experiences of deepening conversion in their adult lives which led to them abandoning their former ways and going all out for God. Since they were Catholics, living in a Catholic culture, they recognized that this did not mean their Catholic upbringing had been a waste and now they were "born again".
(This, by the way, is a real rather than semantic difference between Evangelical and Catholic theology. To be "born again" in common Evangelical understanding is to have a "living encounter" with Jesus--usually accompanied by emotion. For Catholics, to be born again is an ontological reality normatively given through the sacrament of baptism which is quite independent of emotions. One may or may not *feel* born again when one is baptized. But if you are baptized, you are born again. The upside of Evangelical parlance is that it stresses that relationship with Christ should be a living reality, not an abstraction. The downside is that it is often a semi-Pelagianism: you are "really a Christian" if you achieve a particular emotional state and use a particular jargon acceptable to Evangelicals. Otherwise, your salvation is suspect. The downside of the Catholic approach is that it can tend to dismiss all appeals to living discipleship as emotivism. The upside is that it directs our eyes to the objective fact of our baptism as the lynchpin of our incorporation into the life of the Blessed Trinity, rather than to an introspective hall of mirrors in which we are continually fretting about whether we really meant it when we asked Jesus to be our personal Lord and Savior. And, of course, the Catholic approach is the biblical one whereas the Evangelical method of "asking Jesus into your heart" is of extremely recent vintage and without biblical precedent.
Because baptism, not a "born again experience" as understood by Evangelical, is the biblical and Catholic gateway to union with Christ, both Ignatius and Teresa saw their profound conversion experience as God revealing what the grace of their baptism had given them. Often, today, cradle Catholics will have similar experiences, but assume that they mean their Catholic upbringing was mere empty religion. The experience of deepening conversion is quite real (and Catholics sneer at it to their peril), but the "born again" Catholic often pits the experience of deepening conversion *against* their baptism and upbringing, often because this experience happens through contact with lively Evangelicalism. For this reason, many leave the Church. Sometimes, they find their way back to the Catholic faith. Perhaps the best book I know which describes this process of both leaving and returning is Jeff Cavins' powerful and moving My Life on the Rock. It is honest, direct, powerful, funny and intensely painful and joyful as it recounts how he left the Church at 18 after a "born again" experience set him at odds with his Catholic family, and how he eventually returned after 12 years as an Assembly of God pastor. Catholics trying to get a sense of the powerful dynamics that drive such conversions can scarcely do better than to read this book. It's a story that millions of Catholic families have lived and it provide real hope that reconciliation and healing is possible by the grace of God.
Andy writes concerning my "globs of chemicals called 'atheists'" blog
Matter, according to atheists, has certain epiphenomena. Configure it one way and you get a hydrogen bomb. Configure it another way and you have a barking poodle or a milkshake, or a tide, yawn, or vomit. Configure it still another way and you have "mind", according to the atheist. Why the atheist attaches mystical signficance to the last epiphenomena is beyond me, given the atheist's first principles. I think it has to do with the atheist's lingering superstitious belief that "mind" (particularly his own mind) is reflective of something "higher". This belief is a last echo of the theistic worldview he rejects. Like all heresies, it derives its strength from the Judeo-Christian worldview. But when you cut the branch from the tree it dies. Sorry. But your exalted view of "mind" goes down the drain with all the rest.
Now you can certainly go on arbitrarily attaching "significance" (whatever *that* is) to things. What you can't do is give any good reason for it other than "It matters to me". But then, of course, it becomes all-fired difficult to explain why you think certain things should matter to everybody. It becomes hard to see why so many atheists are "evangelical", wanting to assert that the epiphenomena of chemical activity in their brains are "true" while the epiphenomena of chemical activity in a Christian's brain is a "delusion". You might as well argue that my enjoyment of chocolate is "false" and your love of beer is "true". You can only do that *if* you are going to acknowledge that your mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter--as Christians do. But if your first premise is to *insist* that it is an epiphenonemon of matter, then you are just talking gibberish.
To matter - to be of importance. Importance is defined and assigned by the human mind. I consider my life to be important to me, therefore it matters to me - the future heat-death of the universe is of no consequence to my present assigment of importance. My life might not matter to you - on the whole, it probably doesn't except in some sort of vague way since you don't know me. It doesn't mean that my life, in general, doesn't matter (since it does to me, my friends, my family, etc).
When all minds cease to exist, importance ceases to exist - until that time, things matter. Do they not?
Matter, according to atheists, has certain epiphenomena. Configure it one way and you get a hydrogen bomb. Configure it another way and you have a barking poodle or a milkshake, or a tide, yawn, or vomit. Configure it still another way and you have "mind", according to the atheist. Why the atheist attaches mystical signficance to the last epiphenomena is beyond me, given the atheist's first principles. I think it has to do with the atheist's lingering superstitious belief that "mind" (particularly his own mind) is reflective of something "higher". This belief is a last echo of the theistic worldview he rejects. Like all heresies, it derives its strength from the Judeo-Christian worldview. But when you cut the branch from the tree it dies. Sorry. But your exalted view of "mind" goes down the drain with all the rest.
Now you can certainly go on arbitrarily attaching "significance" (whatever *that* is) to things. What you can't do is give any good reason for it other than "It matters to me". But then, of course, it becomes all-fired difficult to explain why you think certain things should matter to everybody. It becomes hard to see why so many atheists are "evangelical", wanting to assert that the epiphenomena of chemical activity in their brains are "true" while the epiphenomena of chemical activity in a Christian's brain is a "delusion". You might as well argue that my enjoyment of chocolate is "false" and your love of beer is "true". You can only do that *if* you are going to acknowledge that your mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter--as Christians do. But if your first premise is to *insist* that it is an epiphenonemon of matter, then you are just talking gibberish.
Someday you'll be able to fax your cat
Are there any Catholic theologians keeping up with this stuff? A Church that thinks in centuries had better acquire what St. Thomas calls "agility" to deal with these swift changes (note that I do not necessarily call it "swift progress"). We don't know if these new technologies are progress till we see which direction they are taken by the humans who use them: toward or away from the dignity of the human person. The great efficiency achieved in death camp technology was a swift change in the 40s. It was not progress.
Are there any Catholic theologians keeping up with this stuff? A Church that thinks in centuries had better acquire what St. Thomas calls "agility" to deal with these swift changes (note that I do not necessarily call it "swift progress"). We don't know if these new technologies are progress till we see which direction they are taken by the humans who use them: toward or away from the dignity of the human person. The great efficiency achieved in death camp technology was a swift change in the 40s. It was not progress.
Forgot to say
I had a wonderful time in British Columbia this past weekend. Redeemer Pacific College is a really happening place and I'm confident we're gonna see some terrific Christian leaders come outta there. In fact, Jeremy Lott (who I met and with whom I had a delightful conversation) is from there.
I had a wonderful time in British Columbia this past weekend. Redeemer Pacific College is a really happening place and I'm confident we're gonna see some terrific Christian leaders come outta there. In fact, Jeremy Lott (who I met and with whom I had a delightful conversation) is from there.
Monday, January 27, 2003
The JDL vs. Spike Jones
One of the curious things about the difference between the WWII generation and ours is the way in which we deal with the figure of Adolf Hitler. The generation that actually defeated Hitler heaped gobs of ridicule on him:
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
Not to love Der Fuehrer is a great disgrace
So we HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Herr Göbbels says, "We own der world und space"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Göbbel's face
When Herr Göring says they'll never bomb this place
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Göring's face
Are we not the supermen
Aryan pure supermen?
Ja we ist der supermen
Super-duper supermen!
Ist this Nutzi land not good?
Would you leave it if you could?
Ja this Nutzi land is good
Vee would leave it if we could
We bring the world to order
Heil Hitler's world New Order
Everyone of foreign race will love Der Fuehrer's face
When we bring to der world disorder
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuhrer's face!
Similarly, you find contemparies like Tolkien referring to Hitler as "that ruddy little ignoramus" and that "ignorant cad". He is, for the generation that defeated him, but a puny little humbug.
But as the Holocaust and the full depth of Hitler's evil has taken root in the imagination of passing generations, something has happened that is not altogether healthy, I think. He has acquired the status of an evil demigod. Attempts to humanize him, that is, to remind us that he sprang from the stock of Adam, and not from the pit of hell, are now condemned as attempts to make him a sympathetic figure.
This is, I think, understandable but very dangerous. Turn Hitler into a remote demigod of evil and you imply that human beings could not do what he did again. The whole point of Hitler's story is that he was a man, not a god or a devil, and that what he became any of us could become. Our fathers and mothers (or grandfathers if you are a Gen Xer) had a certain common sense in laughing at this ignorant little cad and not just falling silent in a sort of distorted act of reverence. He was, when all the trappings of power were stripped away, a vanishingly small and stupid little creep, but a little creep with human blood who was made in the image of God and who twisted that image beyond recognition. He was not a fallen angel, not something that sprang from nowhere, not a foreigner to the human race. Magnifying him into something superhuman or stripping him of humanity cuts us off from learning the lesson that we too are fallen and capable of his evil folly.
One of the curious things about the difference between the WWII generation and ours is the way in which we deal with the figure of Adolf Hitler. The generation that actually defeated Hitler heaped gobs of ridicule on him:
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
Not to love Der Fuehrer is a great disgrace
So we HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Herr Göbbels says, "We own der world und space"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Göbbel's face
When Herr Göring says they'll never bomb this place
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Göring's face
Are we not the supermen
Aryan pure supermen?
Ja we ist der supermen
Super-duper supermen!
Ist this Nutzi land not good?
Would you leave it if you could?
Ja this Nutzi land is good
Vee would leave it if we could
We bring the world to order
Heil Hitler's world New Order
Everyone of foreign race will love Der Fuehrer's face
When we bring to der world disorder
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuhrer's face!
Similarly, you find contemparies like Tolkien referring to Hitler as "that ruddy little ignoramus" and that "ignorant cad". He is, for the generation that defeated him, but a puny little humbug.
But as the Holocaust and the full depth of Hitler's evil has taken root in the imagination of passing generations, something has happened that is not altogether healthy, I think. He has acquired the status of an evil demigod. Attempts to humanize him, that is, to remind us that he sprang from the stock of Adam, and not from the pit of hell, are now condemned as attempts to make him a sympathetic figure.
Sight unseen, "Max" has been condemned by the Jewish Defense League and others. "The film is in bad taste," says a statement posted on the JDL Web site. There is nothing human, it says, "about the most vicious, vile murderer in world history."
This is, I think, understandable but very dangerous. Turn Hitler into a remote demigod of evil and you imply that human beings could not do what he did again. The whole point of Hitler's story is that he was a man, not a god or a devil, and that what he became any of us could become. Our fathers and mothers (or grandfathers if you are a Gen Xer) had a certain common sense in laughing at this ignorant little cad and not just falling silent in a sort of distorted act of reverence. He was, when all the trappings of power were stripped away, a vanishingly small and stupid little creep, but a little creep with human blood who was made in the image of God and who twisted that image beyond recognition. He was not a fallen angel, not something that sprang from nowhere, not a foreigner to the human race. Magnifying him into something superhuman or stripping him of humanity cuts us off from learning the lesson that we too are fallen and capable of his evil folly.
"Are you a Christian?"
Below, one of my readers has suggested it is somehow insulting to compile a Catholic/Evangelical phrasebook. But I am in earnest. There are lots of things which Evangelicals and Catholics say which the other party either does not understand or, worse, *thinks* he understands. To pick a random example, a Catholic I spoke to recently was hurt when, upon being asked which church she attended and answering, "St. John's Catholic Church", she was asked if she was a Christian by her Evangelical schoolmate. To a Catholic, it is painful to be asked "Are you a Christian?" by Evangelicals. The Catholic wants to shout " Of *course* I'm a Christian!"
But the Evangelical does not mean that (usually) as a swipe against Catholics. Indeed, an Evangelical can and frequently does ask the same of any large "mainline" Church. He might even ask it of other Evangelicals. For he means (in translation) "Have you had a living encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you a disciple or just going through religious motions?" He means what a Catholic would mean by asking "Are you docile to the Holy Spirit? Are you serious about the teaching of Christ?" Heaven knows, readers on a blog like mine, who spend so much time discussing the difference between serious Catholic faith and AmChurch, know that one can be a Sim Christian. St. Ignatius of Loyola realized the same thing (about himself). So did Teresa of Avila. An Evangelical who asks "Are you a Christian?" is often as solicitous for your spiritual well-being as those great saints. But because the jargon is different, Catholics can take offense rather than hear the real question.
So yes. Jargon differences do matter. They don't account for all disagreements. But they do matter.
Below, one of my readers has suggested it is somehow insulting to compile a Catholic/Evangelical phrasebook. But I am in earnest. There are lots of things which Evangelicals and Catholics say which the other party either does not understand or, worse, *thinks* he understands. To pick a random example, a Catholic I spoke to recently was hurt when, upon being asked which church she attended and answering, "St. John's Catholic Church", she was asked if she was a Christian by her Evangelical schoolmate. To a Catholic, it is painful to be asked "Are you a Christian?" by Evangelicals. The Catholic wants to shout " Of *course* I'm a Christian!"
But the Evangelical does not mean that (usually) as a swipe against Catholics. Indeed, an Evangelical can and frequently does ask the same of any large "mainline" Church. He might even ask it of other Evangelicals. For he means (in translation) "Have you had a living encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you a disciple or just going through religious motions?" He means what a Catholic would mean by asking "Are you docile to the Holy Spirit? Are you serious about the teaching of Christ?" Heaven knows, readers on a blog like mine, who spend so much time discussing the difference between serious Catholic faith and AmChurch, know that one can be a Sim Christian. St. Ignatius of Loyola realized the same thing (about himself). So did Teresa of Avila. An Evangelical who asks "Are you a Christian?" is often as solicitous for your spiritual well-being as those great saints. But because the jargon is different, Catholics can take offense rather than hear the real question.
So yes. Jargon differences do matter. They don't account for all disagreements. But they do matter.
Conflicted About War
I think it's no secret that I'm conflicted about war with Iraq. I plump, tentatively, in favor of it, but respect deeply some of my friends who oppose it. (I don't respect all who oppose it since a great many of them seem like ninnies or cads. On the other hand, some of the people who support war seem to me to be sinister people too.) Part of what has bothered me has, of course, been the reservations of the Holy Father in this department. But even more has been the queer reluctance of the Bush Administration to give us much to go on as far as the gazillions of WMDs that they keep saying they are sure about. Greg Krehbiel (no Euroweenie he) sums it up nicely: "We want facts, Mr. President -- facts and cold logic -- before we go to war." He too has the same curious sense I do that there's a stampede for war with an odd vacuum in the reasoning department.
You don't have to be a Lefty to think this. All you have to do is look at Peg Noonan, who points out the same thing the Bushies are obviously thinking (since they are now--finally--talking about "making a case"): namely, that the case has not been made. She would not need to advise them on how to make the case if they had made it already.
