Sunday, February 29, 2004
Went to See The Passion of the Christ on Friday
The quick assessment: Hands down the finest film ever made about Jesus Christ. Period.
The longer assessment: Let's get a few things out of the way immediately.
First: Thanks, Mel, for having the great courage to make this film. It was a profoundly *manly* thing to do and has given us a portrayal of Jesus that is, in the very best sense of the word, the most masculine Jesus ever committed to celluloid. Interestingly, several men I have talked to have spoken of the film in that way as well. The sense of sheer *warfare* that permeates the film is overwhelming. And it is deeply and profoundly warfare with powers and principalities, not with flesh and blood. Jesus has no enmity to his human adversaries. He prays for them repeatedly. But his hostility to the devil is implacable, utter, and steely. Indeed, if I were the devil, I would quail in terror at what is, for Lucifer, the single most frightening moment in the film: the look of Resolve on the face of the Risen Christ in the final moments of the film. Satan has done his worst. Now it's Time to wrest the entire cosmos away from him.
Second: I cannot speak for Jews because I am not Jewish. So I'm not going to go around telling Jews what they can and cannot feel about the film. If it makes some Jewish people feel upset then they are entitled to their reactions. That's what works of art do: provoke reactions. However, I *can* tell Jewish people and anybody else who will listen what this work of art did to me and to the 30 teens and adults (and the packed theatre) who, well, not "saw" but experienced it on Friday.
It made us pray. It made us feel ashamed of our sins. It made us embrace each other. It made us weep. It took our breath away at times--both because of the depth of human cruelty and the awe of divine love. It made me admire Gibson's theological depth and his artistic vision. We left the theatre in silence and did not at all feel very inclined to find baseball bats with which to smash synagogue windows. Personally, I felt a strong need to go sit before Jesus in the Tabernacle. I thought of the sins I'd confessed and been forgiven of a couple of days before--and what it cost to have those awesome words of absolution given me. I thought how easily I hold grudges and how much I've fallen into the habit of contemptuously dismissing people who hurt me. I thought of how troubling it was to me that the violence did not trouble me more. I came away from it asking God for a compassionate heart. My son and his friends, God bless their beautiful young souls, immediately went away for a retreat and he came back the wonderful laughing boy I've known all these years, yet there was a seriousness in the joy--like a young boy becoming a man. I came away from the film not only with gratitude for the Sacrifice, but with joy over the gift of all those kids.
I did not, and I daresay no Christian did, come away from the film saying, "I want to hit a Jew." The very idea that anybody could come away thinking that is so repulsive, so *alien* to this film that I cannot believe anybody could come away desiring that.
The reason for that is simple: The film is so deeply immersed in the message of the gospel that only a wilful misreading by a Christian could derive a message of hate from it. Indeed, apart from Jesus and Mary, the strongest character--a character so strong he actually threatens to overshadow Jesus as Mercutio threatens to overshadow Romeo--is Simon of Cyrene. In his relatively short time on the screen, he establishes himself as a true hero. And Gibson is careful to identify that hero as Jewish. He is not a believer in Jesus, but he is a deeply humane man (though fearful at first) and he stand up with immense courage to the Roman brute squad (who are the true villains of the film). By the time he has walked the Via Dolorosa with Christ, he is a changed man, but so should be any Catholic anti-semites lingering out in Hooterville. In one of the most moving images in the film (I still well up when I think of it), he and Jesus make the final ascent to Golgotha with their arms linked over the cross.
Are there Jewish villains in the film? Of course. The film is true to the gospels in that it makes clear that the Temple elite and some of the citizenry (though not all) wanted Jesus dead. To get rid of that fact you must get rid of the gospels themselves. But to this Catholic, I was moved far more to think of some of my own bishops and their selfish clinging to power than I was to generalities about The International Jew or some sort of theorizing about racial guilt. Caiaphas acts, not as all Jews act, but as all corrupt men act--particularly when they are clinging to power. As the reviewer for TIME pointed out, calling criticism of the Sanhedrin "anti-semitic" is as dumb as saying "Either you are with the Republican Party or you are with the terrorists." It is possible to fault the ruling class without despising the entire people. Then, as now, there were lots of Jews who defended Jesus--and not all of them were his disciples as both the cinematic Simon of Cyrene and Rabbi Gamaliel in the book of Acts shows.
As is commonly known, Gibson draws on a variety of sources: the NT, the stations of the cross, Emmerich's visions, and his own imagination. Of course, secular viewers have complained about the violence and, particularly, the blood of the film. One particularly desperate writer not only assumes the film is anti-semitic but also tries to cash in on old American Know-Nothing chips and ignite some good old Protestant hatred of the film.
But it's a total non-starter. Evangelicals are wild about the thing, and well they should be. A tiny minority of Fundies complain that it takes liberties with Scripture, but these are indeed a tiny minority. The rest recognize that liberties with Scripture are an old artistic practice. And the liberties are not so much contradictions as they are theological illustrations of obvious Scriptural teachings. So, for instance, Evangelicals know that there is "Power in the Blood". So do Catholics. After all, the blood, the selfsame blood that is splattered all over the scourgers at the Pillar, is the blood that we drink on the altar. We say in earnest, what the mob said in unconscious irony: "May his blood be on us and on our children." I pray that prayer will be granted me and my children all the days of our lives. So do Evangelicals. The main difference is that, as a Catholic, I regard the blood of Christ as being just as physical now (albeit sacramentally) as it was then, while my Evangelical friends have a piety that tends to be wary of encounters with the Incarnation in the here and now. (Though encounters with things like this film may serve to alter that.) And since Gibson is a Catholic, he has no trouble with that identification between the blood on the floor of the guardroom and the blood in the chalice. So we are shown the scene (straight from Emmerich) in which Mary blots up the blood of Christ with towels just as a Catholic would blot the spilled Precious Blood with a purificator. It's all one for Gibson because it's all one for any Catholic who knows his faith.
This link between Catholic teaching and the imagery of the film is brilliantly shown in the way Gibson has edited the film. So for instance, as Jesus gazes up to Mount Calvary, the scene suddenly cuts to the Sermon on the Mount and his admonition to love your enemies. As he is beaten, he falls on his back and can see only the foot of the soldier who is scourging him. The scene then cuts to Jesus washing the feet of his disciples. And as he falls to the ground at Calvary at the very feet of the Jewish rulers who condemn him (and who, by this time, an ignorant Christian may be tempted to blame) Gibson chooses that moment to flashback to Jesus saying, "No one takes my life from me. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again."
The awesome power of this film comes from the connections it makes (at least for me). I literally caught my breath when Gibson cuts to a scene from the Last Supper where the Passover bread is brought to the table, wrapped in cloth. The bread is set at the table and the cloth is taken off, then Gibson cuts back to Jesus being stripped of his garments. The bread is elevated for the consecration at the Last Supper, and Gibson cuts to the elevation of the cross ("If I be lifted up, I shall draw all men to me.") These kinds of juxtapositions occur throughout the film. Probably the most moving one is the scene where Mary is simply paralyzed by fear and cannot follow Jesus any further on the road. He stumbles under his cross. She has a flashback of him falling as a child and her running to comfort him. It somehow gives her the will to run to him again with the same words "I'm here." She is a comfort for him, yet he is somehow the greater comfort for her. His grace has made it possible for her to wrench free of her paralyzing fear. He looks at her and says, "Behold, I make all things new" (words from Revelation that remind us of the cosmic backdrop to this harrowing torment.
I could go on and on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that this film is one of the most theologically informed films I've ever seen. Not a frame of it is left to chance. As to the complaints about blood and gore, I'm afraid that from a Catholic perspective, this only illustrates to me that most people don't, at the end of the day, *really* believe what we say when we talk about the blood of Christ and the agonies of the cross and so forth. In the end, I suspect there is something of the spirit that whispered to Simon Peter on Caesarea Philippi at work: "No, Master! This must never be!" We say that because (we assure ourselves) we don't want this "pornographic violence" (as the suddenly puritanical Andrew Sullivan and similiar critics have clucked). But, in reality, we are upset because we don't want to face that fact that the man who endured this said, "Take up *your* cross and follow me." It's not him we're concerned with. It's saving our own skins--as Peter himself discovered. In our heart of hearts, our response to the message of the cross is, if we are normal, "No. No thanks. Not if it involved that. He can't be serious."
Don't feel too smug about the Sullivans of the world recoiling in horror from that. If you don't recoil, you haven't thought about the implications of the gospel. I *hope* that, should it be necessary, I can someday be willing to endure what the gospel has cost some of our brothers and sisters--and supremely, our Lord. But I don't know if I could. I fervently pray I shall never have to find out.
In the meantime, I remember the counsel of a Father of the Church (Ephraim the Syrian, I think) who said, "Be kind to everyone you meet, for every person is fighting a great battle."
Brief update: Interested readers can now purchase a signed copy of A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions about the Passion of the Christ from me. (Sorry, but the signature is just me. The other four authors are unavailable.) The response to the book continues to be overwhelming (300,000 copies requested so far and no letup in sight.) If you are interested in bulk orders, go to www.evangelization.com.
The quick assessment: Hands down the finest film ever made about Jesus Christ. Period.
The longer assessment: Let's get a few things out of the way immediately.
First: Thanks, Mel, for having the great courage to make this film. It was a profoundly *manly* thing to do and has given us a portrayal of Jesus that is, in the very best sense of the word, the most masculine Jesus ever committed to celluloid. Interestingly, several men I have talked to have spoken of the film in that way as well. The sense of sheer *warfare* that permeates the film is overwhelming. And it is deeply and profoundly warfare with powers and principalities, not with flesh and blood. Jesus has no enmity to his human adversaries. He prays for them repeatedly. But his hostility to the devil is implacable, utter, and steely. Indeed, if I were the devil, I would quail in terror at what is, for Lucifer, the single most frightening moment in the film: the look of Resolve on the face of the Risen Christ in the final moments of the film. Satan has done his worst. Now it's Time to wrest the entire cosmos away from him.