Rather than making a case, what seems to happen is what Krehbiel complains of: assertions without details and evidence like in this story. There's only a limited window of time before the chance to garner support for this war dries up. A public whose formative experience of trusting government when it goes to war was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and its aftermath is a public you better be prepared to give some solid facts to. That's just life in these here United States, Mister President.
I think it's no secret that I'm conflicted about war with Iraq. I plump, tentatively, in favor of it, but respect deeply some of my friends who oppose it. (I don't respect all who oppose it since a great many of them seem like ninnies or cads. On the other hand, some of the people who support war seem to me to be sinister people too.) Part of what has bothered me has, of course, been the reservations of the Holy Father in this department. But even more has been the queer reluctance of the Bush Administration to give us much to go on as far as the gazillions of WMDs that they keep saying they are sure about. Greg Krehbiel (no Euroweenie he) sums it up nicely: "We want facts, Mr. President -- facts and cold logic -- before we go to war." He too has the same curious sense I do that there's a stampede for war with an odd vacuum in the reasoning department.
You don't have to be a Lefty to think this. All you have to do is look at Peg Noonan, who points out the same thing the Bushies are obviously thinking (since they are now--finally--talking about "making a case"): namely, that the case has not been made. She would not need to advise them on how to make the case if they had made it already.
Rather than making a case, what seems to happen is what Krehbiel complains of: assertions without details and evidence like in this story. There's only a limited window of time before the chance to garner support for this war dries up. A public whose formative experience of trusting government when it goes to war was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and its aftermath is a public you better be prepared to give some solid facts to. That's just life in these here United States, Mister President.
Globs of Chemicals Called "Atheists" Flounder Around Trying to Explain Why Their Pointless Little Lives Matter When They Just Finished Explaining that Nothing Matters
Theist points out that this is dumb. Makes obvious point that our lives only matter in relation to God.
Theist points out that this is dumb. Makes obvious point that our lives only matter in relation to God.
Lidless Eyes at the Remnant Publish Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission Letter with Inconveniences "Abbreviated" Clean Out of It
All Reactionary Dissenters care about is The Truth. And it doesn't matter how many "abbreviated" documents they have to publish to find it!
All Reactionary Dissenters care about is The Truth. And it doesn't matter how many "abbreviated" documents they have to publish to find it!
Meanwhile in Canada...
NON-CATHOLIC PRO-ABORT CANADIAN GOVERNOR-GENERAL RECEIVES COMMUNION FROM BISHOP
Reason: Archbishop Gervais did not want to "make a scene." Now that's the kind of episcopal courage we're used to here in the Americas!
NON-CATHOLIC PRO-ABORT CANADIAN GOVERNOR-GENERAL RECEIVES COMMUNION FROM BISHOP
Reason: Archbishop Gervais did not want to "make a scene." Now that's the kind of episcopal courage we're used to here in the Americas!
Kudos to Emily Stimpson for this Stupid Headline Alert
"Vatican to Reinforce Catholic Orthodoxy"
In other news, the BBC reports that Thermometers are Being Used to Tell Temperature, The Sky is Blue, Boeing Plans to Design and Build Airplanes, and the BBC has added a department devoted to reporting Really Obvious Things.
"Vatican to Reinforce Catholic Orthodoxy"
In other news, the BBC reports that Thermometers are Being Used to Tell Temperature, The Sky is Blue, Boeing Plans to Design and Build Airplanes, and the BBC has added a department devoted to reporting Really Obvious Things.
Battle Lines in California Catholicism
It wasn't hard to foresee that Bp. Weigand will be opposed by Catholic Whores for Baby-Killing.
By the way, I think it highly unlikely Weigand will win this battle, but that does not make it one unworthy of fighting. I shall be very surprised if the good Cardinal of LA backs him up. My expectation for rhetoric from AmChurch types is summed up by the last couple grafs of the story.
Another AmChurch Catholic named Roger Taney felt that way about slavery. Weenies will lament Weigand's act as an attempt by Imperial Rome to interfere in American politics. Bunk. Davis can do what he likes in the Governor's mansion and the Church can't do a damn thing to stop him besides appeal to hearts and minds. AmChurch Weenie rhetoric about some mythical Roman desire to return to beheading people is the normal twaddle to be expected from people who care more about accomodating culture than proclaiming the gospel. In case they hadn't heard, "persuasion" is a legitimate tool of American citizens--even if they are Catholics. Gray Davis is free to do as he likes and Bp. Weigand will not be leading a mob with torches to curtail Davis' abuse of his freedom. Davis just shouldn't try to do as he pleases in the house of God. His AmChurch Weenie apologists would have told Ambrose he was being too hard on Theodosius for refusing him communion after slaughtering the Thessalonians. "The Catholic Church needs to be more affirming of Theodosius' hard choices and not impose its morality on others." You Weenies can join in affirming slaughterers and the politicians who love them in their okayness. The task of a bishop is to teach, govern, and sanctify: a task far too few bishops have been willing to take up. Bravo Bp. Weigand!
It wasn't hard to foresee that Bp. Weigand will be opposed by Catholic Whores for Baby-Killing.
By the way, I think it highly unlikely Weigand will win this battle, but that does not make it one unworthy of fighting. I shall be very surprised if the good Cardinal of LA backs him up. My expectation for rhetoric from AmChurch types is summed up by the last couple grafs of the story.
There may also be a difference of opinion about the governor within the Catholic Church. Davis and his wife regularly attend Good Shepherd Church in Beverly Hills. Good Shepherd pastor Colm O'Ryan did not return calls from The Bee requesting an interview, nor did his bishop, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony.
However, in an interview with San Francisco's Faith, a Catholic publication, O'Ryan said he was not bothered by Davis' abortion rights stance.
"Oh, no," he was quoted as saying in Faith's February 2003 edition. "He's a very private person. He's a very faithful Catholic. He and his wife come to Mass very faithfully when they are in town."
O'Ryan said that his own stance toward the governor was "judge not and you shall not be judged."
Another AmChurch Catholic named Roger Taney felt that way about slavery. Weenies will lament Weigand's act as an attempt by Imperial Rome to interfere in American politics. Bunk. Davis can do what he likes in the Governor's mansion and the Church can't do a damn thing to stop him besides appeal to hearts and minds. AmChurch Weenie rhetoric about some mythical Roman desire to return to beheading people is the normal twaddle to be expected from people who care more about accomodating culture than proclaiming the gospel. In case they hadn't heard, "persuasion" is a legitimate tool of American citizens--even if they are Catholics. Gray Davis is free to do as he likes and Bp. Weigand will not be leading a mob with torches to curtail Davis' abuse of his freedom. Davis just shouldn't try to do as he pleases in the house of God. His AmChurch Weenie apologists would have told Ambrose he was being too hard on Theodosius for refusing him communion after slaughtering the Thessalonians. "The Catholic Church needs to be more affirming of Theodosius' hard choices and not impose its morality on others." You Weenies can join in affirming slaughterers and the politicians who love them in their okayness. The task of a bishop is to teach, govern, and sanctify: a task far too few bishops have been willing to take up. Bravo Bp. Weigand!
Remember back in 2000?
...when American politicians and lay Catholics slavishly followed everything the American bishops had to say. Boy, those were the days. All a bishop had to do was say, "Jump!" and American Catholics reflexively responded, "How high?" Yessirree! In the good old days, before the Scandal, American Catholics *respected* their bishops and American politics paid close attention to their teaching.
At least, in the alternative history universe from which the New York Times writes. In my universe, the American bishops have largely been get-along go-along bureaucrats that nobody paid attention to for decades. The Scandal did not rob them of moral authority. It showed why this hapless bench of bishops have been the sort of people nobody (even a child rapist) needed to worry about listening to for about 30 years.
...when American politicians and lay Catholics slavishly followed everything the American bishops had to say. Boy, those were the days. All a bishop had to do was say, "Jump!" and American Catholics reflexively responded, "How high?" Yessirree! In the good old days, before the Scandal, American Catholics *respected* their bishops and American politics paid close attention to their teaching.
At least, in the alternative history universe from which the New York Times writes. In my universe, the American bishops have largely been get-along go-along bureaucrats that nobody paid attention to for decades. The Scandal did not rob them of moral authority. It showed why this hapless bench of bishops have been the sort of people nobody (even a child rapist) needed to worry about listening to for about 30 years.
Looks like somebody mistakenly thinks I'm a trendsetter
I think I'll pull a Steve Jobs and sue the pants off Kathy Shaidle for infringing on the "look and feel" of my blog template. Oh sure, nitpickers will cavil that she was using the template first (as if *that* has anything to do with it).
I think I'll pull a Steve Jobs and sue the pants off Kathy Shaidle for infringing on the "look and feel" of my blog template. Oh sure, nitpickers will cavil that she was using the template first (as if *that* has anything to do with it).
The trouble, you see, is with a few bishops
It's not the whole of American culture that's seriously deranged about sex or anything. No. Just snip off a few bishops at the top and that will fix it. We don't need no stinking theology of the cross. We're all right, jack.
It's not the whole of American culture that's seriously deranged about sex or anything. No. Just snip off a few bishops at the top and that will fix it. We don't need no stinking theology of the cross. We're all right, jack.
From the "Getting More Than You Bargained For" Dept.
This is delicious. Planned Parenthood kvetched about South Carolina's "Choose Life" license plates. So one canny lawmaker has proposed to answer PP's complaint by making available "Choose Death" plates. PP is backpedaling, since they don't want their real message to be all *that* clear.
This is delicious. Planned Parenthood kvetched about South Carolina's "Choose Life" license plates. So one canny lawmaker has proposed to answer PP's complaint by making available "Choose Death" plates. PP is backpedaling, since they don't want their real message to be all *that* clear.
More on Good Bishop Weigand
A reader sez:
A reader sez:
I think bishop Weigand's decision to deny Gray Davis access to the Eucharist is a very significant move. Joseph Graham 'Gray' Davis has a serious dilemma. Being a California Democrat, he can't afford to be anything but a pro-choice radical, on the other hand, he relies on his Catholic identity for the votes of blue-collar and Hispanic Catholics. So, he can't outright reject the Church, on the other hand, he won't get anywhere close to the Catholic position on abortion. My bet is that in the coming days Davis is going to try to strong-arm Weigand for some sort of 'understanding' or shop around for a more sympathetic bishop. As for the former case, I don't think he has a chance: Weigand realizes that this is not only the right course to follow in order to shepherd an errant member of his flock, but also an important teaching moment for the Church. God willing, the good bishop will not budge. This, I'm sure, will infuriate a governor who considers it a divine right to have his way. And, if the past has anything to teach us, he will seek some sort of retribution ("Gov. Davis announces that he will panel a committee to investigate the malfeasance of the bishops in the current child abuse scandal").
Here's my hope: that this courageous action will be mirrored by other bishops, for the lives of the unborn, the good of the country, and for the souls of those politicians who have gone astray, adopting the ways of the world and not of God.
A friend from my parish writes:
Your point about alarmism is well taken. I know there's going to be a certain percentage of people out there who are going to become apoplectic about these liturgical changes. For myself, I can pray standing or sitting. It don't make much nevermind with me. What's much more distracting to my prayers is people freaking out over liturgical changes. Look at it this way: if you have your choice between being gassed at Auschwitz or freezing to death at Kolyma, or being jailed for conversion in Saudi Arabia, versus having to stand after communion, I'd say that the latter is a rather light cross to bear (if it's even a cross at all). Find something else to worry about. Life is too short.
Aquinas walked miles to get a copy of a book by Chrysostom. I just summoned up hundreds of pages of text by pressing a few buttons. And they claim modernism isn't unalloyed goodness!
Here is a fairly detailed summary of the 2000 GIRM (being implemented now after three years): http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/062000.htm
Here is a list of the American amendments to the GIRM: http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.htm
And a summary of the current American rules: http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/092002.htm
The 1975 GIRM and the 2000 GIRM both mandate standing from "Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice...." until the end of mass, except that kneeling is required during the consecration. But the 1975 GIRM allowed local ordinaries to permit kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer and during communion, whereas the 2000 GIRM only makes this concession during the Eucharistic Prayer.
In both 1975 and 2003, the American bishops mandated kneeling during all the times that the GIRM said it was optional. In 1975, this meant kneeling during the prayer and communion. In 2003, this will mean kneeling during the prayer (and optionally when the priest sits down after communion has been distributed).
Also, the Vatican explicitly forbids a priest from denying communion to someone because they kneel.
I have no theoretical objections to any of these postures. And I don't share the alarmist attitude of some conservatives (e.g., http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/093002kne.htm).
However, I like kneeling because I can put my head down and close my eyes and pray. When I am standing, I have my eyes open and am aware of everyone around me. I have some fear that this will prevent me from communing with our Lord as I would like to. Or am I missing the whole point -- do our church leaders want me to be focusing on my fellow parisioners during communion, and only focusing on the Lord during private adoration? If so, will there be occasional masses where personal prayer is permitted after communion?
The USCCB website and Archbishop Brunett's letter say kneeling will be allowed while the priest is seated after all communion has been distributed. But that's usually a pretty short amount of time.
Your point about alarmism is well taken. I know there's going to be a certain percentage of people out there who are going to become apoplectic about these liturgical changes. For myself, I can pray standing or sitting. It don't make much nevermind with me. What's much more distracting to my prayers is people freaking out over liturgical changes. Look at it this way: if you have your choice between being gassed at Auschwitz or freezing to death at Kolyma, or being jailed for conversion in Saudi Arabia, versus having to stand after communion, I'd say that the latter is a rather light cross to bear (if it's even a cross at all). Find something else to worry about. Life is too short.
I am now about to reveal how truly out of touch I am
I not only don't know who won the Super Bowl yesterday, I don't even know who played.
Cyberspace: keeping people from being stoned to death by angry mobs for over a decade.
I not only don't know who won the Super Bowl yesterday, I don't even know who played.
Cyberspace: keeping people from being stoned to death by angry mobs for over a decade.
Evangelicalese as She is Spoke
A century ago, the immortal Pedro Carolino, an enterprising Portuguese, created the delightful work "English as She is Spoke". It was an English/Portuguese phrasebook to help the Portuguese holidaymaker communicate with power and eloquence to his English-speaking hosts in America and England. As you might guess from the title, Carolino's reach exceeded his grasp. He did not, in fact, know any English. However, nothing daunted, he acquired an English/French phrasebook and a French/Portuguese phrasebook and set to work educating his countrymen on various English "phrases and idiotisms" such as "The dog that bark than bite" and "to craunch a marmoset".
Seeking the intercession of Blessed Pedro Carolino, I propose something similar and ask for your input as I begin collecting ideas for my own phrasebook. This will not be cross-lingual, but cross-cultural. For I propose to draft a Catholic/Evangelical phrasebook which will translate ideas and concepts used in one culture into the language of the other.
For example, "Ministry" means, in Evangelicalese, what Catholics mean by "apostolate". Other samples include the following:
Catholic term/Evangelical cognate
Merit/fruitfulness
charism/spiritual gift
venial sin/stumbling
mortal sin/backsliding
formation/discipleship
etc.
I'm trying to think of other cognate terms. Can you think of any?
A century ago, the immortal Pedro Carolino, an enterprising Portuguese, created the delightful work "English as She is Spoke". It was an English/Portuguese phrasebook to help the Portuguese holidaymaker communicate with power and eloquence to his English-speaking hosts in America and England. As you might guess from the title, Carolino's reach exceeded his grasp. He did not, in fact, know any English. However, nothing daunted, he acquired an English/French phrasebook and a French/Portuguese phrasebook and set to work educating his countrymen on various English "phrases and idiotisms" such as "The dog that bark than bite" and "to craunch a marmoset".
Seeking the intercession of Blessed Pedro Carolino, I propose something similar and ask for your input as I begin collecting ideas for my own phrasebook. This will not be cross-lingual, but cross-cultural. For I propose to draft a Catholic/Evangelical phrasebook which will translate ideas and concepts used in one culture into the language of the other.
For example, "Ministry" means, in Evangelicalese, what Catholics mean by "apostolate". Other samples include the following:
Catholic term/Evangelical cognate
Merit/fruitfulness
charism/spiritual gift
venial sin/stumbling
mortal sin/backsliding
formation/discipleship
etc.
I'm trying to think of other cognate terms. Can you think of any?
Excellent! Bp. Grahmann feels the heat
Bp. Grahmann, a close running contender for the coveted Worst Still-Serving American Bishop prize, is discovering you can't jerk your flock around forever. Other bishops will be learning this important lesson too.
Bp. Grahmann, a close running contender for the coveted Worst Still-Serving American Bishop prize, is discovering you can't jerk your flock around forever. Other bishops will be learning this important lesson too.
Julianne Wiley writes
Gotta love Julianne's particularly brilliant observation that you cannot recognize the Body of Christ whom you have not seen if you don't recognize the body of a human being whom you have seen.
Dear Catholic friends,
A wonder of wonders, something to be truly thankful for! Bishop William Weigand of the Diocese of Sacramento has confronted Gov. Gray Davis and other pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians: "As your bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone -- politician or otherwise -- who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the Church. Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart."
You can read it for yourself at http://diocese-sacramento.org/bishops/bishop.prolife.homily.2003.htm. Please take a look. It's a blueprint for what EVERY bishop should be saying.
I'm sure the good Bishop will catch hell for this--- All The Usual Suspects will say he's "hateful," "judgmental," etc. ---- so I urge you all to buck him up a little: let him know you think he's doing the right thing.
I'm including my own letter here, maybe to inspire you?
--------------
January 23, 2003
Bishop William K. Weigand
Diocese of Sacramento
2110 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95818-2541
Dear Bishop Weigand,
I am writing to thank you--- from the heart---- for your recent statement that politicians who support abortion ought to abstain from Holy Communion.
St. Paul clearly taught "For he who eats and drinks [communion] in an unworthy manner, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor.11:29) It is impossible that a person could discern the divinity of what looks like a wafer of bread, while denying the humanity of what looks like a tiny baby! A baby --- may I add--- made in the Image and Likeness of God.
Thus a person who approves of abortion, does not discern "the Body"--- the body of the Child who is an icon of God!
As Bishop, it is not only your right, but your solemn duty to prevent openly pro-abortion politicians from receiving the Lord's Body unworthily. It is your duty to the politician himself--- that he may not incur the sin of sacrilege. It is your duty to the congregation --- that they may not take scandal. And it is your duty to the Sacrament --- that It might not suffer profanation.
I appreciate your strong teaching in this matter. It lifts my heart to see holiness and truth upheld by one of Christ's shepherds!
Gratefully,
Gotta love Julianne's particularly brilliant observation that you cannot recognize the Body of Christ whom you have not seen if you don't recognize the body of a human being whom you have seen.
Snow Day
A belated link to my latest on Catholic Exchange. Dedicated to all you folks who are sick of snow. You live in a world of wonders and have forgotten it.
A belated link to my latest on Catholic Exchange. Dedicated to all you folks who are sick of snow. You live in a world of wonders and have forgotten it.
Thursday, January 23, 2003
I'm outta here
Off to Canada, home of Kathy Shaidle, Back Bacon, William Shatner, and my Mom, to hang around with the students at Redeemer Pacific. Then, on Saturday, it's "A Day with Mark Shea". Where: St. Nicholas Parish, 20675 87th Avenue, Langley, BC, Canada. When: 10am-4pm. Sponsor: Redeemer Pacific College, Langley, BC. Phone: 604-888-7727. Website: www.rpconferences.com.
Hope you can come if you live somewhere in the region!
Off to Canada, home of Kathy Shaidle, Back Bacon, William Shatner, and my Mom, to hang around with the students at Redeemer Pacific. Then, on Saturday, it's "A Day with Mark Shea". Where: St. Nicholas Parish, 20675 87th Avenue, Langley, BC, Canada. When: 10am-4pm. Sponsor: Redeemer Pacific College, Langley, BC. Phone: 604-888-7727. Website: www.rpconferences.com.
Hope you can come if you live somewhere in the region!
Russ Lopez, Spokesman for Gray Davis (and AmChurch) sez...
Bishops should stop "telling the faithful how to practice their faith."
And the job of a bishop is....?
Bishops should stop "telling the faithful how to practice their faith."
And the job of a bishop is....?
Wow!
Bp. William Weigand to Gov. Gray Davis of California: Renounce your support of abortion rights or stop taking Holy Communion!
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Bishop Weigand! Please donate your spine chromosomes to the rest of the American episcopacy!
Bp. William Weigand to Gov. Gray Davis of California: Renounce your support of abortion rights or stop taking Holy Communion!
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Bishop Weigand! Please donate your spine chromosomes to the rest of the American episcopacy!
Australia is burning down
Serves them right for having summer at such a stupid time of year. Also, it's hard for the firefighters to get to the scene since everybody walks upside down there.
Serves them right for having summer at such a stupid time of year. Also, it's hard for the firefighters to get to the scene since everybody walks upside down there.
When Worlds Collide
I've mentioned in the past the difference in jargon and culture between those who speak Catholicese and those who speak Evangelicalese. Eve Tushnet, in the midst of her adventures at the prolife march on Washington, recounts this little vignette:
As a bilingual Evangelical Catholic, I find this hilarious.
By the way, Eve also notes the *youth* of the crowd. Aging Boomer Narcissists take note. Your cult of selfishness has earned the scorn of your children. Perhaps they've begun to figure out that they're only here because they weren't murdered by the most narcissistic generation in history. Nothing makes you appreciate life like being shot at without effect.
I've mentioned in the past the difference in jargon and culture between those who speak Catholicese and those who speak Evangelicalese. Eve Tushnet, in the midst of her adventures at the prolife march on Washington, recounts this little vignette:
Fun with Protestants: We ran into a group from the Oligarch's area of Virginia, and one of the marchers asked us, "And where do you fellowship at?" Slight pause, Oligarch correctly translates this as "What church do you belong to?" and answers, but later notes wryly, "Yeah, I 'fellowship at' [St. X], except I go there alone, and I don't talk to anyone!"
As a bilingual Evangelical Catholic, I find this hilarious.
By the way, Eve also notes the *youth* of the crowd. Aging Boomer Narcissists take note. Your cult of selfishness has earned the scorn of your children. Perhaps they've begun to figure out that they're only here because they weren't murdered by the most narcissistic generation in history. Nothing makes you appreciate life like being shot at without effect.
One of the canards of the pro-aborts is...
"Nobody *wants* to have an abortion. It's not about hating children, it's about survival!"
Um, actually for some psycho-feminists it's about hating children.
Radical evil, you see, is real. Such people tempt me to reconsider my position on the death penalty.
"Nobody *wants* to have an abortion. It's not about hating children, it's about survival!"
Um, actually for some psycho-feminists it's about hating children.
Radical evil, you see, is real. Such people tempt me to reconsider my position on the death penalty.
Now *that* was weird!
I just got a call from the White House. Yes. That White House. Deal Hudson of Crisis Magazine (who apparently does stuff for the White House) wants me to participate in some conference call about something or other.
The White House? This is too weird. What does a fat English major like me have to say to the White House? There's been some mistake.
I just got a call from the White House. Yes. That White House. Deal Hudson of Crisis Magazine (who apparently does stuff for the White House) wants me to participate in some conference call about something or other.
The White House? This is too weird. What does a fat English major like me have to say to the White House? There's been some mistake.
Overheard
Sean, my five year old: Hey Peter! Let's play Civil War.
Peter, my seven year old: Okay.
Sean: I'll be the helicopter pilot.
Peter: Okay, and I'll be the French soldier.
Sean, my five year old: Hey Peter! Let's play Civil War.
Peter, my seven year old: Okay.
Sean: I'll be the helicopter pilot.
Peter: Okay, and I'll be the French soldier.
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
From the "That Didn't Come Out the Way I Meant it To" Dept.
"If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."
Somebody at the Boston Globe actually wrote this. Somebody else at the Boston Globe actually read it and approved it for publication. Then, the Boston Globe actually published it--in a piece intended as Kennedy hagiography.
Somebody is now asking themselves, "What the hell was I thinking?"
Here's the inimitable Mark Steyn on it.
"Infelicitous". Yeah. That's the word.
"If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."
Somebody at the Boston Globe actually wrote this. Somebody else at the Boston Globe actually read it and approved it for publication. Then, the Boston Globe actually published it--in a piece intended as Kennedy hagiography.
Somebody is now asking themselves, "What the hell was I thinking?"
Here's the inimitable Mark Steyn on it.
"Infelicitous". Yeah. That's the word.
An objection to the Planned Parenthood Poster and Slogan Contest
To any women exploited by abortion:
The contest was in no way intended to be a swipe at those wounded by the exploitation of abortion mongers like PP. It was intended to be a swipe at PP and was done in response to Planned Parenthood's twin outrages of a "poster contest" (irony alert: Parental permission was required for kids to submit something), and their grotesque "Choice on Earth" Christmas card. Such outrages are fit subjects of satire and ridiculing PP is one of the most effective ways I know of helping to diminish their horrible and exploitive grip on women in crisis.
My sincerest apologies to any woman whose pain has been exacerbated. It was those who exploited and harmed you, not you, that I was directing my scorn at.
To any women exploited by abortion:
The contest was in no way intended to be a swipe at those wounded by the exploitation of abortion mongers like PP. It was intended to be a swipe at PP and was done in response to Planned Parenthood's twin outrages of a "poster contest" (irony alert: Parental permission was required for kids to submit something), and their grotesque "Choice on Earth" Christmas card. Such outrages are fit subjects of satire and ridiculing PP is one of the most effective ways I know of helping to diminish their horrible and exploitive grip on women in crisis.
My sincerest apologies to any woman whose pain has been exacerbated. It was those who exploited and harmed you, not you, that I was directing my scorn at.
A Little Gedanken Experiment to Demonstrate a Point I Made Below
Here's a news piece courtesy of Justin Katz, concerning a skit done by Penn and Teller that has offended some:
People need to lighten up and not be so sensitive. You have to admit that those darn Negros sure take King too seriously. I mean, he's dead. Get over it.
Oh. I'm sorry. I got the story wrong. Apparently this is what really happened:
People need to lighten up and not be so sensitive. You have to admit that those darn Christers sure take Jesus too seriously. I mean, he's dead. Get over it.
-----
In our culture, both the first version of the story *and* the language I used to downplay it would tar anybody that used it as a moral leper unfit for human society (and rightly so). It is a form of blasphemy since it attacks something our culture still manages to understand as sacred: the image of God in the human person no matter what color his skin.
In the second sample, both the story and the language I used to downplay it are regarded as mildly unconventional but nothing to get your knickers in a twist about. Certainly the idea of boycotting Penn and Teller or of striking the cretin who defended them off a speaking roster at a Democratic convention for such views would never be entertained. Reason: it's not blasphemous since our society does not hold Christ to be sacred.
Now the interesting problem which will face our culture in the future is this: The only reason "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is because of the Judeo-Christian heritage people like Penn and Teller piss on. There is zero empirical evidence for belief in human equality, and therefore, for the work of Dr. King, by Penn and Teller's lights. It is purely mystical, a remant of the Christian worldview they and thousands like them are laboring to destroy. It will be just a matter of time before somebody (no doubt a brilliant skeptic with a clever pen) points out that, from an empirical standpoint, nothing is less evident than the equality of human beings. Human vary in strength, intelligence, character, abilities, and a thousand other things. Spit on the revelation that human beings are in the image of God and the mystical truth that "God is no respecter of persons" and you annihilate the only basis there has ever been for belief in human equality. All that's left after that is the rule of Might Makes Right.
Here's a news piece courtesy of Justin Katz, concerning a skit done by Penn and Teller that has offended some:
The skit, performed last week in Las Vegas, included Teller, dressed as Martin Luther King, in blackface, standing on a balcony. According to the column, a midget dressed as Rosa Parks "performed a simulated sex act on the near-naked Teller." Penn, in a Klu Klux Klan costume, unveiled the scene by opening a window modeled after that through which James Earl Ray fired his rifle.
People need to lighten up and not be so sensitive. You have to admit that those darn Negros sure take King too seriously. I mean, he's dead. Get over it.
Oh. I'm sorry. I got the story wrong. Apparently this is what really happened:
The skit, performed last week in Las Vegas, included Teller, dressed as Christ on a full-size cross, entering the room on a cart. According to the column, a midget dressed as an angel "performed a simulated sex act on the near-naked Teller." Penn, in a Roman gladiator costume, unveiled the scene by pulling away a "Shroud of Turin" that covered the cross.
People need to lighten up and not be so sensitive. You have to admit that those darn Christers sure take Jesus too seriously. I mean, he's dead. Get over it.
-----
In our culture, both the first version of the story *and* the language I used to downplay it would tar anybody that used it as a moral leper unfit for human society (and rightly so). It is a form of blasphemy since it attacks something our culture still manages to understand as sacred: the image of God in the human person no matter what color his skin.
In the second sample, both the story and the language I used to downplay it are regarded as mildly unconventional but nothing to get your knickers in a twist about. Certainly the idea of boycotting Penn and Teller or of striking the cretin who defended them off a speaking roster at a Democratic convention for such views would never be entertained. Reason: it's not blasphemous since our society does not hold Christ to be sacred.
Now the interesting problem which will face our culture in the future is this: The only reason "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is because of the Judeo-Christian heritage people like Penn and Teller piss on. There is zero empirical evidence for belief in human equality, and therefore, for the work of Dr. King, by Penn and Teller's lights. It is purely mystical, a remant of the Christian worldview they and thousands like them are laboring to destroy. It will be just a matter of time before somebody (no doubt a brilliant skeptic with a clever pen) points out that, from an empirical standpoint, nothing is less evident than the equality of human beings. Human vary in strength, intelligence, character, abilities, and a thousand other things. Spit on the revelation that human beings are in the image of God and the mystical truth that "God is no respecter of persons" and you annihilate the only basis there has ever been for belief in human equality. All that's left after that is the rule of Might Makes Right.