Second: I cannot speak for Jews because I am not Jewish. So I'm not going to go around telling Jews what they can and cannot feel about the film. If it makes some Jewish people feel upset then they are entitled to their reactions. That's what works of art do: provoke reactions. However, I *can* tell Jewish people and anybody else who will listen what this work of art did to me and to the 30 teens and adults (and the packed theatre) who, well, not "saw" but experienced it on Friday.
It made us pray. It made us feel ashamed of our sins. It made us embrace each other. It made us weep. It took our breath away at times--both because of the depth of human cruelty and the awe of divine love. It made me admire Gibson's theological depth and his artistic vision. We left the theatre in silence and did not at all feel very inclined to find baseball bats with which to smash synagogue windows. Personally, I felt a strong need to go sit before Jesus in the Tabernacle. I thought of the sins I'd confessed and been forgiven of a couple of days before--and what it cost to have those awesome words of absolution given me. I thought how easily I hold grudges and how much I've fallen into the habit of contemptuously dismissing people who hurt me. I thought of how troubling it was to me that the violence did not trouble me more. I came away from it asking God for a compassionate heart. My son and his friends, God bless their beautiful young souls, immediately went away for a retreat and he came back the wonderful laughing boy I've known all these years, yet there was a seriousness in the joy--like a young boy becoming a man. I came away from the film not only with gratitude for the Sacrifice, but with joy over the gift of all those kids.
I did not, and I daresay no Christian did, come away from the film saying, "I want to hit a Jew." The very idea that anybody could come away thinking that is so repulsive, so *alien* to this film that I cannot believe anybody could come away desiring that.
The reason for that is simple: The film is so deeply immersed in the message of the gospel that only a wilful misreading by a Christian could derive a message of hate from it. Indeed, apart from Jesus and Mary, the strongest character--a character so strong he actually threatens to overshadow Jesus as Mercutio threatens to overshadow Romeo--is Simon of Cyrene. In his relatively short time on the screen, he establishes himself as a true hero. And Gibson is careful to identify that hero as Jewish. He is not a believer in Jesus, but he is a deeply humane man (though fearful at first) and he stand up with immense courage to the Roman brute squad (who are the true villains of the film). By the time he has walked the Via Dolorosa with Christ, he is a changed man, but so should be any Catholic anti-semites lingering out in Hooterville. In one of the most moving images in the film (I still well up when I think of it), he and Jesus make the final ascent to Golgotha with their arms linked over the cross.
Are there Jewish villains in the film? Of course. The film is true to the gospels in that it makes clear that the Temple elite and some of the citizenry (though not all) wanted Jesus dead. To get rid of that fact you must get rid of the gospels themselves. But to this Catholic, I was moved far more to think of some of my own bishops and their selfish clinging to power than I was to generalities about The International Jew or some sort of theorizing about racial guilt. Caiaphas acts, not as all Jews act, but as all corrupt men act--particularly when they are clinging to power. As the reviewer for TIME pointed out, calling criticism of the Sanhedrin "anti-semitic" is as dumb as saying "Either you are with the Republican Party or you are with the terrorists." It is possible to fault the ruling class without despising the entire people. Then, as now, there were lots of Jews who defended Jesus--and not all of them were his disciples as both the cinematic Simon of Cyrene and Rabbi Gamaliel in the book of Acts shows.
As is commonly known, Gibson draws on a variety of sources: the NT, the stations of the cross, Emmerich's visions, and his own imagination. Of course, secular viewers have complained about the violence and, particularly, the blood of the film. One particularly desperate writer not only assumes the film is anti-semitic but also tries to cash in on old American Know-Nothing chips and ignite some good old Protestant hatred of the film.
But it's a total non-starter. Evangelicals are wild about the thing, and well they should be. A tiny minority of Fundies complain that it takes liberties with Scripture, but these are indeed a tiny minority. The rest recognize that liberties with Scripture are an old artistic practice. And the liberties are not so much contradictions as they are theological illustrations of obvious Scriptural teachings. So, for instance, Evangelicals know that there is "Power in the Blood". So do Catholics. After all, the blood, the selfsame blood that is splattered all over the scourgers at the Pillar, is the blood that we drink on the altar. We say in earnest, what the mob said in unconscious irony: "May his blood be on us and on our children." I pray that prayer will be granted me and my children all the days of our lives. So do Evangelicals. The main difference is that, as a Catholic, I regard the blood of Christ as being just as physical now (albeit sacramentally) as it was then, while my Evangelical friends have a piety that tends to be wary of encounters with the Incarnation in the here and now. (Though encounters with things like this film may serve to alter that.) And since Gibson is a Catholic, he has no trouble with that identification between the blood on the floor of the guardroom and the blood in the chalice. So we are shown the scene (straight from Emmerich) in which Mary blots up the blood of Christ with towels just as a Catholic would blot the spilled Precious Blood with a purificator. It's all one for Gibson because it's all one for any Catholic who knows his faith.
This link between Catholic teaching and the imagery of the film is brilliantly shown in the way Gibson has edited the film. So for instance, as Jesus gazes up to Mount Calvary, the scene suddenly cuts to the Sermon on the Mount and his admonition to love your enemies. As he is beaten, he falls on his back and can see only the foot of the soldier who is scourging him. The scene then cuts to Jesus washing the feet of his disciples. And as he falls to the ground at Calvary at the very feet of the Jewish rulers who condemn him (and who, by this time, an ignorant Christian may be tempted to blame) Gibson chooses that moment to flashback to Jesus saying, "No one takes my life from me. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again."
The awesome power of this film comes from the connections it makes (at least for me). I literally caught my breath when Gibson cuts to a scene from the Last Supper where the Passover bread is brought to the table, wrapped in cloth. The bread is set at the table and the cloth is taken off, then Gibson cuts back to Jesus being stripped of his garments. The bread is elevated for the consecration at the Last Supper, and Gibson cuts to the elevation of the cross ("If I be lifted up, I shall draw all men to me.") These kinds of juxtapositions occur throughout the film. Probably the most moving one is the scene where Mary is simply paralyzed by fear and cannot follow Jesus any further on the road. He stumbles under his cross. She has a flashback of him falling as a child and her running to comfort him. It somehow gives her the will to run to him again with the same words "I'm here." She is a comfort for him, yet he is somehow the greater comfort for her. His grace has made it possible for her to wrench free of her paralyzing fear. He looks at her and says, "Behold, I make all things new" (words from Revelation that remind us of the cosmic backdrop to this harrowing torment.
I could go on and on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that this film is one of the most theologically informed films I've ever seen. Not a frame of it is left to chance. As to the complaints about blood and gore, I'm afraid that from a Catholic perspective, this only illustrates to me that most people don't, at the end of the day, *really* believe what we say when we talk about the blood of Christ and the agonies of the cross and so forth. In the end, I suspect there is something of the spirit that whispered to Simon Peter on Caesarea Philippi at work: "No, Master! This must never be!" We say that because (we assure ourselves) we don't want this "pornographic violence" (as the suddenly puritanical Andrew Sullivan and similiar critics have clucked). But, in reality, we are upset because we don't want to face that fact that the man who endured this said, "Take up *your* cross and follow me." It's not him we're concerned with. It's saving our own skins--as Peter himself discovered. In our heart of hearts, our response to the message of the cross is, if we are normal, "No. No thanks. Not if it involved that. He can't be serious."
Don't feel too smug about the Sullivans of the world recoiling in horror from that. If you don't recoil, you haven't thought about the implications of the gospel. I *hope* that, should it be necessary, I can someday be willing to endure what the gospel has cost some of our brothers and sisters--and supremely, our Lord. But I don't know if I could. I fervently pray I shall never have to find out.
In the meantime, I remember the counsel of a Father of the Church (Ephraim the Syrian, I think) who said, "Be kind to everyone you meet, for every person is fighting a great battle."
Brief update: Interested readers can now purchase a signed copy of A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions about the Passion of the Christ from me. (Sorry, but the signature is just me. The other four authors are unavailable.) The response to the book continues to be overwhelming (300,000 copies requested so far and no letup in sight.) If you are interested in bulk orders, go to www.evangelization.com.
Secret Agent Man Writes the Definitive Takedown of Bill Cork's Relentless Carping
Everytime I read Cork's blog these days, my mind is inexorably drawn back to the Emperor in Amadeus who sniff "too many notes". Bill has sniffed so relentlessly for so long, he's in danger of sucking his nose into his face.
By the way, don't forget to scroll up and read Secret Agent Man's actual review of the film too. It's very, very good.
Everytime I read Cork's blog these days, my mind is inexorably drawn back to the Emperor in Amadeus who sniff "too many notes". Bill has sniffed so relentlessly for so long, he's in danger of sucking his nose into his face.
By the way, don't forget to scroll up and read Secret Agent Man's actual review of the film too. It's very, very good.
I don't have much to add to the news about the ...
...John Jay report that hasn't been talked about pretty thoroughly. I was amazed when I read this good solid lie in the local paper: "The review board said neither celibacy nor gay priests caused the scandal, but both issues needed to be examined."
If my reading of the report is accurate, what it actually said was that a mere homosexual orientation was not the problem--which is, of course, simply Catholic teaching. It doesn't matter what your temptations are. It matters how you respond to them. So a faithful celibate priest who does not act on his temptations is, among other things, not going to rape a kid. However, a priest who does give in to temptation is a problem and the statistics show that 80% of the victims were adolescent males who were abused by priests who not only were homosexually orientated, but who acted on that orientation and, in the case of a great many of them, celebrated and even flaunted it. And to pretend otherwise is simply a loud, thumping, brazen LIE.
As to the rest, my first recommendation is simply that bishops such as Howard Hubbard hold themselves to the same standard they require of their priests and that, failing that, their brother bishops loudly rebuke them for their rank hypocrisy. I'd also say that the faithful have every right to make life extremely uncomfortable for men like Hubbard should they choose to ignore the policies they themselves have instituted for others. And most of all, may God bless Caesar as he does his God-given job.
...John Jay report that hasn't been talked about pretty thoroughly. I was amazed when I read this good solid lie in the local paper: "The review board said neither celibacy nor gay priests caused the scandal, but both issues needed to be examined."