Glenn Reynolds again proves Chesterton right
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
According to Reynolds, the Supreme Court has a perfect right to enact abortion on demand by means of raw judicial fiat. But Congress has no right to rectify this incredible abuse of judicial power and return rights to the states. Federal power is like a roach motel. State's rights go into it, but they can never come out again.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
According to Reynolds, the Supreme Court has a perfect right to enact abortion on demand by means of raw judicial fiat. But Congress has no right to rectify this incredible abuse of judicial power and return rights to the states. Federal power is like a roach motel. State's rights go into it, but they can never come out again.
Dreher v. Goldberg
...on the Death Penalty. Dreher knocks 'im dead. His argument is a killer. He murders him! It's a slaughter! He doesn't leave us hanging. He fires away!
(Just trying to inject humor.) [slap!]
By the way, for one of the more dramatic examples of the corrosive effects of "gallows be thy name" obsession with Maximum Death from allegedly Christian people, read this very clear and bold statement for life (courtesy of Amy's blog) and then witness this extraordinary exchange in her comments boxes. One of the most amazing contortions of logic I've seen from the pro-death penalty crowd in quite a while. Somehow, the bishop's statement of support for the unborn transmogrifies into a basis for a charge of indifference to the victims of 9/11. Fascinating how the sin of anger eats at reason like a canker.
Update: the case for capital punishment in Amy's comments box has now climaxed with this stunning complaint against Evil Pope JPII and his Horrible Requests for Mercy: "If Jesus followed the Pope's example, He would have organized protests at all crucifixion sites." I think this is without question one of the weirdest, flesh-creepingest rhetorical misfires ever written by a Christian Death Penalty Maximalist.
...on the Death Penalty. Dreher knocks 'im dead. His argument is a killer. He murders him! It's a slaughter! He doesn't leave us hanging. He fires away!
(Just trying to inject humor.) [slap!]
By the way, for one of the more dramatic examples of the corrosive effects of "gallows be thy name" obsession with Maximum Death from allegedly Christian people, read this very clear and bold statement for life (courtesy of Amy's blog) and then witness this extraordinary exchange in her comments boxes. One of the most amazing contortions of logic I've seen from the pro-death penalty crowd in quite a while. Somehow, the bishop's statement of support for the unborn transmogrifies into a basis for a charge of indifference to the victims of 9/11. Fascinating how the sin of anger eats at reason like a canker.
Update: the case for capital punishment in Amy's comments box has now climaxed with this stunning complaint against Evil Pope JPII and his Horrible Requests for Mercy: "If Jesus followed the Pope's example, He would have organized protests at all crucifixion sites." I think this is without question one of the weirdest, flesh-creepingest rhetorical misfires ever written by a Christian Death Penalty Maximalist.
Dreher v. Neuhaus
Some time ago, Rod Dreher wrote a lament for the Wall Street Journal called "The Pope Has Let Us Down"
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus replied to this in First Things:
Now, Dreher's response has been published (along with a brief reply from Neuhaus) in the February FT:
Some time ago, Rod Dreher wrote a lament for the Wall Street Journal called "The Pope Has Let Us Down"
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus replied to this in First Things:
It is the exaggeration that offends, and the self-pity that galls. Rod Dreher of National Review has played a prominent role in publicizing Catholic scandals, and has made valuable contributions along the way. He writes about the difficulty in getting his family “through the present storm with its faith in Catholicism intact.” For instance: “You try—humiliatingly—to figure out how to tell your little boy that it can be dangerous to his body and soul to trust priests, the foremost icons of Christ in the daily lives of Catholics.” He should stop figuring. He should not tell that to his little boy. Sexual abuse, in the vast majority of cases, is perpetrated by relatives and by friends and members of the immediate family. Should a father tell his little boy not to trust his uncles or, for that matter, his teachers? A sensible parent who has any reason to believe that his child may be endangered by a particular adult has ways to make sure that the child is never alone with that adult. It is a cruel thing needlessly to instill in a child distrust toward those whom they admire. It is a scurrilous thing to suggest, as Mr. Dreher does, that priests in general, as distinct from the one or two percent who stand convicted or in any way accused, are to be suspected of abusing children. In the same article, Dreher blames John Paul II, who “retains in office a host of American bishops defiled by their indifference to the victims of depraved priests under their authority.” He is wrong again. Many bishops did not do all they should have done or did what was then, but is not now, thought to be the right thing to do. But “a host” of bishops “indifferent” to the sexual abuse of children? That is not true. The Pope could, says Dreher, remove such bishops “with a stroke of his pen.” That, too, is not true. Then the “host” of wicked bishops becomes a “legion.” The scandals, we are given to understand, have been very difficult for Rod Dreher. “Unless [the Pope] takes dramatic action to restore the Church to holiness—starting with deposing this legion of bad bishops—his criticism of modern society will ring hollow in the heart of this faithful American Catholic. And that is painful beyond words to say.” Does Mr. Dreher really mean to say that the heroic life and witness of John Paul has been for naught? What the Pope says, for instance, about the culture of life vs. the culture of death rings hollow to Rod Dreher, faithful Catholic. Or, as he puts it, faithful American Catholic. So very American. Of John Paul he writes, “I find it impossible any longer to give him the benefit of every doubt, as is the custom of many papal loyalists.” If there really is doubt, one might think that faithful Catholics would give the Pope the benefit of it. Dreher, on the other hand, appears to have no doubt about the charges he levels against the Pope and a host of bishops, nor about the distrust deserved by priests in general. We know that Mr. Dreher has had a difficult year. A lot of people are hurting, some even more than Mr. Dreher. It should not be denied that Rod Dreher is on many matters a talented and very professional journalist. Loyal friends—Dreher loyalists, so to speak—should give him the benefit of the hope that he will in the future write more honestly, informedly, and responsibly about the Church that he undoubtedly loves.
Now, Dreher's response has been published (along with a brief reply from Neuhaus) in the February FT:
A PREJUDICED READING?
One must expect to be attacked when one writes an op-ed piece as controversial as my Wall Street Journal column "The Pope Has Let Us Down" (August 25, 2002). But one ought to be able to expect an attack coming from someone of the stature of Richard John Neuhaus to be fair, at the very least. His broadside against me (While We're At It, November 2002) is inaccurate in its facts and unjust in its conclusions.
If the only acquaintance First Things readers had with my Journal piece was through Father Neuhaus' selective rendering, they would not know that I wrote of my "tears and awe and gratitude for this holy Pope," a pope whose writings I described as "a treasure for all mankind," and of whom I predicted that "my descendants will surely and rightly call ... St. John Paul the Great." I wrote those things because I believe them. Yet Fr. Neuhaus ignored these words. Why? Because, I believe, those words make it harder for him to advance his hysterical straw-man thesis that I wish to say "that the heroic life and witness of John Paul has been for naught."
I don't intend to rewrite the column here, but Fr. Neuhaus' reading of it is so prejudicial that the record should be set straight. The clear meaning of my column was that the Holy Father's lack of effective governance of the Church over the course of his long pontificate has contributed to the catastrophe now upon the Church in America -- and that, given the goodness and greatness of the man, is a profoundly sad and tragic thing. Indeed, I began my column praising the Pope for his homily preached days earlier to two million Poles, which condemned modern man's embrace of "freedom without truth or responsibility." However (I wrote), it is painfully difficult to square the man who has so bravely witnessed to these truths as Universal Pastor with the man who has presided over an episcopate that has ignored his clear and welcome teaching -- and has suffered no penalty for its defiance of papal authority and Church teaching. Not even the rape of children by deviant priests, and the effective tolerance of same by bishops, has moved the Pope to discipline these men. How is it that a holy man like John Paul can appear to care so little about the suffering his bishops have allowed to be visited on Catholic children and families by sexually abusive priests? It is a question that troubles all of us who love and obey this Pope, but I don't see how it can be ignored for the sake of keeping our consciences untroubled.
A secondary point I made -- but which was ignored by Fr. Neuhaus -- was that this neglect has also made itself manifest in other areas of Church life, such as liturgical abuses and the rejection of Catholic teaching by Catholic institutions. This is what I meant when I wrote that it is hard to tell my little boy "that it can be dangerous to his body and soul to trust priests." I have little fear that a priest will molest my son. Yet it is still an outrage to be put in the position of having to explain to a child after Sunday Mass, time and time again, that the Church actually teaches something different from what Father said in his homily -- in other words, that Father is something of a fraud. John Paul cannot be expected to police every pulpit in Christendom, of course, but the decay in catechesis and Church discipline that has occurred on his watch is undeniable.
My message in the column was that the Pope, by his misgovernance, is hollowing out the meaning and authority of his prophetic witness. Who is supposed to take the Holy Father seriously when he thunders against he evils of the modern world when he cannot, or will not, move against the evils perpetrated by his bishops? For years, I and Catholics like me have found every possible excuse for the Holy Father's inaction. "Oh, if only John Paul knew!" I've said to myself on many occasions. Well, he knows. What are we supposed to make of this? Is it so far off the mark to wonder if the protection of the perceived interests of the institutional Church means more to the Holy Father than the faithful and their needs?
If asking those questions makes me "so very American" as Fr. Neuhaus puts it (with a barely veiled accusation of disloyalty), then I proudly accept the label. I affirm that I am a believing orthodox Roman Catholic, but if being American means anything, it means not acquiescing in being treated like chattel by one's supposed betters. The laity and their children are not mere subjects meant to be at the unquestioned disposal of ecclesial monarchs. Why is it disloyal to protest the way that the Catholic hierarchy, including the Pope, has treated us in the matter of the sexual-abuse scandal? If Fr. Neuhaus does not perceive that this is a question on the minds of very many faithful Catholics, then he is even more out of touch than I thought. And if he does not recognize the justice of that question, and the pain asking it causes a Catholic father, then such hard-hearted clericalism makes him -- well, possibly a candidate for the episcopate.
Speaking for myself, I cannot think indifference to the harm suffered by the victims of clergy sexual abuse or to the harm done to the Church itself would in any way be consistent with my profession of faith as a Catholic or my calling as a journalist. Along those lines, I note that Fr. Neuhaus has spilled buckets of ink writing about the scandal, but surprisingly little of it addressing the plight of sex-abuse victims and their families. Fr. Neuhaus has no children, obviously, but I cannot help thinking he spends little, if any, time talking to Catholic lay people as well as fellow clerics and theologians. I hope that he will avail himself of the opportunity to contact grieving Catholic mothers and fathers like Horace and Janet Patterson of Wichita, Kansas, whose testimony helped my understanding of this crisis tremendously. Their son Eric committed suicide at age twenty-nine -- one of five men, all suicides, molested by the same priest in the 1980s, a priest (now in jail) known by his bishop to be a molester, yet assigned to parish work anyway. Does what happened in Wichita have nothing to do with Rome? Maybe the Editor-in-Chief of First Things thinks so, but if that is the case, he is not only wrong, but is circling the wagons around increasingly smaller company.
ROD DREHER
Brooklyn, NY
RJN REPLIES: It is true that I quoted and criticized those parts of Mr. Dreher's article with which I disagreed, not those with which I agreed. I leave it to readers to judge whether what I have written about the scandals as been unduly deferential toward or defensive of bishops and indifferent to the victims. Any fair-minded reader of Mr. Dreher's essay, I believe, would have concluded that he does fear that priests might molest his son, not that bad homilies pose a danger to the boy's body. Mr. Dreher will, I trust, be pleased to know that I have had many more discussions of these matters with lay people than with clerics. As for my analysis of the sins of clericalism, please see last month's commentary on that, "The Bishops in Charge."
Blogs4God Recalls the Planned Parenthood slogan contest
Thirty Years. Forty million. God have mercy on us.
Thirty Years. Forty million. God have mercy on us.
From the Strange Bedfellows Dept.
Check out the names of the sponsors of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Check out the names of the sponsors of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
More on the "Conservative Does not Equal Orthodox" Front
Kevin Miller takes issue with NR's endorsement of Bill Gates' India AIDS Initiative. Gates, like most rich men, is all agog for the "Just Enough of Us, Way Too Much of You" theory of race relations with the Third World and urges condoms on those funny dark-skinned people wherever he goes. (He's also a big PP supporter.) Like most liberals, he naturally puts "choice" before the good of the family. Meanwhile, conservatives (who tend to put the interests of the corporation before the family) endorse him (proving once again the truth of Chesterton's observation: ""The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.") But, as Miller argues, the authentic orthodox position is to put the interests of the family at the heart of society and ahead of the individual or the corporation or state. As Catholics, our view of the human person is founded on the revelation of the Holy Trinity.
Kevin Miller takes issue with NR's endorsement of Bill Gates' India AIDS Initiative. Gates, like most rich men, is all agog for the "Just Enough of Us, Way Too Much of You" theory of race relations with the Third World and urges condoms on those funny dark-skinned people wherever he goes. (He's also a big PP supporter.) Like most liberals, he naturally puts "choice" before the good of the family. Meanwhile, conservatives (who tend to put the interests of the corporation before the family) endorse him (proving once again the truth of Chesterton's observation: ""The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.") But, as Miller argues, the authentic orthodox position is to put the interests of the family at the heart of society and ahead of the individual or the corporation or state. As Catholics, our view of the human person is founded on the revelation of the Holy Trinity.
Somebody below asked "How do you 'practice atheism'?"
Well, in the US, "practicing atheism" typically means sneering at Christianity, since this is the dominant religion. Lately, the sneers have been extended to Islam for understandable reasons. Judaism gets fewer sneers, since atheists are as sensitive to charges of anti-semitism as the rest of us and Judaism is unique in that it has an ethnic as well as religious character. Since Americans are obsessed with sin against race, they are more cautious there.
Atheists do not spend a great deal of time fretting about non-Western religions. Few atheist websites spend many electrons sneering at animism, or Sun worship, or Norse religion. As Chesterton said, if you want to know what a culture holds sacred, just look at what it considers blasphemous. "If you don't believe it," said Chesterton, "try to have a blasphemous thought about Loki."
Interestingly, the most volatile terms in our culture are not religious, but ethnic. Take the name of the Lord in vain and nobody frets much. Say "niggardly" and a hush of dread falls over the crowd. That too, tells you what we regard as sacred.
This, by the way, should be a caution for us. Nothing is held sacred for long without generating a perverse backlash. A certain percentage of people will applaud *anything* they deem as "transgressive" against the Establishment. Civil rights have made legitimate gains in the past century. That will be endangered, not by 19th Century KKK types longing for the past, but by 21st punks who think they are being "daring" by blaspheming accepted Establishment figures like Martin Luther King. Look for the day when the same negating mentality that animates mindless atheism is turned from Christian sacred things to secular sacred things. If it can be held sacred, it will be blasphemed by somebody. And the blasphemer *always* congratulates himself on being a cut above the common herd of mankind.
Well, in the US, "practicing atheism" typically means sneering at Christianity, since this is the dominant religion. Lately, the sneers have been extended to Islam for understandable reasons. Judaism gets fewer sneers, since atheists are as sensitive to charges of anti-semitism as the rest of us and Judaism is unique in that it has an ethnic as well as religious character. Since Americans are obsessed with sin against race, they are more cautious there.
Atheists do not spend a great deal of time fretting about non-Western religions. Few atheist websites spend many electrons sneering at animism, or Sun worship, or Norse religion. As Chesterton said, if you want to know what a culture holds sacred, just look at what it considers blasphemous. "If you don't believe it," said Chesterton, "try to have a blasphemous thought about Loki."
Interestingly, the most volatile terms in our culture are not religious, but ethnic. Take the name of the Lord in vain and nobody frets much. Say "niggardly" and a hush of dread falls over the crowd. That too, tells you what we regard as sacred.
This, by the way, should be a caution for us. Nothing is held sacred for long without generating a perverse backlash. A certain percentage of people will applaud *anything* they deem as "transgressive" against the Establishment. Civil rights have made legitimate gains in the past century. That will be endangered, not by 19th Century KKK types longing for the past, but by 21st punks who think they are being "daring" by blaspheming accepted Establishment figures like Martin Luther King. Look for the day when the same negating mentality that animates mindless atheism is turned from Christian sacred things to secular sacred things. If it can be held sacred, it will be blasphemed by somebody. And the blasphemer *always* congratulates himself on being a cut above the common herd of mankind.
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
In Requiem
"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?" - (Saint) Teresa of Calcutta, February 3, 1994. Speaking truth to Clintonoid power at the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, DC
Holy Innocents, pray for us!
"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?" - (Saint) Teresa of Calcutta, February 3, 1994. Speaking truth to Clintonoid power at the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, DC
Holy Innocents, pray for us!
For All Youse Folks in the Seattle Area
The Chesterton Society is big fun. As a founding member, sometime organizer, and enthusiastic supporter, I urge you to come join us!
The G. K. Chesterton Society Presents:
"John Henry Newman and Victorian Religion"
A Lecture by Edward Alexander, Ph.D.,
Department of English, University of Washington.
Smith Hall
Room 105
University of Washington
Wednesday, January 29, 7:30 PM
All attendees are invited to enjoy refreshments (pizza and pop) after the talk and discussion.
Check out the new Chesterton Society website for up-to-date information about Chesterton meetings.
Remaining Chesterton Meetings for the 2002-3 Academic Year
Feb. 26, 7:30, Fireside Room, Student Union Building, Seattle Pacific University. Dale Ahlquist, President, The American Chesterton Society. "The Undiscovered Chesterton." Co-sponsored by the Discovery Institute.
April 23, 7:30, Casey Commons, Seattle University. Andrew Tadie, Department of English, Seattle University, lecture to be announced. (James Mesa of Newman University was originally scheduled to speak on this date. We regret to announce that he is seriously ill.)
May 21, 7:30, Casey Commons, Seattle University. Fr. James Schall, Department of Political Science, Georgetown University. "On Seeing What Is: Hillaire Belloc on Walking"
The G. K. Chesterton Society sponsors lectures and discussion aimed at facilitating a Catholic perspective on issues of interest to current students. For more information, call or write Phillip Goggans (206-281-2080).
The Chesterton Society is big fun. As a founding member, sometime organizer, and enthusiastic supporter, I urge you to come join us!
As the world stood on the brink of war, one man took a stand for the thing that really matters!
Robert Sungenis, Champion of Geocentrism, Fights Back Against the Forces that Seek to Plunge the World into the Darkness of Heliocentrism
The hilarious part is that the article right next to this on their front page laments that "Rome is fiddling" while the Church is burning. If only Rome would concern itself with the truly Great Issues of the Day, like geocentrism.
CAI: Death before relevance!
Robert Sungenis, Champion of Geocentrism, Fights Back Against the Forces that Seek to Plunge the World into the Darkness of Heliocentrism
The hilarious part is that the article right next to this on their front page laments that "Rome is fiddling" while the Church is burning. If only Rome would concern itself with the truly Great Issues of the Day, like geocentrism.
CAI: Death before relevance!
Have I mentioned to you Midwesterners and Easterners that we were gardening just the other day?
Gosh! It's like spring here in the Great Pacific Northwest! Beautiful! Oh, sure, a bit drizzly today. But gee whiz it's so warm! Warm, warm, warm!
Yessirree bob. A green and pleasant land, Seattle! So unlike... well, where you live.
Gosh! It's like spring here in the Great Pacific Northwest! Beautiful! Oh, sure, a bit drizzly today. But gee whiz it's so warm! Warm, warm, warm!
Yessirree bob. A green and pleasant land, Seattle! So unlike... well, where you live.
From the Wacky Archdiocese that brings you:
Blessings for Threesomes
Wiccan associates of Holy Name Sisters
The most Unchurched State in the Union
It's Director Wingnut and "Movement of the spirit! [sic] Satyagraha!"
Gee! What a surprise, no mention of the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Blessings for Threesomes
Wiccan associates of Holy Name Sisters
The most Unchurched State in the Union
It's Director Wingnut and "Movement of the spirit! [sic] Satyagraha!"
Gee! What a surprise, no mention of the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Kevin Miller smells a rat
Not hard to do when Al Sharpton's in the room.
Padre, it takes a helluva bogeyman to destroy the World Trade Center.
Not hard to do when Al Sharpton's in the room.
Padre, it takes a helluva bogeyman to destroy the World Trade Center.
Everything in the Gay Community is Juuuuuust Fine
I'm sure 25% of every population group deliberately seeks to be infected with AIDS. What could be a better barometer of the spiritual health of a community than a fond desire for a lingering horrible death?
The "actual moment of transmission" is "the most erotic thing [he] can imagine." Yep. Only a bigot could find that sentiment sick and twisted.
I'm sure 25% of every population group deliberately seeks to be infected with AIDS. What could be a better barometer of the spiritual health of a community than a fond desire for a lingering horrible death?
The "actual moment of transmission" is "the most erotic thing [he] can imagine." Yep. Only a bigot could find that sentiment sick and twisted.
More on the "Conservative Does not Equal Orthodox" Front
A reader writes:
A reader writes:
Here's some news from England:
Mobile phone companies are turning to soft porn in a bid to recoup the billions they have splashed out on third generation licenses.
I write this not to mindlessly bash corporations, but actually as a way of bolstering your "Conservative is not necessarily orthodox" argument. There is strain in conservatism that has an unwavering faith in big business. Yet, here's an example where an objective (albeit largely acceptable) evil - pornography - is being fostered by the phone companies to enhance their balance sheet.
I'll bet that little thought has been given to the number of lives that may be ruined by the easy access to pornography. In fact, the evil might even be considered good, making the decision all the easier. After all, jobs will be saved at the phone companies, pensioners will not see their retirement nest eggs and dividends diminish, and most importantly, adults ought to be free to choose for themselves what "content" they desire to see. I can imagine that a phone executive might even call it a difficult, but ultimately wise decision.
God, on the other hand, might see it differently [Isaiah 5:20-21]:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!
"Conservative" does not equal "Orthodox"
G.K. Chesterton once remarked that the opposite of "funny" is not "serious." The opposite of "funny" is "not funny". You can be serious and funny, or serious and not funny.
Similarly, you can be "conservative" and unorthodox. Bernard Law proved this. He was, by anybody's lights, a conservative sort. But when it came time to actually live and teach the faith and morals of the Catholic Church, he did not do so--for the sake of "conservatism". It is living and teaching the faith and morals of the Catholic Church that constitutes "orthodoxy". It is not "having a particular temperament", or "disliking change" or "being thought fondly of by the Pope" or "voting for Reagan" or "distrusting big government" or any of the other shibboleths.
Dorothy Day was, by any measure, a "liberal". She believed in all sorts of things that give conservatives the willies. She was also staunchly orthodox. When it came to a choice between believing and living Catholic faith and morals versus doing as she pleased, she went with obedience to Catholic faith and morals. She was orthodox. Fabian Bruskewitz is a "conservative". He is also orthodox, preferring Holy Faith above "not rocking the Boat". Bernard Law appears, by temperament, to be conservative. But by his actions he has demonstrated he was not orthodox. When it came to a choice between Catholic faith and morals versus his own natural conservative inclination to not Rock the Boat, he opted for his own natural human inclinations, not for obedience to Holy Faith.
Chesterton (again) made the remark that liberals invent new errors and then conservatives make sure that such errors go on being committed. This sums up political life outside the Garden. It also sums up the careers of Paul Shanley and Co. and their timid conservative-but-not-orthodox bishops. There is nothing human, apart from Christ, that is unfallen--conservatism among the rest. Conservatism, separate from Christ, puts itself ahead of God just as surely as liberalism does. It cannot save and can, indeed, create peculiar hells just as surely as liberalism apart from Christ can. The only hope is the actual faith of Jesus Christ, not our whittled-down and human ideologies, whether liberal or conservative, that continually try to substitute for it.
G.K. Chesterton once remarked that the opposite of "funny" is not "serious." The opposite of "funny" is "not funny". You can be serious and funny, or serious and not funny.
Similarly, you can be "conservative" and unorthodox. Bernard Law proved this. He was, by anybody's lights, a conservative sort. But when it came time to actually live and teach the faith and morals of the Catholic Church, he did not do so--for the sake of "conservatism". It is living and teaching the faith and morals of the Catholic Church that constitutes "orthodoxy". It is not "having a particular temperament", or "disliking change" or "being thought fondly of by the Pope" or "voting for Reagan" or "distrusting big government" or any of the other shibboleths.
Dorothy Day was, by any measure, a "liberal". She believed in all sorts of things that give conservatives the willies. She was also staunchly orthodox. When it came to a choice between believing and living Catholic faith and morals versus doing as she pleased, she went with obedience to Catholic faith and morals. She was orthodox. Fabian Bruskewitz is a "conservative". He is also orthodox, preferring Holy Faith above "not rocking the Boat". Bernard Law appears, by temperament, to be conservative. But by his actions he has demonstrated he was not orthodox. When it came to a choice between Catholic faith and morals versus his own natural conservative inclination to not Rock the Boat, he opted for his own natural human inclinations, not for obedience to Holy Faith.
Chesterton (again) made the remark that liberals invent new errors and then conservatives make sure that such errors go on being committed. This sums up political life outside the Garden. It also sums up the careers of Paul Shanley and Co. and their timid conservative-but-not-orthodox bishops. There is nothing human, apart from Christ, that is unfallen--conservatism among the rest. Conservatism, separate from Christ, puts itself ahead of God just as surely as liberalism does. It cannot save and can, indeed, create peculiar hells just as surely as liberalism apart from Christ can. The only hope is the actual faith of Jesus Christ, not our whittled-down and human ideologies, whether liberal or conservative, that continually try to substitute for it.
Suit Charges Seminary With Pro-Gay Teachings
Anybody know anything about this place? Hard to tell from the article what the merits of the suit are. I suspect a court is going to be loath to get too involved in the niceties of this quarrel. It isn't until crime is committed that Caesar gets involved. It's going to have to be the bishops that clean up heresy (not a consoling thought). It's just not Caesar's job, nor should it be.
And, of course, it might just be sour grapes from some guy who washed out of seminary. Hard to say.
Anybody know anything about this place? Hard to tell from the article what the merits of the suit are. I suspect a court is going to be loath to get too involved in the niceties of this quarrel. It isn't until crime is committed that Caesar gets involved. It's going to have to be the bishops that clean up heresy (not a consoling thought). It's just not Caesar's job, nor should it be.
And, of course, it might just be sour grapes from some guy who washed out of seminary. Hard to say.
Paul Thigpen writes:
Dear Catholic friends and bloggers:
Hope all of you are having a wonderful new year.
I have a favor to ask of you, and I'll certainly understand if you can't grant it.
The Holy Father recently declared a Year of the Rosary, and he is asking us to rediscover this wonderful prayer. In response to his request, I am collecting stories about the Rosary to publish in a book: true stories, brief or not-so-brief, from people who have had their lives changed by the Rosary, or who have experienced a powerful intervention of Our Lady through the Rosary--the more specific, the better. (References pointing me to such stories already in print, or to historical testimonies, would also be welcome.)
I don't need for people to write the stories; I simply want them to tell me in an email what happened, and I will write them up. There would be no financial remuneration for submitting a story, but if it were used in the book, folks would have the pleasure of sharing it, reading about it in print (I already have the contract), and knowing they were helping others to rediscover this Catholic treasure.
Would you be willing to post this as an item on your blog? Readers who have stories to share can email them to me at rosarystories@yahoo.com.
Thanks for any help you can give.
God bless,
Paul Thigpen
Why is this guy and his cronies being asked to leave Britain?
Why are they not being captured as prisoners of war?
By the way, could they have found somebody from Central Casting who more obviously screamed, "I AM EVIL!" just with his looks?
Why are they not being captured as prisoners of war?
By the way, could they have found somebody from Central Casting who more obviously screamed, "I AM EVIL!" just with his looks?
Amazing how the Internet Works
A reader sez:
She writes:
I'm afraid I don't know anything about Dr. Reisman so I'm no help there. Doug Sirman is a friend of mine and would not consciously bear false witness against anybody. So either Doug's right or he's gotten bad info, but he's not malicious. I hope they can work it out and will be interested in the resolution. Knowing Doug, it will be fair.
A reader sez:
I saw the Reisman story that you referenced in the "Cloud No Bigger Than A Man's Hand", and sent it off to some survivor activists. Then I visited the comment box, saw the link to the "Sirman" story, and sent THAT rebuttal of Reisman's charges to the same list.
Dr. Reisman has learned of this, and arises to defend her work.
She writes:
I have gotten this article of falsehoods from several friends, including Stephen Brady who suggested that you were an honest person.
The story below was planted by the Kinsey Institute many years ago. It surfaces every time Kinsey's well documented solicitation and yes payment of pedophiles and pederasts to sexually violate children is exposed to the light.
The Kinsey Institute has had over 20 years to disprove my findings. All are validated.
Anyone concerned about my data should go to my website, drjudithreisman.org, and browse through the documentation therein.
Those claiming to care about children are obligated to do so prior to assaulting my credibility.
Courteously,
Judith Reisman
I'm afraid I don't know anything about Dr. Reisman so I'm no help there. Doug Sirman is a friend of mine and would not consciously bear false witness against anybody. So either Doug's right or he's gotten bad info, but he's not malicious. I hope they can work it out and will be interested in the resolution. Knowing Doug, it will be fair.
Monday, January 20, 2003
A.N.S.W.E.R does its best to make the anti-war movement absolutely abhorrent to normal healthy people
You see, when I look for decent arguments against the war, I primarily see this stuff as the answer. Most unpersuasive, yet ANSWER is not a fringe freak show, ANSWER is the *organizer* and guiding light of the anti-war poltroon brigade. Where is the anti-Weigel? Somebody give me something serious here. I'm really interested in hearing it.
By the way, one of my readers asked, "Why are so many American Catholics so eager to put their own church's teaching and pronouncements in the closet? To me, there's not a lot of difference between the way we ignore the church on birth control and the way we ignore the church on war. Americans put their patriotism and political loyalties ahead of other values, that's clear. The left wants to pick and choose on birth control and abortion, the right wants to pick and choose on the death penalty and war."
Well, the difference, of course, is that the Church has bound our conscience with respect to birth control and abortion. They are intrinsically immoral (especially abortion). The Church has not bound our conscience with respect to the prospect of war with Iraq. It remains a prudential judgement and the American bishops have specifically said, "We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral judgments. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear."