If my reading of the report is accurate, what it actually said was that a mere homosexual orientation was not the problem--which is, of course, simply Catholic teaching. It doesn't matter what your temptations are. It matters how you respond to them. So a faithful celibate priest who does not act on his temptations is, among other things, not going to rape a kid. However, a priest who does give in to temptation is a problem and the statistics show that 80% of the victims were adolescent males who were abused by priests who not only were homosexually orientated, but who acted on that orientation and, in the case of a great many of them, celebrated and even flaunted it. And to pretend otherwise is simply a loud, thumping, brazen LIE.
As to the rest, my first recommendation is simply that bishops such as Howard Hubbard hold themselves to the same standard they require of their priests and that, failing that, their brother bishops loudly rebuke them for their rank hypocrisy. I'd also say that the faithful have every right to make life extremely uncomfortable for men like Hubbard should they choose to ignore the policies they themselves have instituted for others. And most of all, may God bless Caesar as he does his God-given job.
Since it's not Lent today
I thought I'd blog a bit!
For starters, here's David Morrison replying to a truly homophobic Catholic. Hint to all such Donatist as the lady David is responding to: learn the difference between virtuous resistance to concupiscence and sin.
I thought I'd blog a bit!
For starters, here's David Morrison replying to a truly homophobic Catholic. Hint to all such Donatist as the lady David is responding to: learn the difference between virtuous resistance to concupiscence and sin.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
A few final things and I'm outta here for Lent
First off, many, many thanks to all the wonderful people who make this blog the jumpin' joint it is. There's a reason I find this so interesting. I love the fascinating conversation and the input y'all give which keeps me on my toes. My profound gratitude to God first, for making homo sapiens so clever as to invent a cool technology like this, and to all my fellow homo sapiens for your wonderful contributions to the ongoing conversation. Please pray for me that I have a fruitful and spiritually successful Lent in which I draw closer to God, become more like Christ and, in a word, get rid of my sins and participate more fully in the divine nature. Pray particularly that I make good confession and really make the most of the grace of Reconciliation, of Eucharist, and most especially, of Confirmation. Please pray also that I get the work I must do well and truly underway. In a similar vein, I ask pardon of all those whom I have hurt either through deliberate sin or through cloddish inconsideration, here on this blog and I pray God's mercy and peace on any and all who have sinned against me. May we all meet one day merrily in the presence of Christ.
Second, here's a final smorgasbord of links so that you guys can go for the gold and fill the comment box with a world historical record number of comments while I'm gone:
Fr. Glenn Sudano on the Passion of the Christ
My fellow parishioner (and another sign of hope in the rising generation) John Lindblom interviews Br. Anthony Garcia, one of the many wonderful young Dominicans in the Western Province seminary. Read it and feel a thrill of optimism for the future.
Cardinal Pell wants all senior students to see the Passion.
I forgot Fr. Ronald Tacelli is another great Jesuit.
Yet another sign of hope in the Rising Generation!
"They said the U.S. government's policy of preferring abstinence-only education would only increase those rates." Why do I get the feeling that this is a Big Lie? It's like saying that quitting smoking will only increase lung cancer rates.
Marymount Manhattan College in New York hosted the V-Monologues play Feb. 14-15. Now their president adds insult to injury by informing us that the gospels are "early Christian slander". On the bright side, this is not a Jesuit school.
Rod Dreher's review of The Passion of the Christ.
Come fly with me and Fr. Rob Johansen on a pilgrimage to France! And to get you in the mood for talking theology with me, sign up for my class "Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist" at HMSU!
And finally, if this blog has been of benefit to you, if you find yourself filled with pangs of longing for my return, if you are saying, "CAEI consistently fills me with both a crazy itch to hoot like a siamang and with a sense of serenity beyond human ken, not to mention making me laugh and think about stuff!", then please, feel free at any time during Lent to give alms to my Paypal button or, if you prefer, to buy my books and tapes or just email me, get my snailmail address, and send me a check. My dentist and children will appreciate your support deeply, as do my wife and I. God bless you all this Lent, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
First off, many, many thanks to all the wonderful people who make this blog the jumpin' joint it is. There's a reason I find this so interesting. I love the fascinating conversation and the input y'all give which keeps me on my toes. My profound gratitude to God first, for making homo sapiens so clever as to invent a cool technology like this, and to all my fellow homo sapiens for your wonderful contributions to the ongoing conversation. Please pray for me that I have a fruitful and spiritually successful Lent in which I draw closer to God, become more like Christ and, in a word, get rid of my sins and participate more fully in the divine nature. Pray particularly that I make good confession and really make the most of the grace of Reconciliation, of Eucharist, and most especially, of Confirmation. Please pray also that I get the work I must do well and truly underway. In a similar vein, I ask pardon of all those whom I have hurt either through deliberate sin or through cloddish inconsideration, here on this blog and I pray God's mercy and peace on any and all who have sinned against me. May we all meet one day merrily in the presence of Christ.
Second, here's a final smorgasbord of links so that you guys can go for the gold and fill the comment box with a world historical record number of comments while I'm gone:
Fr. Glenn Sudano on the Passion of the Christ
My fellow parishioner (and another sign of hope in the rising generation) John Lindblom interviews Br. Anthony Garcia, one of the many wonderful young Dominicans in the Western Province seminary. Read it and feel a thrill of optimism for the future.
Cardinal Pell wants all senior students to see the Passion.
I forgot Fr. Ronald Tacelli is another great Jesuit.
Yet another sign of hope in the Rising Generation!
"They said the U.S. government's policy of preferring abstinence-only education would only increase those rates." Why do I get the feeling that this is a Big Lie? It's like saying that quitting smoking will only increase lung cancer rates.
Marymount Manhattan College in New York hosted the V-Monologues play Feb. 14-15. Now their president adds insult to injury by informing us that the gospels are "early Christian slander". On the bright side, this is not a Jesuit school.
Rod Dreher's review of The Passion of the Christ.
Come fly with me and Fr. Rob Johansen on a pilgrimage to France! And to get you in the mood for talking theology with me, sign up for my class "Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist" at HMSU!
And finally, if this blog has been of benefit to you, if you find yourself filled with pangs of longing for my return, if you are saying, "CAEI consistently fills me with both a crazy itch to hoot like a siamang and with a sense of serenity beyond human ken, not to mention making me laugh and think about stuff!", then please, feel free at any time during Lent to give alms to my Paypal button or, if you prefer, to buy my books and tapes or just email me, get my snailmail address, and send me a check. My dentist and children will appreciate your support deeply, as do my wife and I. God bless you all this Lent, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Not to pick especially on Jesuits or anything but...
Give the President of John Carroll U hell.
The president of John Carroll, Father Glynn, reportedly received over 1,000 e-mails protesting his school's production of the Vagina Monologues and its plan to give the proceeds to two pro-abortion groups. He apparently did not get the message. Let's go for 10,000.
Do my reader in the Society have any suggestions on how to strike fear into the heart of a Jesuit academic? Any funding source for the University that can be leaned on? You don't have to sign your name if you fear reprisals. But it would be nice to know how to find the pressure point.
Give the President of John Carroll U hell.
The president of John Carroll, Father Glynn, reportedly received over 1,000 e-mails protesting his school's production of the Vagina Monologues and its plan to give the proceeds to two pro-abortion groups. He apparently did not get the message. Let's go for 10,000.
Do my reader in the Society have any suggestions on how to strike fear into the heart of a Jesuit academic? Any funding source for the University that can be leaned on? You don't have to sign your name if you fear reprisals. But it would be nice to know how to find the pressure point.
An ancient Roman critic offers his opinion of sick weirdos who dwell on a crucified God
Alexamenos failed to get the memo that Jesus was High on Life and came to affirm us in our okayness. A cultured critic, in his witty, transgressive little satire "Alexamenos worships his god" showed Alexamenos what a fundamentalist dolt he was and Christianity disappeared shortly thereafter.
"We preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles."
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Alexamenos failed to get the memo that Jesus was High on Life and came to affirm us in our okayness. A cultured critic, in his witty, transgressive little satire "Alexamenos worships his god" showed Alexamenos what a fundamentalist dolt he was and Christianity disappeared shortly thereafter.
"We preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles."
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Don't forget!
It's CAEI's Extremely Truncated Pledge Week! I go off the air at midnight and return after Easter (and on some Sundays). So I won't have my regular pledge drive. But our financial needs are ongoing here at Chez Shea what with dentists and college. So if you like the work I do here, please consider throwing some cash in the cyber guitar case.
If you like to get something for your money (besides this blog, I mean, which I work hard at), you can buy my books and tapes. And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
It's CAEI's Extremely Truncated Pledge Week! I go off the air at midnight and return after Easter (and on some Sundays). So I won't have my regular pledge drive. But our financial needs are ongoing here at Chez Shea what with dentists and college. So if you like the work I do here, please consider throwing some cash in the cyber guitar case.
If you like to get something for your money (besides this blog, I mean, which I work hard at), you can buy my books and tapes. And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
This means war - Andrew Sullivan to Bush.
In Andrew's narcissistic world, defining marriage to mean what it has always meant is an act of aggression. But using judicial fiat to overturn an understanding of marriage that is millennia old is not.
As I say, there can be no peace between those who tolerate homosexual practice but still regard it as a sin and those who demand we approve of it as a positive good and accord it all the protections reserved for the Family. In the end, the Gay Fascist Brigade believes that any attempts to limit its encroachment on the privilege which healthy civilizations have always accorded the family are to be crushed ruthlessly.
I firmly believe that, given the choice between, on the one hand, a Clinton who would end the War on Terror immediately but approve gay marriage and, on the other hand, Bush, Sullivan would unhesitatingly vote for Clinton. It is *all* about gay sex for Andrew. The Islamofascist threat was the largest threat to gay sex on the radar for the past two years, so he backed Bush. Now Bush is the largest threat to gay sex for Andrew, so he will back anybody who supports gay sex, even if they mean to oppose everything Sullivan has written about the War on Terror.