With the death penalty, I agree that it should not be inflicted unless it is necessary to protect innocent life, but even that is not in the same ballpark as artificial contraception and (especially) abortion. The Church does not say the DP is intrinsically immoral. It grants Caesar's right to execute, but urges mercy.
Still, I hear you. There *is* a contempt for the Church's counsels of mercy on the right at times.
You see, when I look for decent arguments against the war, I primarily see this stuff as the answer. Most unpersuasive, yet ANSWER is not a fringe freak show, ANSWER is the *organizer* and guiding light of the anti-war poltroon brigade. Where is the anti-Weigel? Somebody give me something serious here. I'm really interested in hearing it.
By the way, one of my readers asked, "Why are so many American Catholics so eager to put their own church's teaching and pronouncements in the closet? To me, there's not a lot of difference between the way we ignore the church on birth control and the way we ignore the church on war. Americans put their patriotism and political loyalties ahead of other values, that's clear. The left wants to pick and choose on birth control and abortion, the right wants to pick and choose on the death penalty and war."
Well, the difference, of course, is that the Church has bound our conscience with respect to birth control and abortion. They are intrinsically immoral (especially abortion). The Church has not bound our conscience with respect to the prospect of war with Iraq. It remains a prudential judgement and the American bishops have specifically said, "We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral judgments. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear."
With the death penalty, I agree that it should not be inflicted unless it is necessary to protect innocent life, but even that is not in the same ballpark as artificial contraception and (especially) abortion. The Church does not say the DP is intrinsically immoral. It grants Caesar's right to execute, but urges mercy.
Still, I hear you. There *is* a contempt for the Church's counsels of mercy on the right at times.
Dem Acolytes of Culture of Death Adore Kali and Celebrate 30th Anniversary of the Institution of the Sacrament of Abortion
The Democratic Party: Whores for Baby-Killing for Nearly a Generation
What an achievement. And Holy Joe Lieberman and "Rev." Al Sharpton lead the procession to the Altar of Moloch. Orthodox Jew and "Christian" pastor, my ass.
The Democratic Party: Whores for Baby-Killing for Nearly a Generation
What an achievement. And Holy Joe Lieberman and "Rev." Al Sharpton lead the procession to the Altar of Moloch. Orthodox Jew and "Christian" pastor, my ass.
I haven't had a real TV for years and years
Consequently, I miss most of what's popular on the tube (gladly). I also see reruns only very sporadically (like when I'm out of town and have nothing to do in a hotel).
I recently saw MASH again after a long hiatus. Urk! It was like digging up something dead that should have stayed buried! Am I the only one who once thought MASH was a brilliant poke in the eye of the Establishment and who now thinks it is one of the creakiest, cheapest, sermonizing, Manichaean, shallow, and bromide-filled things to vex the idle hours of late night Rerunville? Sure, it's got snappy puns and dialogue but sheesh! Talk about a show that has not aged well! I remember Larry Linville once complaining bitterly that Frank Burns was not a character but a comic device who existed for the other characters to make fun of. I now see that every character who does not fully endorse the proto-PC aphorisms of Hawkeye and Co is that. There was an attempt at something besides demonization of the military with the introduction of Col Potter (a career military guy who was not a goosestepping moron). But that lasted only until the rough edges could be buffed off and Potter could be tamed to spout the same 70s inanities as everybody else in the cast. A very wearisome show to watch these days.
Consequently, I miss most of what's popular on the tube (gladly). I also see reruns only very sporadically (like when I'm out of town and have nothing to do in a hotel).
I recently saw MASH again after a long hiatus. Urk! It was like digging up something dead that should have stayed buried! Am I the only one who once thought MASH was a brilliant poke in the eye of the Establishment and who now thinks it is one of the creakiest, cheapest, sermonizing, Manichaean, shallow, and bromide-filled things to vex the idle hours of late night Rerunville? Sure, it's got snappy puns and dialogue but sheesh! Talk about a show that has not aged well! I remember Larry Linville once complaining bitterly that Frank Burns was not a character but a comic device who existed for the other characters to make fun of. I now see that every character who does not fully endorse the proto-PC aphorisms of Hawkeye and Co is that. There was an attempt at something besides demonization of the military with the introduction of Col Potter (a career military guy who was not a goosestepping moron). But that lasted only until the rough edges could be buffed off and Potter could be tamed to spout the same 70s inanities as everybody else in the cast. A very wearisome show to watch these days.
Rod Dreher Profiles Moloch Worshippers at Prayer
Why the Religious Left scarcely enters into the equation for me anymore (except for those few hardy souls who actually have the guts to repudiate the sacrament of abortion). God grant me grace to not hold them in contempt.
Why the Religious Left scarcely enters into the equation for me anymore (except for those few hardy souls who actually have the guts to repudiate the sacrament of abortion). God grant me grace to not hold them in contempt.
Feminists (aka Upper Middle Class Suburban Whiners) Have no Interest in Islamic Oppression of Women
What did you expect? These people are not serious. They are doing this as a hobby to give shape to their empty suburban lives, not out of love for others. Real feminism would cost something and they never meant it to come to *that*.
What did you expect? These people are not serious. They are doing this as a hobby to give shape to their empty suburban lives, not out of love for others. Real feminism would cost something and they never meant it to come to *that*.
A cloud no bigger than a man's hand
From the "I hate being right all the time" department I offer you this article. Some months back in this space I predicted that a culture which is as obsessed with sexual license as ours has no place but one to go in the matter of sexual abuse of minors. For the moment, of course, there are howls of horror. But that won't keep as it becomes clearer and clearer that horror over abuse of children threatens a Protected Victim Class: homosexuals. So there will be more and more pressure to class pedophilia as an "irrational taboo" and to voice (in small ways at first, but with growing insistence) the question, "What's so bad about sex with minors?" This film is part of what military types call the "softening" campaign to ready our culture for that question. Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that hates children.
From the "I hate being right all the time" department I offer you this article. Some months back in this space I predicted that a culture which is as obsessed with sexual license as ours has no place but one to go in the matter of sexual abuse of minors. For the moment, of course, there are howls of horror. But that won't keep as it becomes clearer and clearer that horror over abuse of children threatens a Protected Victim Class: homosexuals. So there will be more and more pressure to class pedophilia as an "irrational taboo" and to voice (in small ways at first, but with growing insistence) the question, "What's so bad about sex with minors?" This film is part of what military types call the "softening" campaign to ready our culture for that question. Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that hates children.
Peg Noonan on the Democrats' Worship of Moloch
It would be a fitting thing if Democrat fealty to the sacrament of abortion finally destroyed the party. But let the Stupid Party beware if the Evil Party is destroyed. Then you'll *really* have no excuse for your inaction and torpor.
It would be a fitting thing if Democrat fealty to the sacrament of abortion finally destroyed the party. But let the Stupid Party beware if the Evil Party is destroyed. Then you'll *really* have no excuse for your inaction and torpor.
Jo and I move closer to seeing eye to eye
.It sounds to me like she's getting rather close to some of the insights that inform JPII's Theology of the Body. Namely, that the sexual act is a kind of language whereby we say, "I give all of myself to you." Ripped away from the rest of the promise of marriage, that act becomes a lie and a betrayal and Jo is partly articulating the awareness of that. Anyhow, it's good to see that we're not so very far apart in our thinking (though there are still points I would, of course, disagree with.
.It sounds to me like she's getting rather close to some of the insights that inform JPII's Theology of the Body. Namely, that the sexual act is a kind of language whereby we say, "I give all of myself to you." Ripped away from the rest of the promise of marriage, that act becomes a lie and a betrayal and Jo is partly articulating the awareness of that. Anyhow, it's good to see that we're not so very far apart in our thinking (though there are still points I would, of course, disagree with.
Sunday, January 19, 2003
Hitchens Addresses Seattle Ninnies
Once again, to understand how much trouble the Left is in, you have to realize that this was written for The Stranger, a paper whose audience regards Kurt Cobain as a Poet and the Spiritual Light of his Generation.
Once again, to understand how much trouble the Left is in, you have to realize that this was written for The Stranger, a paper whose audience regards Kurt Cobain as a Poet and the Spiritual Light of his Generation.
A reader writes:
I've heard nothing from any of the people you mention. Like you, I am not one of the conservative Catholics who finds it so easy to dismiss Ratzinger or the Holy Father with a snort of contempt. Their reluctance (I would not call it opposition since they have not flat said, "An attack on Iraq is immoral and incompatible with Catholic teaching" (nor will they)) makes me uneasy. At the same, the blithering idiocy of the people in this country and Europe who oppose war gives me no substance to go on. So far, all the Pope has done (from what I can see) is reiterate Just War Principles. The press has taken that as a "statement of opposition" but I can't really see that it is (though I've little doubt he's not thrilled with the upcoming war). But without something more solid from sort of "anti-George Weigel", some kind of intelligent articulation *against* war based on Just War theory and not Sheryl Crow's karmic boobs, I'm stumped at any really good case against it.
I don't say that lightly because I have intelligent friends of good will who do oppose the war and I respect them. But they haven't persuaded me. Indeed, by a sort of anti-charism, the thing that has given me the most misgivings is the people who support that war, not those who oppose it. For some of the pro-war people are nasty nasty pieces of work indeed. The sort of Catholic for whom the "gospel" is all about inflicting the maximum amount of pain, death, retribution, and suffering on the world. Some with whom I have spoken are always sure to come down on the side of maximum death. They want as many people executed as possible, as many people punished as possible, war, vengeance, justice, striking back, etc. Such people gives me the willies. Mercy, peace, forebearance, etc. always elicit a snort of contempt from them. And some hate JPII's guts. Absolutely hate him. JPII's misgivings about war are simply more evidence that JPII is the locus of all evil in the universe for such people, whereas for me, it is evidence that he is determined to try to shepherd the whole human race, not become a stooge of a political agenda.
Talking to such makes it harder to find my balance about the war than talking to a dozen Sheryl Crow airheads, because you come away wondering if you are forsaking the gospel counsels of mercy when you find, to your horror, that you agree with them, insofar as war with Iraq is concerned. Such folks are the worst proponent of war the pro-war side has, because you feel as though you'd crawl through sewers to avoid becoming like them in their festering hatred of JPII, their lust for vengeance and maximum quantities of death and judgement, and their bitter contempt for appeals to mercy. And yet, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sometimes war is necessary. I think this is one of those times.
My husband and I are both, like you, ambivalent about the prospect of war with Iraq. In our greying 50's, we both have pretty good antiwar creds. Plus, one half of us (I) am trying hard to be a good Roman Catholic (He's trying hard to be a good Russian Orthodox) --- and I can't just shrug off statements from Josef Ratzinger and other high Vaticanistas whose strong antiwar statements must have been vetted by the Pope, don't you think?
On the other hand, the antiwar people in the US seem to be morons. My husband came to this conclusion this afternoon after following the CNN coverage of the antiwar demonstrations for a couple of hours. I had come to this conclusion independently just mousing around the net. Plus I am still on the mailing list for a lot of antiwar publications "from the old days."
The last temptation is the greatest treason;
To do the right thing for the wrong reason.
--T.S. Eliot, The Murder In The Cathedral
Yet it still occurs to me that there may be respectable, even compelling reasons for NOT going to war against Iraq. It's just that they're not the reasons I've heard thus far from the antiwar movment leaders, who further damage the credibility of "peace" every time they open their ignorant mouths.
I'm wondering whether anybody the likes of John Finnis, Germain Grisez, or Jean Bethke Elshtain have done any recent writing on this subject. I respect them mucho and would carefully ponder what they had to say. Have you run into any solid criticisms of the ius ad bellum from solid Catholic moral theologians of this caliber?
I've heard nothing from any of the people you mention. Like you, I am not one of the conservative Catholics who finds it so easy to dismiss Ratzinger or the Holy Father with a snort of contempt. Their reluctance (I would not call it opposition since they have not flat said, "An attack on Iraq is immoral and incompatible with Catholic teaching" (nor will they)) makes me uneasy. At the same, the blithering idiocy of the people in this country and Europe who oppose war gives me no substance to go on. So far, all the Pope has done (from what I can see) is reiterate Just War Principles. The press has taken that as a "statement of opposition" but I can't really see that it is (though I've little doubt he's not thrilled with the upcoming war). But without something more solid from sort of "anti-George Weigel", some kind of intelligent articulation *against* war based on Just War theory and not Sheryl Crow's karmic boobs, I'm stumped at any really good case against it.
I don't say that lightly because I have intelligent friends of good will who do oppose the war and I respect them. But they haven't persuaded me. Indeed, by a sort of anti-charism, the thing that has given me the most misgivings is the people who support that war, not those who oppose it. For some of the pro-war people are nasty nasty pieces of work indeed. The sort of Catholic for whom the "gospel" is all about inflicting the maximum amount of pain, death, retribution, and suffering on the world. Some with whom I have spoken are always sure to come down on the side of maximum death. They want as many people executed as possible, as many people punished as possible, war, vengeance, justice, striking back, etc. Such people gives me the willies. Mercy, peace, forebearance, etc. always elicit a snort of contempt from them. And some hate JPII's guts. Absolutely hate him. JPII's misgivings about war are simply more evidence that JPII is the locus of all evil in the universe for such people, whereas for me, it is evidence that he is determined to try to shepherd the whole human race, not become a stooge of a political agenda.
Talking to such makes it harder to find my balance about the war than talking to a dozen Sheryl Crow airheads, because you come away wondering if you are forsaking the gospel counsels of mercy when you find, to your horror, that you agree with them, insofar as war with Iraq is concerned. Such folks are the worst proponent of war the pro-war side has, because you feel as though you'd crawl through sewers to avoid becoming like them in their festering hatred of JPII, their lust for vengeance and maximum quantities of death and judgement, and their bitter contempt for appeals to mercy. And yet, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sometimes war is necessary. I think this is one of those times.
Is Protestantism just a negation of Catholicism?
Protestant*ism*? Yes. But Protestants? No. Not usually. Protestant*ism* insofar as it is protesting is, indeed, a negation of some aspect(s) of Catholic Faith. Drop that negation and there's no reason not to be Catholic. But, of course, Protestantism also borrows a great deal from Catholic faith and, insofar as it does so, is Catholic, not Protestant.
But most Protestants I know (in real life, I mean, not in cyberspace) aren't protesting anything anymore. Indeed, many of them are quite excited by Catholic ideas if you present them using something besides Catholic jargon. My sister in law was quite thrilled to tell me about her small Bible Church's recent exploration into the lives of great Christians *who lived after the time of the Bible*. As long as I didn't use the phrase "cult of the saints", I knew we could have a terrific conversation.
Nope. Most Protestants are too busy following Jesus to be protesting much these days. (Admittedly, in cyberspace it's a different story. There you meet the self-selecting minority of vociferous people whose whole life is wrapped up in keeping the fires of the 16th Century burning. But it's not that way in the Real World for most American Protestants. They are trying to learn and be open to the Spirit (much more open than many a Catholic it often seems). The smartest thing Catholics can do is feed their hunger for the truth, not waste a lot of time jawing about old grievances.
Protestant*ism*? Yes. But Protestants? No. Not usually. Protestant*ism* insofar as it is protesting is, indeed, a negation of some aspect(s) of Catholic Faith. Drop that negation and there's no reason not to be Catholic. But, of course, Protestantism also borrows a great deal from Catholic faith and, insofar as it does so, is Catholic, not Protestant.
But most Protestants I know (in real life, I mean, not in cyberspace) aren't protesting anything anymore. Indeed, many of them are quite excited by Catholic ideas if you present them using something besides Catholic jargon. My sister in law was quite thrilled to tell me about her small Bible Church's recent exploration into the lives of great Christians *who lived after the time of the Bible*. As long as I didn't use the phrase "cult of the saints", I knew we could have a terrific conversation.
Nope. Most Protestants are too busy following Jesus to be protesting much these days. (Admittedly, in cyberspace it's a different story. There you meet the self-selecting minority of vociferous people whose whole life is wrapped up in keeping the fires of the 16th Century burning. But it's not that way in the Real World for most American Protestants. They are trying to learn and be open to the Spirit (much more open than many a Catholic it often seems). The smartest thing Catholics can do is feed their hunger for the truth, not waste a lot of time jawing about old grievances.
A reader asks:
You touch on some points that I would also touch on, but it's not quite my approach. The problem that faces every Protestant in dealing with some Catholic teaching he does not accept is how to show that it is antibiblical. It's not enough to show that a doctrine is merely extrabiblical since lots of Protestant sacred cows are extrabiblical too, but still held (rightly) as non-negotiable features of Christian belief. (I detail a few of these here.) Protestants often think they've found something anti-biblical in the Immaculate Conception but, for the reasons you show, this ain't so. Paul's use of language is fairly loosey goosey and is difficult to force into mathematical and geometric crystals of Exactitude. So, yeah, sure. Paul says "All have sinned." Protestants, bent on denying Marian doctrine put gobs of weight on this ("All means ALL!!!!!") but then have to deal with the reality that all doesn't really mean "Every last human being in the universe" since that includes Jesus (and newborn infants). They also have to deal with Paul's other usages of "All" which they don't want to weight so heavily ("God has handed all over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all." "God who is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe" etc.) Most of the people who want Paul to mean "Everybody is guilty of actual sin, ESPECIALLY MARY!" don't want him to mean "All will be saved." They have good reason for that. Paul doesn't mean every last person will be saved. He means "all" in a broad sense, not in a mathematical one. But he means that in all these cases.
So there's no particularly strong biblical reason to say that the Immaculate Conception is false on biblical grounds. Which leaves us with the Tradition of the Church. And the Tradition of the Church is very strong (even with the great Doctor of Original Sin, Augustine himself) that Mary is somehow sinless. How that is, the early Church father don't know. *That* it is is a broad consensus that only strengthens with the passage of time. So you have to ask (again) how seriously are you going to take Sacred Tradition to inform your reading of Scripture. If you take it seriously, there's no big obstacle to the doctrine in Scripture. If you take the recent (last 300 years) obsession in Protestantism with denying Mary pretty much all honor, you'll emphasize passage like Rom 3:23 far beyond anything Paul ever intended to specifically attack Mary's sinlessness. Course, you'll then have to explain why you retain other aspects of Sacred Tradition.
Some folks think there's a huge significance to the fact that the Eastern Church has no doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that turns out to be cold comfort for Protestant Mariophobes. For the East is, if anything, even more devoted to Mary as the Sinless Mother of God than the West. However, the East never developed a doctrine of original sin as the west did. Because of this, there was never a big push to try to figure out *how* she could be sinless. It was just accepted that she is. The west hammered out the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception precisely to explain how "all have sinned" and yet Mary is sinless. Protestants who turn to the East looking for a friend in their opposition to the Immaculate Conception will be told that they are too Augustinian in their emphasis on the original sin and then they will be told that they are heretics for denying that Mary is "Panagia"--"All Holy".
Nope, it the Protestant denial of Mary's sinlessness that's the new kid on the block. It's Protestantism that has the explaining to do, not the ancient apostolic faith.
I am asking your opinion on a point I use to defend the Immaculate Conception. It is common for Protestants to appeal to Rom 3:23-- "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". Therefore, they say, Mary has sinned too and come short of the glory of God. Due to the past tense usage --"have sinned"--appealing to the preventive grace Mary received does no good. (Or is that too quick?) In fact, the passage seems to suggest that no one has received any preventitive grace. So, my typical reply is to ask whether there are any exceptions to the "all" that Paul expects his reader to understand and take into account. The answer is obviously yes, Jesus Christ. So, knowing that there is at least one exception to the "all" in Rom 3:23, we ask whether there is Scriptural reason for thinking that there are any other. The answer there, too, is yes, for Mary is called kecharitomene AS A PROPER NAME in Lk. 1:28. The fullness of grace implies that she is without sin, and the grammatical structure of the word kecharitomene means that she is without sin both extensively and intensively. So, unless it be conceded that Mary, too, is an exception to Rom 3:23, there is a contradiction in Scripture between Rom 3:23 and Lk 1:28. My question is, Mark, in you opinion, is this the best reply?
You touch on some points that I would also touch on, but it's not quite my approach. The problem that faces every Protestant in dealing with some Catholic teaching he does not accept is how to show that it is antibiblical. It's not enough to show that a doctrine is merely extrabiblical since lots of Protestant sacred cows are extrabiblical too, but still held (rightly) as non-negotiable features of Christian belief. (I detail a few of these here.) Protestants often think they've found something anti-biblical in the Immaculate Conception but, for the reasons you show, this ain't so. Paul's use of language is fairly loosey goosey and is difficult to force into mathematical and geometric crystals of Exactitude. So, yeah, sure. Paul says "All have sinned." Protestants, bent on denying Marian doctrine put gobs of weight on this ("All means ALL!!!!!") but then have to deal with the reality that all doesn't really mean "Every last human being in the universe" since that includes Jesus (and newborn infants). They also have to deal with Paul's other usages of "All" which they don't want to weight so heavily ("God has handed all over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all." "God who is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe" etc.) Most of the people who want Paul to mean "Everybody is guilty of actual sin, ESPECIALLY MARY!" don't want him to mean "All will be saved." They have good reason for that. Paul doesn't mean every last person will be saved. He means "all" in a broad sense, not in a mathematical one. But he means that in all these cases.
So there's no particularly strong biblical reason to say that the Immaculate Conception is false on biblical grounds. Which leaves us with the Tradition of the Church. And the Tradition of the Church is very strong (even with the great Doctor of Original Sin, Augustine himself) that Mary is somehow sinless. How that is, the early Church father don't know. *That* it is is a broad consensus that only strengthens with the passage of time. So you have to ask (again) how seriously are you going to take Sacred Tradition to inform your reading of Scripture. If you take it seriously, there's no big obstacle to the doctrine in Scripture. If you take the recent (last 300 years) obsession in Protestantism with denying Mary pretty much all honor, you'll emphasize passage like Rom 3:23 far beyond anything Paul ever intended to specifically attack Mary's sinlessness. Course, you'll then have to explain why you retain other aspects of Sacred Tradition.
Some folks think there's a huge significance to the fact that the Eastern Church has no doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that turns out to be cold comfort for Protestant Mariophobes. For the East is, if anything, even more devoted to Mary as the Sinless Mother of God than the West. However, the East never developed a doctrine of original sin as the west did. Because of this, there was never a big push to try to figure out *how* she could be sinless. It was just accepted that she is. The west hammered out the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception precisely to explain how "all have sinned" and yet Mary is sinless. Protestants who turn to the East looking for a friend in their opposition to the Immaculate Conception will be told that they are too Augustinian in their emphasis on the original sin and then they will be told that they are heretics for denying that Mary is "Panagia"--"All Holy".
Nope, it the Protestant denial of Mary's sinlessness that's the new kid on the block. It's Protestantism that has the explaining to do, not the ancient apostolic faith.
Don't Really See What Good it will do but...
Ad campaign IDs Catholic lawmakers who support abortion
Is there anybody who *doesn't* know these guys are enthusiastic pro-aborts?
Ad campaign IDs Catholic lawmakers who support abortion
Is there anybody who *doesn't* know these guys are enthusiastic pro-aborts?
Chattering Classes Continue to Pretend to Care about Anti-Semitism
Artsy fart types continue bravely kick the corpse of Pius XII (who saved 80,000 Jews and was lionized by Jews after WWII) while completely ignoring (or sympathizing with) Radical Islamic Jew-hatred today.
Artsy fart types continue bravely kick the corpse of Pius XII (who saved 80,000 Jews and was lionized by Jews after WWII) while completely ignoring (or sympathizing with) Radical Islamic Jew-hatred today.
French Surrender to Radical Islam Early
Look on the bright side, Euroweenies may stop blaspheming Jesus Christ in order to stop offending Muslims.
Look on the bright side, Euroweenies may stop blaspheming Jesus Christ in order to stop offending Muslims.
Saturday, January 18, 2003
Deceivers for Jesus
A friend went to type in the URL of this site but inadvertently entered "blogpsot" in the title. Some guy named Aaron has routed all such typos to his "End Times" Bible study site. I find such tactics extremely tiresome. Reminded me of "Dr." Bill Jackson's little "bible study" offer I got in the mail a few years back.
A friend went to type in the URL of this site but inadvertently entered "blogpsot" in the title. Some guy named Aaron has routed all such typos to his "End Times" Bible study site. I find such tactics extremely tiresome. Reminded me of "Dr." Bill Jackson's little "bible study" offer I got in the mail a few years back.
Worst Still-Serving AmChurch Bishop Gets Bad News from the Flock
Sheep making life hell for Bp. John "I didn't notice Paul Shanley was advocating pederasty" McCormack. Turns out they think him untrustworthy and unable to shepherd them out of a paper bag.
Good. I think this man needs a large dose of misery till he gets a frickin' clue.
Sheep making life hell for Bp. John "I didn't notice Paul Shanley was advocating pederasty" McCormack. Turns out they think him untrustworthy and unable to shepherd them out of a paper bag.
Good. I think this man needs a large dose of misery till he gets a frickin' clue.
Celtic Music Alert
A reader writes:
Anybody out there like Nightnoise? Also, I should plug Ceili Rain again, speaking of Celtic-flavored music. A very fun band!
A reader writes:
i really like your website and your blog. i visit your blog almost everyday and i think your articles are really good. anyway, i wanted to recommend some celtic worship music from the prairie bible college fine arts department. i discovered it a few months ago and i can't stop listening to it. They take traditional irish and scottish music and turn it into musical prayer.
here's the link to the college.
http://www.pbi.ab.ca/college/finearts/
if you're interested, you can order the cds from the college or from amazon.
Anybody out there like Nightnoise? Also, I should plug Ceili Rain again, speaking of Celtic-flavored music. A very fun band!
Friday, January 17, 2003
The Spectator on Philip Pullman
The more I see of him, the more he strikes me as a highly educated, very articulate, extremely bright fool--the sort that the English intelligentsia excels at creating. (The author of this piece, by the way, is Christopher Hitchens' brother, a living proof that genetics is not destiny.)
The more I see of him, the more he strikes me as a highly educated, very articulate, extremely bright fool--the sort that the English intelligentsia excels at creating. (The author of this piece, by the way, is Christopher Hitchens' brother, a living proof that genetics is not destiny.)
It's essays like this that make me wonder whether it's a slam dunk that America "deserves' to win her wars
I still hope we do, of course. But has Saddam killed 40 million babies?
A world in which our present culture has *nothing* on earth to stop it, nothing to drive us to our knees as 9/11 did, is a world that will, I think, be very terrifying indeed. The Assyrians, like Radical Islam, were evil. But God still seemed to think that Israel and Judah were more evil still in their sins, according to Isaiah. To those whom much is given, much will be required. How much of the Christian legacy have we pissed away? How little revelation did the Islamic world have to work with? Whose judgement will be severer in the eyes of God?
Like Jefferson, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is indeed just.
I still hope we do, of course. But has Saddam killed 40 million babies?
A world in which our present culture has *nothing* on earth to stop it, nothing to drive us to our knees as 9/11 did, is a world that will, I think, be very terrifying indeed. The Assyrians, like Radical Islam, were evil. But God still seemed to think that Israel and Judah were more evil still in their sins, according to Isaiah. To those whom much is given, much will be required. How much of the Christian legacy have we pissed away? How little revelation did the Islamic world have to work with? Whose judgement will be severer in the eyes of God?
Like Jefferson, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is indeed just.
Massive New Harry Potter Novel ("Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix") Finished
It's so much bigger than the last one that one wag on Amy's comments box suggest it be titled, "Harry Potter and the Order of Magnitude".
It's so much bigger than the last one that one wag on Amy's comments box suggest it be titled, "Harry Potter and the Order of Magnitude".
People for Whom Politics is Everything...
will be baffled that the same Pope who kissed a Koran also beatifies this guy. Since we know for a fact that everything is about politics, they reason, then everything the Pope does is about politics too. So when he honored the Koran, that was simply and solely a political gesture: a way of saying, "There's no difference between Christianity and Islam." But now the confusing part: the guy he's beatifying exhorted Catholics to make bloody war in defense against Islam in the 17th Century. How baffling! What is the political meaning he's trying to get across? It's all about politics, so there's no other meaning possible to this beatification, right? What a confusing Pope! Must be the Parkinson's. I couldn't possibly be wrong in my fundamental conviction that everything is about politics.
will be baffled that the same Pope who kissed a Koran also beatifies this guy. Since we know for a fact that everything is about politics, they reason, then everything the Pope does is about politics too. So when he honored the Koran, that was simply and solely a political gesture: a way of saying, "There's no difference between Christianity and Islam." But now the confusing part: the guy he's beatifying exhorted Catholics to make bloody war in defense against Islam in the 17th Century. How baffling! What is the political meaning he's trying to get across? It's all about politics, so there's no other meaning possible to this beatification, right? What a confusing Pope! Must be the Parkinson's. I couldn't possibly be wrong in my fundamental conviction that everything is about politics.
A plug for Touchstone Magazine
I love Touchstone. Check it out and subscribe!
Here¹s a brief look inside the January/February edition of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, a special double issue of the magazine published on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and devoted to reflection on what John Paul II has called the "culture of death." The issue contains ten articles which argue for a culture of life in stark opposition to this culture of death by an ecumenical array of authors including Janet Shaw Crouse, John Haas, Russell E. Saltzman, David Mills, Mary Walsh, John Henry Crosby, Leon J. Podles, Patrick Henry Reardon, and Louis R. Tarsitano. (Click on any link below to read content from our current edition.)