In Andrew's narcissistic world, defining marriage to mean what it has always meant is an act of aggression. But using judicial fiat to overturn an understanding of marriage that is millennia old is not.
As I say, there can be no peace between those who tolerate homosexual practice but still regard it as a sin and those who demand we approve of it as a positive good and accord it all the protections reserved for the Family. In the end, the Gay Fascist Brigade believes that any attempts to limit its encroachment on the privilege which healthy civilizations have always accorded the family are to be crushed ruthlessly.
I firmly believe that, given the choice between, on the one hand, a Clinton who would end the War on Terror immediately but approve gay marriage and, on the other hand, Bush, Sullivan would unhesitatingly vote for Clinton. It is *all* about gay sex for Andrew. The Islamofascist threat was the largest threat to gay sex on the radar for the past two years, so he backed Bush. Now Bush is the largest threat to gay sex for Andrew, so he will back anybody who supports gay sex, even if they mean to oppose everything Sullivan has written about the War on Terror.
The Typically Sane Michael Medved on the Passion film
In fact, all of the most controversial scenes and lines of dialogue stem directly from the Gospels, chapter and verse. This means that critics of the movie inevitably train their fire on Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, rather than "Saint" Mel.
Of course, Jewish observers retain a perfect right to challenge sacred Christian texts, or to denounce the altogether conventional interpretation of those texts by a major filmmaker, but one might reasonably inquire what possible purpose such arguments can serve?
James White is upset by Protestants who love Jesus more than they hate the Catholic Church
And Then? has the scoop.
And Then? has the scoop.
Fr. Tom on the Canadian Bishops' muted response to the Passion
It's amazing how the Catholic Church continues to attract converts despite the amazing timidity and shame for the gospel that so many of her ministers reflect. Of course, it leaves a clear field for things like A Guide to the Passion (which, as of yesterday had passed 160,000 copies sold and will, by the end of the day, probably be past 170,000 thankyouveddymuch), which I am glad of. But it would be nice if the bishops could do something besides clear their throats nervously and tug at their collars.
It's amazing how the Catholic Church continues to attract converts despite the amazing timidity and shame for the gospel that so many of her ministers reflect. Of course, it leaves a clear field for things like A Guide to the Passion (which, as of yesterday had passed 160,000 copies sold and will, by the end of the day, probably be past 170,000 thankyouveddymuch), which I am glad of. But it would be nice if the bishops could do something besides clear their throats nervously and tug at their collars.
The problem is active homosexuals in the priesthood. And that's the problem the bishops have to face up to and deal with.
Yup.
Fr. Rob weigh in on the the Report that's about to come out and on the Passion which he, like everybody else in the whole wide world but me, got to see.
Yup.
Fr. Rob weigh in on the the Report that's about to come out and on the Passion which he, like everybody else in the whole wide world but me, got to see.
Boston Globe Launches Counter-Attack
In a world riven by war and conflicts over gay marriage and the economy, the secular media can still spot the Real Enemy. So today, the Globes' front page is devoted to a nice balance of three attacks on the film. They report. You submit to your betters.
Actually, this is good news. The dragon gets furious when he knows his time is short. There will be some very good fruit from this film, I think.
In a world riven by war and conflicts over gay marriage and the economy, the secular media can still spot the Real Enemy. So today, the Globes' front page is devoted to a nice balance of three attacks on the film. They report. You submit to your betters.
Actually, this is good news. The dragon gets furious when he knows his time is short. There will be some very good fruit from this film, I think.
"As far as Ginsberg's pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love."
That would be Camille Paglia who, as a reader points out, "'conservatives' and 'conservative' Catholics often praise (see National Review) and linked to by (this ought to surprise you) Michael Rose's Crux News."
As somebody who has himself sometimes found reason to enjoy some of Paglia's iconoclastic rants, I can only say that I do so in the full awareness that she is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lunatic. Another living illustration that libertarianism is a philosophy for people with no children. I point to this essay as a fairly typical example of what to expect in coming years as the "What's so bad about sex with children?" Agitprop Machine gets thoroughly ginned up.
That would be Camille Paglia who, as a reader points out, "'conservatives' and 'conservative' Catholics often praise (see National Review) and linked to by (this ought to surprise you) Michael Rose's Crux News."
As somebody who has himself sometimes found reason to enjoy some of Paglia's iconoclastic rants, I can only say that I do so in the full awareness that she is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lunatic. Another living illustration that libertarianism is a philosophy for people with no children. I point to this essay as a fairly typical example of what to expect in coming years as the "What's so bad about sex with children?" Agitprop Machine gets thoroughly ginned up.
My Jesuit reader send me links to Good Jesuits
I happily blog them:
My apologies for forgetting Fr. Mitch Pacwa. And I also should mention the delightful Fr. James V. Schall.
I happily blog them:
Fr. John Kavanaugh, S.J. regularly writes columns with good insights:
Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. is an integral part of EWTN:
Fr. Jim Kubicki, S.J. is the National Director of the Apostleship of Prayer:
Then there are guys like Fr. Richard Hermes, S.J. who get it done daily in the theology department at Jesuit High - New Orleans!
Fr. Greg Boyle, S.J. does some impressive work.
20.jpg){kind=link}
My apologies for forgetting Fr. Mitch Pacwa. And I also should mention the delightful Fr. James V. Schall.
Bush Throws Away Andrew Sullivan's Vote
No wonder Sullivan is talking more and more like he want's Edwards to win. The polestar of his journalism exceeds all other considerations.
No wonder Sullivan is talking more and more like he want's Edwards to win. The polestar of his journalism exceeds all other considerations.
Good Morning! It's Days 5 through 7 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week
Please consider a gift to your humble scribe and click on the PayPal button to the left so that C&EI can stay on the air and our latest dental (and soon college) bills can be paid. You can either make a straight donation or, if you like to get something for your money (beyond this blog, I mean), you can buy my books and tapes. And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Today's your day. Yesterday, other people were pitching in to help out. Now the little angel on your shoulder (you know the one that looks just like you with the little tinfoil halo?) is saying, "C'mon, do the right thing! You *love* this blog!"
Please consider a gift to your humble scribe and click on the PayPal button to the left so that C&EI can stay on the air and our latest dental (and soon college) bills can be paid. You can either make a straight donation or, if you like to get something for your money (beyond this blog, I mean), you can buy my books and tapes. And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Today's your day. Yesterday, other people were pitching in to help out. Now the little angel on your shoulder (you know the one that looks just like you with the little tinfoil halo?) is saying, "C'mon, do the right thing! You *love* this blog!"
Meanwhile...
Vatican Critical of Zero Tolerance Policy
Here's the money graf:
Juxtaposed with the story just below this, it's pretty easy to blow one's stack. Nonetheless, it's important not to, for a number of reasons. First, if the news article is accurate, the report basically says "Criminal activity should be dealt with by Caesar." So I don't see how the Vatican is trying to thwart justice here. Rather, it's trying to deal with the mercy end of things, which is its job. The problem with 'zero tolerance' thinking is that that it treats all abusive activity as absolutely equal and completely overlooks what is, after all, the mission of the Church: the redemption and reclamation of sinners. If the abuse is determined to be criminal then Caesar should do his job and throw the abuser in the clink. But what of abuse that is, say, 40 years old, rather minor (say, a seminarian's night of passion with an underage former girlfriend), fully repented, and even the victim has forgiven it (yes, such things do happen)? Zero tolerance says "Off with his head! 40 years of penitent faithful service of God's people is *nothing*. No mercy!" This is not exactly what I hope to hear from God when I go to confession.
In short, the problem with zero tolerance thinking is that it is, oddly enough, counter to the gospel, which teaches us (particularly in matters of moral decisionmaking) to deal with the *person* and not with some sort of statistical formula or a one-size-fits-all template. The adulterous woman was, for her persecutors, a variable in a moral equation. She was guilty of adultery, therefore the machine of the Law had a particular formula for processing this piece of meat. Jesus saw the woman, the person. And he directed himself to her particular situation and her penitent heart. Strictly speaking, he did not obey the clear letter of the law. But that was because he knew that mercy transcends the letter. That is one of the reasons Mercy is the most scandalous teaching of the gospel.
So is the Vatican calling for abusive priests to not be prosecuted? No. Is it calling for further endangerment of kids? Not that I can see. It appears to me to be saying that if you just indiscriminately kick out priests without paying attention to who they are and what their history is, you are probably setting up a lot of repeat offenders with zero supervision since rootless despairing people with no purpose left in life tend to do Bad Things more frequently than people who have some link to the Body of Christ (of which they are, after all, still a part). In other words, it's saying that if the main mission is to protect people from becoming victims of abusers, zero tolerance is dumb if it only serves to exacerbate the problem. Justice will not be served if, in the rush to just inflict as many punches as we can on somebody in our rage at priestly abuse, we in fact wind up creating the conditions for more abuse. That seems reasonable to me.
I'm one of those annoying people who always thinks zero tolerance policies are stupid and who thought this policy was particularly stupid. It *sounds* great and has a pleasing sound bite quality to the ear, but what it boils down to in real life is that some priest who gave a back rub to some kid at a camp 25 years ago and who regretted it and went on to live an exemplary life is in *exactly* the same moral category ("File under "Irredeemable Monster") as some serial rapist who has shown no remorse for his crimes. The 19 year old seminarian who bedded a 17 year old girl on a night of passion 30 years ago, is *exactly* the same, and to be treated with exactly the same mercilessness, as a priest who carefully and deliberately targeted boy after boy after boy after boy after boy (or girl after girl, or spousal abuse victim after spousal abuse victim) for decades. As far as I can tell, zero tolerance thinking is just another instance of episcopal irresponsibility. Only instead of cutting lay victims adrift, the bishops are now cutting their priests adrift on the slightest pretense. It's an approach to the problem that seems to me just as foreign to the gospel as the previous irresponsibility to victims was.
All hate mail gratefully accepted.
Vatican Critical of Zero Tolerance Policy
Here's the money graf:
The experts said a zero-tolerance policy was mistaken and even dangerous. Most agreed that such a policy can actually increase the chances that offenders might strike again because it removes them from supervision and the only jobs they have known for decades.
Juxtaposed with the story just below this, it's pretty easy to blow one's stack. Nonetheless, it's important not to, for a number of reasons. First, if the news article is accurate, the report basically says "Criminal activity should be dealt with by Caesar." So I don't see how the Vatican is trying to thwart justice here. Rather, it's trying to deal with the mercy end of things, which is its job. The problem with 'zero tolerance' thinking is that that it treats all abusive activity as absolutely equal and completely overlooks what is, after all, the mission of the Church: the redemption and reclamation of sinners. If the abuse is determined to be criminal then Caesar should do his job and throw the abuser in the clink. But what of abuse that is, say, 40 years old, rather minor (say, a seminarian's night of passion with an underage former girlfriend), fully repented, and even the victim has forgiven it (yes, such things do happen)? Zero tolerance says "Off with his head! 40 years of penitent faithful service of God's people is *nothing*. No mercy!" This is not exactly what I hope to hear from God when I go to confession.
In short, the problem with zero tolerance thinking is that it is, oddly enough, counter to the gospel, which teaches us (particularly in matters of moral decisionmaking) to deal with the *person* and not with some sort of statistical formula or a one-size-fits-all template. The adulterous woman was, for her persecutors, a variable in a moral equation. She was guilty of adultery, therefore the machine of the Law had a particular formula for processing this piece of meat. Jesus saw the woman, the person. And he directed himself to her particular situation and her penitent heart. Strictly speaking, he did not obey the clear letter of the law. But that was because he knew that mercy transcends the letter. That is one of the reasons Mercy is the most scandalous teaching of the gospel.
So is the Vatican calling for abusive priests to not be prosecuted? No. Is it calling for further endangerment of kids? Not that I can see. It appears to me to be saying that if you just indiscriminately kick out priests without paying attention to who they are and what their history is, you are probably setting up a lot of repeat offenders with zero supervision since rootless despairing people with no purpose left in life tend to do Bad Things more frequently than people who have some link to the Body of Christ (of which they are, after all, still a part). In other words, it's saying that if the main mission is to protect people from becoming victims of abusers, zero tolerance is dumb if it only serves to exacerbate the problem. Justice will not be served if, in the rush to just inflict as many punches as we can on somebody in our rage at priestly abuse, we in fact wind up creating the conditions for more abuse. That seems reasonable to me.
I'm one of those annoying people who always thinks zero tolerance policies are stupid and who thought this policy was particularly stupid. It *sounds* great and has a pleasing sound bite quality to the ear, but what it boils down to in real life is that some priest who gave a back rub to some kid at a camp 25 years ago and who regretted it and went on to live an exemplary life is in *exactly* the same moral category ("File under "Irredeemable Monster") as some serial rapist who has shown no remorse for his crimes. The 19 year old seminarian who bedded a 17 year old girl on a night of passion 30 years ago, is *exactly* the same, and to be treated with exactly the same mercilessness, as a priest who carefully and deliberately targeted boy after boy after boy after boy after boy (or girl after girl, or spousal abuse victim after spousal abuse victim) for decades. As far as I can tell, zero tolerance thinking is just another instance of episcopal irresponsibility. Only instead of cutting lay victims adrift, the bishops are now cutting their priests adrift on the slightest pretense. It's an approach to the problem that seems to me just as foreign to the gospel as the previous irresponsibility to victims was.
All hate mail gratefully accepted.
So very sad
May God grant him the peace he could not find in life and have mercy on his soul--and on the souls of those who sinned against him so grievously.
May God grant him the peace he could not find in life and have mercy on his soul--and on the souls of those who sinned against him so grievously.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Fascinating discussion going on below
One of my gay readers on this thread, trying desperately to say, "Don't stand so close to me" to a pedophilia propagandist who is copying word for word from the Gay Agitprop Playbook, tries the "consent" ploy.
Children, we are informed, are incapable of "consent". Oh, and besides, it's against the law.
Of course, children are, in fact, capable of all sorts of consent to all sorts of things. And, of course, laws can be changed (sort of like when a court decides by fiat that gay marriage is suddenly "the law".
Oh, but that could never happen with pedophilia because.... uh, it just never could. Not even when pedophile apologists hammer away at the culture for the next 20 years as gay apologists hammered away at the culture for the past 20 years, pointing out (with a growing battery of "experts" at their command) that children are capable of strong emotional attachments, that our notions of childhood ability to make "informed judgements" is not reflected by the latest data, that there isn't even the risk of pregnancy to consider if they are young enough, that consent is a private personal thing and blah blah blah.
Nope. No amount of sloppy sentimental movies of the week about "forbidden love" and sympathetic portraits of children who found the Adult Who Really Cared but were cruelly hampered in their hopes for a better life by Evil Strait-Laced Fundamentalist Parents will break down that cultural barrier. No endless series of profiles of the surprisingly happy and well-adjusted lives of pedophiles in the NY Times will change things. No increasing deployment of the word "taboo" and pleas from Episcopalians for Man Boy Love (established 2010 AD) will budge our unalterable... present mood for which most people could not give a coherent argument against a trained sophist like Mr. Ashford.
But no matter. For what, after all, is more solid, sure, and everlasting than a mood, except maybe a wisp of cloud or snowflake?
Nope. My gay reader is dreaming if he thinks that the Man Boy Love contingent will not continue to push the rhetoric the Gay Agitprop Brigade has deployed with such overwhelming success. And he's dreaming if he thinks our "transgressive" Manufacturers of Culture will not embrace that logic as kinda cool and start promoting it out of sheer love of watching the bourgeoisie squirm. And he's especially crazy if he think that Gay Agitprop Brigade will not fall in line behind it when it finally gets cultural traction and defend it to the death. For the simple fact is, if the Man Boy Love agitprop is false, so is the gay agitprop. For Shea's Law is clear: Every expansion of perversion must be defended, lest the previous expansion be called into question.
It is an iron law of human existence: The culture that despises virginity is the culture that despises children.
Suggest reading: Abandoning Children to Their Rights. If you don't believe that there are people both evil and idiotic enough to say, "children should have rights identical to adults" and who are promoting "'an autonomous view' of children's rights that is 'more based on choice than needs' of children", then you are simply naive about the capacity of the human race for evil.
One of my gay readers on this thread, trying desperately to say, "Don't stand so close to me" to a pedophilia propagandist who is copying word for word from the Gay Agitprop Playbook, tries the "consent" ploy.
The arguments may sound the same but the pedophilia argument is false. Why? Children and consent. Both homosexuality and pedophilia may be sins, but the former can be legal while the latter can remain illegal.
Children, we are informed, are incapable of "consent". Oh, and besides, it's against the law.
Of course, children are, in fact, capable of all sorts of consent to all sorts of things. And, of course, laws can be changed (sort of like when a court decides by fiat that gay marriage is suddenly "the law".
Oh, but that could never happen with pedophilia because.... uh, it just never could. Not even when pedophile apologists hammer away at the culture for the next 20 years as gay apologists hammered away at the culture for the past 20 years, pointing out (with a growing battery of "experts" at their command) that children are capable of strong emotional attachments, that our notions of childhood ability to make "informed judgements" is not reflected by the latest data, that there isn't even the risk of pregnancy to consider if they are young enough, that consent is a private personal thing and blah blah blah.
Nope. No amount of sloppy sentimental movies of the week about "forbidden love" and sympathetic portraits of children who found the Adult Who Really Cared but were cruelly hampered in their hopes for a better life by Evil Strait-Laced Fundamentalist Parents will break down that cultural barrier. No endless series of profiles of the surprisingly happy and well-adjusted lives of pedophiles in the NY Times will change things. No increasing deployment of the word "taboo" and pleas from Episcopalians for Man Boy Love (established 2010 AD) will budge our unalterable... present mood for which most people could not give a coherent argument against a trained sophist like Mr. Ashford.
But no matter. For what, after all, is more solid, sure, and everlasting than a mood, except maybe a wisp of cloud or snowflake?
Nope. My gay reader is dreaming if he thinks that the Man Boy Love contingent will not continue to push the rhetoric the Gay Agitprop Brigade has deployed with such overwhelming success. And he's dreaming if he thinks our "transgressive" Manufacturers of Culture will not embrace that logic as kinda cool and start promoting it out of sheer love of watching the bourgeoisie squirm. And he's especially crazy if he think that Gay Agitprop Brigade will not fall in line behind it when it finally gets cultural traction and defend it to the death. For the simple fact is, if the Man Boy Love agitprop is false, so is the gay agitprop. For Shea's Law is clear: Every expansion of perversion must be defended, lest the previous expansion be called into question.
It is an iron law of human existence: The culture that despises virginity is the culture that despises children.
Suggest reading: Abandoning Children to Their Rights. If you don't believe that there are people both evil and idiotic enough to say, "children should have rights identical to adults" and who are promoting "'an autonomous view' of children's rights that is 'more based on choice than needs' of children", then you are simply naive about the capacity of the human race for evil.
My son's cry of despair:
"I tried not being perfect and I failed!"
I know how he feels. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
"I tried not being perfect and I failed!"
I know how he feels. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Rod Dreher Has a Lovely Take on The Passion
I'm convinced this is going to be a great film and one of the salient evangelistic moments of our generation. However, in my ongoing effort to be fair, I should also notes that I have privately divided opposition to the film into "intelligent" and "stoopid" categories.
The stoopid form of opposition to the film is often transparently due to the fact that a great many people loathe, not the film, but the gospel itself. And so we get bonehead complaints from the "Jesus' Real Message Was About Funding Libraries and Caring and Sharing" types who try to tell us, with a straight face, that his death was entirely incidental to his life. Also dumb is the professional handwringing which insists that any depiction of the death of Christ which involves any other Jew than Jesus is necessarily antisemitic.