The Roots of Roe v. Wade
Patrick Henry Reardon says that our most serious problem is not the need for better government:
"Politics and law S lie downstream from culture. Therefore, the real and deeper dilemma, the dilemma arguably as disturbing as abortion itself, is cultural. Our current culture, to say it plainly, has largely stopped thinking of children as gifts from God and firstfruits of the future. S children are now being aborted in the flesh, because they have already been, in large measure, aborted from the mind. We deprive unborn infants of a future because they are inconveniences intruding on our chosen pursuits in the present. Why should we let those infants live, after all, if they are but the by-products of sexual activity, rather than the properly intended purpose of that activity? In short, our current cultural crisis has to do with sex regarded in terms of present Ofulfillment¹ rather than in terms of future family. S The pill, the patch, and the condom have become once again to cite Wichterman our culture¹s Ofirst defense against childbirth,¹ abortion serving only as a socially distasteful back-up. Pregnancy is now widely regarded as something that married couples are expected to prevent until they, not God, decide that they are ready to have children. Husbands and wives are expected to control, that is, not their sexual behavior, but their incidence of pregnancy. Man, not God, is thereby authorized to decide when and how the creation of human beings takes place."
To read the entire editorial, please click on the link below:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16-1pg3.html
Choosing Love & Making Life:
Sex, Love, Marriage & the Culture of Death
David Mills explains that "the culture of death is not simply one in which babies are aborted and old people put to sleep like stray dogs":
"The culture of death begins not in a love of death but in a culture of pseudo-life; in the desire for life and its fruits, but life sought in the wrong ways and usually with the wrong people. S Even in a culture of death, people strive for life. People who are only living together expect each other to be faithful; people who have slept around want to be married; people who have been divorced want a marriage that will last; homosexual people want to have children; women who have aborted their children regret the loss. Things are not as bad as they might be, because people strive for life, though in cases like these they strive partly in vain."
To read the entire article, please click on the link below:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16-1pg23.html
Also in this issue: Lutheran pastor Russell E. Saltzman shares his view of abortion as the child of an incestuous rape; Anglican pastor Louis R. Tarsitano reflects on the dangers of harvesting organs; Janice Shaw Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute looks at Roe v. Wade at 30; and John Haas, director of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, examines the effects of biotechnology on our sense of human dignity and value.
Plus much more including: Peter J. Leithart on King Lear; Phillip E. Johnson on Ohio¹s science education decision; Mary Walsh on the lingering scars of abortion; John Henry Crosby of the Family Research Council on whether or not embryos are persons; Leon J. Podles on Europe¹s missing babies; and an exchange between Alan Padgett of Luther Seminary and senior editor S. M. Hutchens on the question, Is God Masculine?
And in every issue: Coverage of the Church around the world and across denominational lines; book reviews and notices; excerpts from classical Christian authors; pro-life news; and our spirited letters section.
Published since 1986, Touchstone is a unique magazine for all Christians Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox that provides thoughtful analysis and bold opinion from a traditional viewpoint.
Additional Touchstone content is available online at: www.touchstonemag.com
I love Touchstone. Check it out and subscribe!
Prediction Time
The ongoing march to cultural degradation that this story depicts reminds me: Assuming I live a normal lifespan, I think we will see the return of gladiatorial combat to the death broadcast on TV and/or shows where human beings are hunted like deer and have to outwit and kill their predators. All it takes is a few people to claim the "right" to do what they want with their own lives (including risk them for sufficiently huge cash prizes) and an enterprising TV producer to broadcast it all.
And our culture is already depraved enough that people will watch by the millions.
Oh, but we are the unquestionable Good Guys of the world. What right has God to judge *us*?
The ongoing march to cultural degradation that this story depicts reminds me: Assuming I live a normal lifespan, I think we will see the return of gladiatorial combat to the death broadcast on TV and/or shows where human beings are hunted like deer and have to outwit and kill their predators. All it takes is a few people to claim the "right" to do what they want with their own lives (including risk them for sufficiently huge cash prizes) and an enterprising TV producer to broadcast it all.
And our culture is already depraved enough that people will watch by the millions.
Oh, but we are the unquestionable Good Guys of the world. What right has God to judge *us*?
To get a much needed and healthy perspective on the gigantic importance of the lay office...
Check out the Catherine of Siena Institute and get them to come to your parish for a magnificent "Called and Gifted" workshop.
Check out the Catherine of Siena Institute and get them to come to your parish for a magnificent "Called and Gifted" workshop.
By the way...
Clericalism also underlies the drive to ordain women. If you think that the only "real Catholic" is an ordained one, then you are going to talk as though the Church's inability to ordain women is just a way to keep women "unequal" (as though the sacrament is a civil right). If you take seriously the reality that laity and clergy are already equal and that the ordained office is but one office among many in the Church, then your focus will be on serving God, not on the itch for "power". The ordained office is not, in Christ's intention, about power (meaning worldly power). It's about gift and love and service. Those who turn it into a vehicle of worldly power, whether corrupt bishops and priests or lefties who habitually define *everything* in terms of power, betray it.
Clericalism also underlies the drive to ordain women. If you think that the only "real Catholic" is an ordained one, then you are going to talk as though the Church's inability to ordain women is just a way to keep women "unequal" (as though the sacrament is a civil right). If you take seriously the reality that laity and clergy are already equal and that the ordained office is but one office among many in the Church, then your focus will be on serving God, not on the itch for "power". The ordained office is not, in Christ's intention, about power (meaning worldly power). It's about gift and love and service. Those who turn it into a vehicle of worldly power, whether corrupt bishops and priests or lefties who habitually define *everything* in terms of power, betray it.
Michael Pakaluk, a Visiting Scholar in Philosophy at Harvard University, writes the following:
Clericalism and the Scandal
'Clericalism' is the view that the Catholic Church is the same as its bishops, priests, and religious. Clericalism magnifies the importance of the hierarchy, but denies the importance of the laity. The laity are mere appendages; they are involved in the 'world', which makes them secular, not in religious matters, where God's work is done. Thus they cannot and need not strive to be saints. And they need not be held to the same standard as priests and religious.
Some signs that you have a clerical outlook: You speak about what's happening 'in the Church', and you mean what's happening among priests and religious. You think that for a Catholic layperson to 'become involved', is for him to get involved in internal Church matters. You think that Vatican II's emphasis on the laity means that the laity should now do things that only priests did in the past, like distribute communion and serve on Church committees. You think that the laity will finally get the recognition they deserve only when they are playing a visible role in running the Church.
Now Clericalism is utterly false, and every Catholic needs to reject it. Vatican II was about the rejection of Clericalism, and that Council will not be implemented until we root out all vestiges of Clericalism.
What did Vatican II teach, in contrast? Vatican II stressed the fundamental equality of all Catholics, deriving from their baptism. In baptism, every Catholic becomes identified with Christ. To be baptized, by definition, is to have the vocation to be 'another Christ'. Every Catholic shares in Christ's 'three fold' role as priest, prophet, and king. We are called to 'take up the cross daily', and to follow Christ, aiming 'to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.'
Vatican II spoke of 'the people of God' and the 'priesthood of all believers' precisely to stress this fundamental equality of all Catholics, more fundamental than the distinction between hierarchy and laity. Christ instituted that distinction as a means of helping all of his disciples follow Him more closely. The hierarchy exists in order to help the laity do their job well.
But what is the job of the laity? It is to sanctify worldly realities, ordering all things to God. Just as the work of the bishop is accomplished in the chancery and with his priests; and the work of the priest is done in the parish and through the sacraments; so the work of a layperson is to be found in his family, the workplace, his community, and his culture. By how he acts there a Catholic layperson stands or falls; by this he will be judged.
When I, a father of a large family and working professional, come before the judgment seat of God, I will not be asked-I am convinced-whether I was a good Eucharistic minister or gave the bishops good advice. I will be asked whether I treated my wife with exemplary love each day; whether I spent lots of time with my children; whether I took proper care that they received a good education in the faith; whether I set an example of prayer for my family. Did I strive each day to give myself entirely to God? Did I learn the Catholic faith well and apply its teachings in daily life? Did I follow God's will in all of my actions, rejecting everything opposed to His will? Did my professional work testify to Him? Did I contribute my share in seeing that the 'culture of life' rather than the 'culture of death' prevailed in my community and society, through its laws and political leaders? Did I try to reform my surroundings in light of Catholic principles, not content merely to succeed as regards the status quo?
That is the work of the laity. If done well, with prayer and mortification and frequent recourse to the sacraments, it leads to holiness, which is our goal and the reason we exist.
Now suppose we do firmly reject Clericalism. Then the problem of 'scandal in the Church' appears much broader. For as priests need to be evaluated relative to their calling, so should the laity be evaluated relative to theirs. There is 'scandal in the Church' when the laity fail visibly to act as they should, as much as when priests do. To deny this is to identify the Church with priests and religious, which is Clericalism.
But how exactly have the laity fared? The 'divorce', abortion, and adultery rates among Catholics, for instance, are hardly different from those of the general public. What is the trauma of abortion on human lives and souls? What lasting damage to young persons is caused by divorce? How many Catholic laypersons enjoy pornography, or television shows not different from soft-porn? Some of our 'Catholic' politicians are among the worst proponents of the culture of death. What signals the greater irresponsibility: repeatedly assigning an abusive priest to parish work, or repeatedly giving pro-abortion politicians care over our laws and communities, by re-electing them?
The point is not to shift the blame or make further accusations. The point is to invite self-reflection. "Take the log out of your own eye first, and then maybe you'll see clearly enough to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." Unfortunately, there is a log in the eye of the Catholic laity. And Clericalism keeps us from taking it out.
Clericalism and the Scandal
'Clericalism' is the view that the Catholic Church is the same as its bishops, priests, and religious. Clericalism magnifies the importance of the hierarchy, but denies the importance of the laity. The laity are mere appendages; they are involved in the 'world', which makes them secular, not in religious matters, where God's work is done. Thus they cannot and need not strive to be saints. And they need not be held to the same standard as priests and religious.
Some signs that you have a clerical outlook: You speak about what's happening 'in the Church', and you mean what's happening among priests and religious. You think that for a Catholic layperson to 'become involved', is for him to get involved in internal Church matters. You think that Vatican II's emphasis on the laity means that the laity should now do things that only priests did in the past, like distribute communion and serve on Church committees. You think that the laity will finally get the recognition they deserve only when they are playing a visible role in running the Church.
Now Clericalism is utterly false, and every Catholic needs to reject it. Vatican II was about the rejection of Clericalism, and that Council will not be implemented until we root out all vestiges of Clericalism.
What did Vatican II teach, in contrast? Vatican II stressed the fundamental equality of all Catholics, deriving from their baptism. In baptism, every Catholic becomes identified with Christ. To be baptized, by definition, is to have the vocation to be 'another Christ'. Every Catholic shares in Christ's 'three fold' role as priest, prophet, and king. We are called to 'take up the cross daily', and to follow Christ, aiming 'to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.'
Vatican II spoke of 'the people of God' and the 'priesthood of all believers' precisely to stress this fundamental equality of all Catholics, more fundamental than the distinction between hierarchy and laity. Christ instituted that distinction as a means of helping all of his disciples follow Him more closely. The hierarchy exists in order to help the laity do their job well.
But what is the job of the laity? It is to sanctify worldly realities, ordering all things to God. Just as the work of the bishop is accomplished in the chancery and with his priests; and the work of the priest is done in the parish and through the sacraments; so the work of a layperson is to be found in his family, the workplace, his community, and his culture. By how he acts there a Catholic layperson stands or falls; by this he will be judged.
When I, a father of a large family and working professional, come before the judgment seat of God, I will not be asked-I am convinced-whether I was a good Eucharistic minister or gave the bishops good advice. I will be asked whether I treated my wife with exemplary love each day; whether I spent lots of time with my children; whether I took proper care that they received a good education in the faith; whether I set an example of prayer for my family. Did I strive each day to give myself entirely to God? Did I learn the Catholic faith well and apply its teachings in daily life? Did I follow God's will in all of my actions, rejecting everything opposed to His will? Did my professional work testify to Him? Did I contribute my share in seeing that the 'culture of life' rather than the 'culture of death' prevailed in my community and society, through its laws and political leaders? Did I try to reform my surroundings in light of Catholic principles, not content merely to succeed as regards the status quo?
That is the work of the laity. If done well, with prayer and mortification and frequent recourse to the sacraments, it leads to holiness, which is our goal and the reason we exist.
Now suppose we do firmly reject Clericalism. Then the problem of 'scandal in the Church' appears much broader. For as priests need to be evaluated relative to their calling, so should the laity be evaluated relative to theirs. There is 'scandal in the Church' when the laity fail visibly to act as they should, as much as when priests do. To deny this is to identify the Church with priests and religious, which is Clericalism.
But how exactly have the laity fared? The 'divorce', abortion, and adultery rates among Catholics, for instance, are hardly different from those of the general public. What is the trauma of abortion on human lives and souls? What lasting damage to young persons is caused by divorce? How many Catholic laypersons enjoy pornography, or television shows not different from soft-porn? Some of our 'Catholic' politicians are among the worst proponents of the culture of death. What signals the greater irresponsibility: repeatedly assigning an abusive priest to parish work, or repeatedly giving pro-abortion politicians care over our laws and communities, by re-electing them?
The point is not to shift the blame or make further accusations. The point is to invite self-reflection. "Take the log out of your own eye first, and then maybe you'll see clearly enough to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." Unfortunately, there is a log in the eye of the Catholic laity. And Clericalism keeps us from taking it out.
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Greg Popcak Weighs in on the R Rated Conversation
Oh sure, just because you have training in moral theology and are actually a Catholic family counselor, you think you have information we could use.
Well.... so you have!
Oh sure, just because you have training in moral theology and are actually a Catholic family counselor, you think you have information we could use.
Well.... so you have!
A Prolife Dem Laments
Principalities and powers don't like to give up their grip on power, particularly when it can be used to hurt the weakest and most vulnerable. Don't expect any movement from the Dem leadership on this anytime soon pal. It's hard enough to get Republicans to do anything real.
Speaking of which, thanks for the sentiment, Mr. President. Now how about some action from your party? You know, legislation that actually bans partial birth abortion, or makes parental consent a reality, or makes it very very hard to get a license to do this horrible crime? Something? Anyone? Anyone? I'm tired of words. Deeds are the thing.
Principalities and powers don't like to give up their grip on power, particularly when it can be used to hurt the weakest and most vulnerable. Don't expect any movement from the Dem leadership on this anytime soon pal. It's hard enough to get Republicans to do anything real.
Speaking of which, thanks for the sentiment, Mr. President. Now how about some action from your party? You know, legislation that actually bans partial birth abortion, or makes parental consent a reality, or makes it very very hard to get a license to do this horrible crime? Something? Anyone? Anyone? I'm tired of words. Deeds are the thing.
"He's not an Orthodox Jew, he's an orthodox liberal."
But, like all representatives of the Democratic Party at Prayer, such as the Reverend Jesse Jackson, he will have a free media pass from all charges of hypocrisy for years and years and years. Prolife Guy should be fun to read on Lieberman. Undoubtedly he will have some choice words for Senator Rabbi Partial Birth Abortion.
But, like all representatives of the Democratic Party at Prayer, such as the Reverend Jesse Jackson, he will have a free media pass from all charges of hypocrisy for years and years and years. Prolife Guy should be fun to read on Lieberman. Undoubtedly he will have some choice words for Senator Rabbi Partial Birth Abortion.