But there are intelligent critiques of the film too. Or rather, of the idea of trying to put the central event of the Christian faith on film. They boil down to this: There is death in the camera, says C.S. Lewis. Somehow a "realistic" depiction often winds up landing us further away from the reality than a depiction in other forms. We got a whiff of this with the film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. Wonderful on so many levels, and yet still not the same experience--not as *good* an experience as the novel itself. The Word has a power that the photograph can't match.
Several Eastern Orthodox writers have cautioned that the attempt to remove the presentation of the gospel story from the context of the liturgy is inherently problematic since God has chosen to mediate the Mystery to us in that way, and not through more "realistic" means. I think there is wisdom in this concern. I don't necessarily agree with it (like I say, I'm looking forward to the film and think it will have a profound impact for good). But I see the reasonableness of the concern and think it worth considering and respecting. So I thought I'd bring it up.
I'm convinced this is going to be a great film and one of the salient evangelistic moments of our generation. However, in my ongoing effort to be fair, I should also notes that I have privately divided opposition to the film into "intelligent" and "stoopid" categories.
The stoopid form of opposition to the film is often transparently due to the fact that a great many people loathe, not the film, but the gospel itself. And so we get bonehead complaints from the "Jesus' Real Message Was About Funding Libraries and Caring and Sharing" types who try to tell us, with a straight face, that his death was entirely incidental to his life. Also dumb is the professional handwringing which insists that any depiction of the death of Christ which involves any other Jew than Jesus is necessarily antisemitic.
But there are intelligent critiques of the film too. Or rather, of the idea of trying to put the central event of the Christian faith on film. They boil down to this: There is death in the camera, says C.S. Lewis. Somehow a "realistic" depiction often winds up landing us further away from the reality than a depiction in other forms. We got a whiff of this with the film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. Wonderful on so many levels, and yet still not the same experience--not as *good* an experience as the novel itself. The Word has a power that the photograph can't match.
Several Eastern Orthodox writers have cautioned that the attempt to remove the presentation of the gospel story from the context of the liturgy is inherently problematic since God has chosen to mediate the Mystery to us in that way, and not through more "realistic" means. I think there is wisdom in this concern. I don't necessarily agree with it (like I say, I'm looking forward to the film and think it will have a profound impact for good). But I see the reasonableness of the concern and think it worth considering and respecting. So I thought I'd bring it up.
Well, well, well!
Funny. Ono Ekeh has been writing in to Amy Welborn's comments boxes forever, singing the praises of John Kerry with evangelistic fervor, and yet, as far as I can recall, he never got around to mentioning certain other rather salient facts :
I know Jesus had whores in his following. But I don't think people who sell their souls to promote a radical pro-abort and ridicule the Church's teaching on the value of human life and the dignity of marriage is quite what He had in mind.
Funny. Ono Ekeh has been writing in to Amy Welborn's comments boxes forever, singing the praises of John Kerry with evangelistic fervor, and yet, as far as I can recall, he never got around to mentioning certain other rather salient facts :
An Activist In the Bishops' Conference
CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter
February 23, 2004
**********************************************
Dear Friend,
I know I just wrote to you on Friday, but I have an important follow-up to my last e-letter that I need to share with you right away.
First, a little history...
In the February issue of CRISIS, we ran an article on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) titled "Playing Politics: Inside the Bishops' Conference, Part II."
In it, the author explained that, when it comes to political issues, the conference as a whole acts like a group of pro-life Democrats. (If you haven't read the article yet, you can find it here.
Amazingly enough, some people at the conference took objection to that characterization. Certainly not everyone there fits this description, they said. Well, I have to admit, they're right. Not everyone in the Conference is a pro-life Democrat.
Some are just plain Democrats.
A case in point is Ono Ekeh, the administrator of the "Catholics For Kerry" internet newsgroup. You see, when he's not working to get pro-abortion Democrat John Kerry elected president, he can be found at his other job: program coordinator for the Secretariat for African-American Catholics at the USCCB.
As you probably know, the USCCB itself takes a strong pro-life stance, saying that "the well-informed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political policy or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals," especially in regards to abortion.
So, how can an employee of the conference go directly against this clear mandate and publicly support a politician who has said repeatedly that he will approve only pro-abortion judges for the Supreme Court?
Journalist Tim Drake tipped me off to Ekeh and his position at the conference. While writing a story on John Kerry, Drake interviewed Ekeh about his support for the senator. When Drake asked about Ekeh's profession, Ekeh simply responded that he was "a small business owner." He made no mention of being employed by the bishops' conference.
It's no wonder -- on the "Catholics for Kerry" site, Ekeh has made several comments that directly challenge the Vatican, the bishops' conference, and even the president of the conference, Bishop Wilton Gregory himself. Not what you'd expect from someone in Gregory's employ.
Predictably, Ekeh goes to great (sometimes downright comical) lengths to justify support for a politician who blatantly rejects the Church's teaching on life issues. Ekeh explains that, instead of opposing abortion, Kerry will target poverty and thus help eliminate the dire financial circumstances that often drive women to abortion. In this way, Ekeh claims, "John Kerry's vision for America is a pro-life vision that will ultimately reduce the frequency of and need for abortions."
I wonder if John Kerry knows that his vision is "pro-life." After all, in my last e-letter I quoted Kerry saying that he wants to EXPAND abortion and make it MORE available, not eliminate poverty to reduce abortion rates. The "vision" Ekeh describes seems to be one he's invented himself.
But Ekeh doesn't end there. He even goes so far as to defend Kerry against the explicit directives from the Vatican and the USCCB that condemn political support for abortion and gay marriage.
With regards to the Vatican's comments on a politician's responsibility to support pro-life legislation, Ekeh boasts that "John Kerry has recently made it clear that he will not be taking orders from the Vatican and rightly so... Senator Kerry made a prudent decision in rejecting the Vatican's demands. Such a rejection does not mean a lack of respect for the Vatican or the Church's teachings. Rather, it highlights that the man understands that his obligations are primarily to the people his [sic] serves and not the Vatican."
He goes on to claim that the pope has never specifically commented on a politician's duty in this regard. Even the "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life" won't convince him, since it was written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and not the pope himself. (Never mind that the pope gave the Note his complete support and clearly stands behind its message.)
Ekeh gets a bit personal when it comes to his boss, Bishop Gregory. He's especially offended by Gregory's comments regarding gay marriage, where the bishop rightly points out that a Catholic legislator is in "formal cooperation" with sin if he "does not oppose" legislation in favor of gay unions. Ekeh sniffs that "This is getting as close to excommunication as they would dare in our day and age... This is no less then than a tool of manipulation or control. This is commensurate with how the Holy See controlled politics in the Middle Ages, they had the ultimate threat, the threat of excommunication."
Oh brother.
Look, it's one thing for a Catholic to be a pro-life Democrat --
that in itself is a perfectly legitimate position and consistent with our Catholic Faith. However, it's completely unacceptable to follow Ekeh and trade away our pro-life responsibilities.
As Kerry advances down the presidential campaign trail, and as other Catholics equivocate on his blatantly pro-abortion record, it will become more and more vital for the bishops to speak out. And for the members of the conference itself, the issue is getting a bit close to home.
Talk to you later this week,
Deal
I know Jesus had whores in his following. But I don't think people who sell their souls to promote a radical pro-abort and ridicule the Church's teaching on the value of human life and the dignity of marriage is quite what He had in mind.
Have you checked out HMSU yet?
My online class, "Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist" will rock your world (in the Petrine sense of the word).
Hurry! Registration closes March 1.
My online class, "Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist" will rock your world (in the Petrine sense of the word).
Hurry! Registration closes March 1.
Where else but on my blog would you get to find a headline like...
"Babushka Swears That Superstition is Orthodox"
...or discover a cool site like "The Onion Dome"? Written, I might add, by people who are practically my neighbors!
Why, if I were you, I would click on my PayPal button and make a donation to the Quarterly Fund Drive in weepy gratitude for all this blog means to you!
"Babushka Swears That Superstition is Orthodox"
...or discover a cool site like "The Onion Dome"? Written, I might add, by people who are practically my neighbors!
Why, if I were you, I would click on my PayPal button and make a donation to the Quarterly Fund Drive in weepy gratitude for all this blog means to you!
Amy Welborn is Awesome
You will need this book in coming years. When they make the film, the mere fact that Russell Crowe is in it will constitute Settled Scientific Proof that the "facts" behind the Da Vinci Code are so solid that no rational person can believe the "official story" foisted on witless gulls by a sinister Church.
Learn to refute the Latest Real Jesus and you will be doing a real work of mercy for a lot of people who are going to be influenced by this well-written, fast-paced, engaging piece of lying crap by Dan Brown.
You will need this book in coming years. When they make the film, the mere fact that Russell Crowe is in it will constitute Settled Scientific Proof that the "facts" behind the Da Vinci Code are so solid that no rational person can believe the "official story" foisted on witless gulls by a sinister Church.
Learn to refute the Latest Real Jesus and you will be doing a real work of mercy for a lot of people who are going to be influenced by this well-written, fast-paced, engaging piece of lying crap by Dan Brown.
Heresy is self-sterilizing
One of the nice things about the "High on Life Jesus" version of Christianity is that, in addition to being so dull that no sentient being can remain in its presence without nodding off or committing suicide is the fact that it is so high and mighty and aloof from the foolish cattle who are going to see the Passion, that it will not, of course, avail itself of any opportunity to evangelize or catechize people who will be walking out of the theatres, stunned by what they have seen and asking, perhaps for the first time, "Who is this Jesus?"
That means they leave the work of answering that question to... well, people like Catholic Exchange and Ascension Press and our book "A Guide to the Passion" or else folks like the Daughters of St. Paul. I like that arrangement a great deal. :)
One of the nice things about the "High on Life Jesus" version of Christianity is that, in addition to being so dull that no sentient being can remain in its presence without nodding off or committing suicide is the fact that it is so high and mighty and aloof from the foolish cattle who are going to see the Passion, that it will not, of course, avail itself of any opportunity to evangelize or catechize people who will be walking out of the theatres, stunned by what they have seen and asking, perhaps for the first time, "Who is this Jesus?"
That means they leave the work of answering that question to... well, people like Catholic Exchange and Ascension Press and our book "A Guide to the Passion" or else folks like the Daughters of St. Paul. I like that arrangement a great deal. :)
More Catholic Evangelization in Tandem with The Passion of the Christ
The Daughters of St. Paul are on board and down with it!
The Daughters of St. Paul are on board and down with it!
Academic Brownshirts on the March!
Which, by the logic of some of my gay readers, means I think all academics are brownshirts, of course, including one of my closest friends.
Which, by the logic of some of my gay readers, means I think all academics are brownshirts, of course, including one of my closest friends.
Selfish and Proud of It!
Look. Nobody's forcing anybody to have kids. These guys can do as they like. But all the twaddle about how noble they are being and their "concerns about overpopulation" is bullshit. These are selfish oinkers who dislike children, feel vaguely threatened by the awareness that they are out of the mainstream opinion on this subject, and have decided to make their piggery into a Positive Social Movement to salve their oinky consciences and cash in on the largesse that Americans typically bestow on cranky minorities. There have always been a few W.C. Fields in the world. But Fields knew his loathing of children was funny. These people are demanding to be taken seriously--which just makes them funnier... and more revolting.
Look. Nobody's forcing anybody to have kids. These guys can do as they like. But all the twaddle about how noble they are being and their "concerns about overpopulation" is bullshit. These are selfish oinkers who dislike children, feel vaguely threatened by the awareness that they are out of the mainstream opinion on this subject, and have decided to make their piggery into a Positive Social Movement to salve their oinky consciences and cash in on the largesse that Americans typically bestow on cranky minorities. There have always been a few W.C. Fields in the world. But Fields knew his loathing of children was funny. These people are demanding to be taken seriously--which just makes them funnier... and more revolting.
"He said there is a "very distinct possibility" that homosexuals will set their sights on redefining religious marriage."
But of course! This is all about trying to force homosexuality as a positive good on the majority. The fact that it is a sin and will always be a sin means, ultimately, the orthodox Christians will have open war made upon their faith as a "hate crime" before this is done. There cannot be peaceful coexistence for the Gay Brownshirt Brigade.
But of course! This is all about trying to force homosexuality as a positive good on the majority. The fact that it is a sin and will always be a sin means, ultimately, the orthodox Christians will have open war made upon their faith as a "hate crime" before this is done. There cannot be peaceful coexistence for the Gay Brownshirt Brigade.
Is anybody surprised by this?
In a given large human population, there are going to be some perverts. Why should Protestants be exempt from that?
In a given large human population, there are going to be some perverts. Why should Protestants be exempt from that?
Dad! Can *we* learn Aramaic? Please? Please? Huh? Can we? Pleeeeeeeeeeze?
The cry of the Rising Generation.
The cry of the Rising Generation.
Jane Ganahl defends child abuse, as long as it's of boys
Another feminist becomes a parody of herself. Works out her rage at childhood sufferings by inflicting them on a new generation of innocent kids.
Another feminist becomes a parody of herself. Works out her rage at childhood sufferings by inflicting them on a new generation of innocent kids.
De-Woodstockification Proceeds Apace
Greeley disturbed to find that statistics reveal the majority of the new generation of priests actually believe what the church teaches.
Greeley disturbed to find that statistics reveal the majority of the new generation of priests actually believe what the church teaches.
Since it's NRO they have to talk this way
But, of course, the reality is that "conservative" bishops (for instance, in Omaha) are just as capable of self-centered narcissism as O'Brien was. It's an equal opportunity sin, though I have to concede that O'Brien's narcissism is in a class by itself.
But, of course, the reality is that "conservative" bishops (for instance, in Omaha) are just as capable of self-centered narcissism as O'Brien was. It's an equal opportunity sin, though I have to concede that O'Brien's narcissism is in a class by itself.
Good Morning! Today is Days 1 through 4 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week
I will be gone starting Ash Wednesday and through Lent. That means I will not be around in March for the normal quarterly Fund Drive. However, I hope that my efforts over the past two months will still be meritorious enough to persuade you to help a distinctly lower middle class writer help keep a roof over his family's head and food in their bellies. (And I will pop in on Sundays during Lent.)
For all newbies, just a word on this blog: I work half time for Catholic Exchange.com for a rather modest paycheck. I also have four kids (two of whom are locustlike adolescents). The rest of my income is earned by scraping together what I can from freelancing and speaking. In addition, I offer my work on this blog in the hope of building up the Church a bit, providing some amusement and education for readers, and creating a unique space where folk can come together to discuss issues in life, the culture and the Church that pretty much can't be discussed this way in any other media. If you like what I do here: I ask, once a quarter, that folk will do for this service what they would do for any other form of thought-provoking, entertaining, well-written stuff: pay for it as best they can. After all, where else can you find Rod Dreher, Fr. Paul Mankowski, Sandra Meisel and a host of others telling me I'm all wet? What other source puts you in touch with Trogdor *and* a compare/contrast discussion of the High on Life Jesus and the dreaded "atonement theology" Jesus? Who else quotes Lina Lamont *and* Thomas Aquinas? And where else would you be able to talk to an actual living Holy Roman Emperor?
So please, if you enjoy C&EI, could you give generously to my Paypal button on the left rail and help me keep on with making the blog a financially viable use of my time? I love doing it, but there's only so many hours in a day and writing is time intensive. If I don't make enough here, raw economic reality means I gotta make the money somewhere else writing something else.
Oh! And if you prefer to get a goody for your investment in quality blogging, consider buying my books and tapes for yourself and 20 or 30 of your closest personal friends. Also, if PayPal gives you the jibblies for some reason, feel free to email me and I can give you my snail mail address. I'm happy to take a check!
Thanks ever so for your lovely support of CAEI! It is deeply appreciated!
I will be gone starting Ash Wednesday and through Lent. That means I will not be around in March for the normal quarterly Fund Drive. However, I hope that my efforts over the past two months will still be meritorious enough to persuade you to help a distinctly lower middle class writer help keep a roof over his family's head and food in their bellies. (And I will pop in on Sundays during Lent.)
For all newbies, just a word on this blog: I work half time for Catholic Exchange.com for a rather modest paycheck. I also have four kids (two of whom are locustlike adolescents). The rest of my income is earned by scraping together what I can from freelancing and speaking. In addition, I offer my work on this blog in the hope of building up the Church a bit, providing some amusement and education for readers, and creating a unique space where folk can come together to discuss issues in life, the culture and the Church that pretty much can't be discussed this way in any other media. If you like what I do here: I ask, once a quarter, that folk will do for this service what they would do for any other form of thought-provoking, entertaining, well-written stuff: pay for it as best they can. After all, where else can you find Rod Dreher, Fr. Paul Mankowski, Sandra Meisel and a host of others telling me I'm all wet? What other source puts you in touch with Trogdor *and* a compare/contrast discussion of the High on Life Jesus and the dreaded "atonement theology" Jesus? Who else quotes Lina Lamont *and* Thomas Aquinas? And where else would you be able to talk to an actual living Holy Roman Emperor?
So please, if you enjoy C&EI, could you give generously to my Paypal button on the left rail and help me keep on with making the blog a financially viable use of my time? I love doing it, but there's only so many hours in a day and writing is time intensive. If I don't make enough here, raw economic reality means I gotta make the money somewhere else writing something else.
Oh! And if you prefer to get a goody for your investment in quality blogging, consider buying my books and tapes for yourself and 20 or 30 of your closest personal friends. Also, if PayPal gives you the jibblies for some reason, feel free to email me and I can give you my snail mail address. I'm happy to take a check!
Thanks ever so for your lovely support of CAEI! It is deeply appreciated!
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Chris Johnson (apparently) get a visit from the subject of the handwringing sympathy ad for pedophilia masquerading as journalism that I blogged the other day
I wonder if any of my gay readers are going to wander over there and insist that he stop borrowing from the Gay Agitprop Handbook to justify his sinful behavior? It's hard to tell the rhetoric apart.
I wonder if any of my gay readers are going to wander over there and insist that he stop borrowing from the Gay Agitprop Handbook to justify his sinful behavior? It's hard to tell the rhetoric apart.
I don't agree with the good bishop on everything, but man, do I like him!
Burke for Archbish... Oh. I guess they've already taken care of that.
I begin to hope for an American Pope after all. (Relax. It'll never happen.)
Burke for Archbish... Oh. I guess they've already taken care of that.
I begin to hope for an American Pope after all. (Relax. It'll never happen.)
Mammon and Moloch, Inc.
Eating children and making a fat profit off of it for over 5000 years. Business fell on hard times during the apex of the damned Catholic Church. But now the old firm is tanned, rested, and ready for all the new opportunities that a technology divorced from Christian influence affords.
Oh, and meanwhile, Euro schools are wondering whether Christian education should teach Christian morals. So paralyzed are the ninnies debating this that the only voice of sanity comes from an atheist:
Yes. A fine time to entrust the power of determining what "human" shall henceforth mean to the children of Adam. As long as they promise not to wantoning destroy human life for the sake of Massive Money, I'm sure they will do just great.
Eating children and making a fat profit off of it for over 5000 years. Business fell on hard times during the apex of the damned Catholic Church. But now the old firm is tanned, rested, and ready for all the new opportunities that a technology divorced from Christian influence affords.
Oh, and meanwhile, Euro schools are wondering whether Christian education should teach Christian morals. So paralyzed are the ninnies debating this that the only voice of sanity comes from an atheist:
In an opinion article for London's Times that same day, a self-proclaimed atheist, Mick Hume, stated: "If there is to be RE in state schools, I would prefer my children to be taught full-on Christianity than offered a vapid pick-and-mix of multicultural spirituality."
Yes. A fine time to entrust the power of determining what "human" shall henceforth mean to the children of Adam. As long as they promise not to wantoning destroy human life for the sake of Massive Money, I'm sure they will do just great.
Steve Greydanus on the Passion
Here and here.
Ebert and Roeper love it too. But they aren't Highly Trained Professional Chancery People, so disregard such critics--unless they hate the film. Then they are the last word in professional film criticism.
Here and here.
Ebert and Roeper love it too. But they aren't Highly Trained Professional Chancery People, so disregard such critics--unless they hate the film. Then they are the last word in professional film criticism.
A Guide to Passion in the News!
When a major media source like the Bucyrus Telegraph-Forum (serving Bucyrus and Crawford County Ohio) sits up and takes notice, you *know* you've arrived.
Word is we've signed Arnold Ziffle as a major celebrity promoter.
When a major media source like the Bucyrus Telegraph-Forum (serving Bucyrus and Crawford County Ohio) sits up and takes notice, you *know* you've arrived.
Word is we've signed Arnold Ziffle as a major celebrity promoter.
The High on Life Jesus Meme Continues to Gather Steam
I just love how the impartial media levels the playing field so that a few academics with the Latest Dimwitted Fad are on an absolutely equal footing with All Christians at All Times. There is, you see, the "camp" that says the death and resurrection are completely inconsequential to the gospel and the "atonement theology camp" (which has, you know, kooks like Mel Gibson in it) who, get this, think Jesus died for their sins. Can you imagine? They actually think that. But highly educated theologians are, of course, clearing up that ridiculous misreading of the gospels.
Some of my readers have been expressing the hope that the launch of the Passion will be a big Cultural Victory and that The Tide Has Turned in American Culture. Mmmmmaybe. I merely note that the apostles probably had similar thoughts on Palm Sunday. They were right about the coming triumph of Christ. But they forgot to take into account that said triumph always comes through the cross, not without it.
Moral: Expect the devil to be *more* furious, for he knows his time is short. The attacks on the film, the body of Christ, and so forth will be *more* vicious, I reckon.
Oh! And look here's Mitch Albom demanding Mel do what nobody ever demands *you* do about embarrassing things your parents have said.
And there's Andy Rooney trying and convicting Gibson of being a "wacko" because, because, well, dammit, he just is. He made a movie about Jesus after all! What further proof do you need?
Expect more of the High on Life Jesus meme as the serpent attempts the laughable Big Lie of denying that Jesus mission had anything to do with death and resurrection at all. He loves Big Lies.
I just love how the impartial media levels the playing field so that a few academics with the Latest Dimwitted Fad are on an absolutely equal footing with All Christians at All Times. There is, you see, the "camp" that says the death and resurrection are completely inconsequential to the gospel and the "atonement theology camp" (which has, you know, kooks like Mel Gibson in it) who, get this, think Jesus died for their sins. Can you imagine? They actually think that. But highly educated theologians are, of course, clearing up that ridiculous misreading of the gospels.
Some of my readers have been expressing the hope that the launch of the Passion will be a big Cultural Victory and that The Tide Has Turned in American Culture. Mmmmmaybe. I merely note that the apostles probably had similar thoughts on Palm Sunday. They were right about the coming triumph of Christ. But they forgot to take into account that said triumph always comes through the cross, not without it.
Moral: Expect the devil to be *more* furious, for he knows his time is short. The attacks on the film, the body of Christ, and so forth will be *more* vicious, I reckon.
Oh! And look here's Mitch Albom demanding Mel do what nobody ever demands *you* do about embarrassing things your parents have said.
And there's Andy Rooney trying and convicting Gibson of being a "wacko" because, because, well, dammit, he just is. He made a movie about Jesus after all! What further proof do you need?
Expect more of the High on Life Jesus meme as the serpent attempts the laughable Big Lie of denying that Jesus mission had anything to do with death and resurrection at all. He loves Big Lies.
Interesting discussions of...
two responses from two different bishops to The Passion.
Don't forget to read Amy's followup.
two responses from two different bishops to The Passion.
Don't forget to read Amy's followup.
Yes!
The Archdiocese of Denver gets it! Check out the link to "A Guide to the Passion" on their home page.
This is a Golden Opportunity for Catholic evangelization. Carpe diem!
Thank you, Denver! Archbishop Chaput: Mazeltov!
The Archdiocese of Denver gets it! Check out the link to "A Guide to the Passion" on their home page.
This is a Golden Opportunity for Catholic evangelization. Carpe diem!
Thank you, Denver! Archbishop Chaput: Mazeltov!
Bishop of Cincinnatti attempts to square circle
Bishop Pilarczyk specifically cites the Catechism to buttress his claim that barring special rights for homosexuals is "unjust discrimination". Yet he also opposes a gay rights law that is the goal of those attempting to overturn "Article XII" to the city charter.
Bishop Pilarczyk specifically cites the Catechism to buttress his claim that barring special rights for homosexuals is "unjust discrimination". Yet he also opposes a gay rights law that is the goal of those attempting to overturn "Article XII" to the city charter.
A Jesuit writes me:
I rejoice that there are good signs for the future and I do indeed implore our Father that they continue through Jesus Christ. I certainly do not intend to sow despair among good Jesuits and I say, "God bless you for your hard work in the Vineyard."
Please understand I write out of my experience. I have known or know of the following Jesuits whom I regard very highly (excluding you, O Anonymous Jesuit writer, who I also regard highly but who doesn't count since I'm replying to you): John Hardon, Joseph Fessio, Robert Spitzer, and Paul Mankowski. That's it. I've exhausted my list of positive experiences with Jesuits. That doesn't mean all the rest are bad. But the rest of my experience has been dreadful. Here in Seattle, I'm awaiting the moment Rome opens interreligious dialogue with the people who run Seattle U. The horror stories I could tell about the dreck their theology department pumps out could curl your hair. And when I survey the Stalinist and Machiavellian treachery of places like USF, my opinion drops lower. So I'm reflecting my experience. But I do not mean to claim that my experience is universal and I shall most certainly blog anything positive you'd care to send me about the Jesuits. I'd love to see the old Society pull it together and see a new birth of fidelity. But then I'd like that for the whole American Church. So please forgive me if I've "bashed" Jesuits. I haven't meant to. It's just the the news stories I'm sent seem to reflect my experience. Please, please, please show me the good stuff they're doing. I'd be tickled pink to run it.
Why do you encourage the kind of Jesuit bashing that regularly goes on in the comments section of your blog? When you title a post "Jesuits, of course" you make it sound as if this is all you can expect from the Society of Jesus, which is untrue. Then, naturally, the comments that follow are a rush of anti-Jesuit remarks. I do not understand why you associate anything/everything bad going on at a Jesuit university with the Jesuits. When something goes bad at another Catholic enterprise, you don't post things like "Catholics, of course" or "Diocesans, of course." You just aren't giving the Jesuits a fair shake.
I understand that there are Jesuits that need to be reminded of their mission. I understand that there are Jesuits that could use advice on how to carry out that mission. I am not even suggesting that you are not capable of doing both well. But you would do better to focus on the Jesuits you see that fail, not the order as a whole.
What I do want to sincerely ask of you is that you stop contributing to the assault on the reputation of the Jesuits. I cannot express to you how demoralizing it is to live as a Jesuit, one that I think you would approve of, in the midst of constant criticism from the very people I aim to serve. Every night I assess my day in prayer and consider how I might have improved in holiness or how I might have missed an opportunity. Comments like the ones posted on your blog make me feel like it is a useless struggle and tempt me to abandon my vows in the Society of Jesus.
Further more, I have spoken with or written to many young men discerning a call to the priesthood in the Jesuits. Probably the biggest obstacle, or at least the most frequent, is a fear that they will be thought of as "another one of those bad Jesuits." I understand that this is not completely your fault, but you should recognize the responsibility you have as such a popular Catholic voice. If you want to see the Jesuits reformed, it will likely come from the bottom up. You should be taking great care so as not to impede that anymore than it already is.
There are good signs for the future of the Jesuits. Pray that they continue.
I rejoice that there are good signs for the future and I do indeed implore our Father that they continue through Jesus Christ. I certainly do not intend to sow despair among good Jesuits and I say, "God bless you for your hard work in the Vineyard."
Please understand I write out of my experience. I have known or know of the following Jesuits whom I regard very highly (excluding you, O Anonymous Jesuit writer, who I also regard highly but who doesn't count since I'm replying to you): John Hardon, Joseph Fessio, Robert Spitzer, and Paul Mankowski. That's it. I've exhausted my list of positive experiences with Jesuits. That doesn't mean all the rest are bad. But the rest of my experience has been dreadful. Here in Seattle, I'm awaiting the moment Rome opens interreligious dialogue with the people who run Seattle U. The horror stories I could tell about the dreck their theology department pumps out could curl your hair. And when I survey the Stalinist and Machiavellian treachery of places like USF, my opinion drops lower. So I'm reflecting my experience. But I do not mean to claim that my experience is universal and I shall most certainly blog anything positive you'd care to send me about the Jesuits. I'd love to see the old Society pull it together and see a new birth of fidelity. But then I'd like that for the whole American Church. So please forgive me if I've "bashed" Jesuits. I haven't meant to. It's just the the news stories I'm sent seem to reflect my experience. Please, please, please show me the good stuff they're doing. I'd be tickled pink to run it.
Answer: yes
The Stupid Party has always been run by Mammon First Conservatives who are reluctantly allied with Family First Conservatives. We've gotten bones thrown to us over the year to keep us on the reservation. But the real energy is directed far more to Mammon. And even that has largely been abandoned now that the Stupid Party holds both Congress and the White House. They're spending like drunken sailors. Hence the name "Stupid Party".
The Stupid Party has always been run by Mammon First Conservatives who are reluctantly allied with Family First Conservatives. We've gotten bones thrown to us over the year to keep us on the reservation. But the real energy is directed far more to Mammon. And even that has largely been abandoned now that the Stupid Party holds both Congress and the White House. They're spending like drunken sailors. Hence the name "Stupid Party".
A question for the Jung at heart
A reader asks:
Dunno. Anyone? Anyone?
A reader asks:
Have any of your previous posts treated the impact of Carl Jung on the Catholic faith and / or spirituality?
The reason I ask is that I am currently in formation for the permanent diaconate. Several of the texts that are assigned for a course entitled "Spirituality" seem to have a Jungian "flavor". Not having had much exposure to Jung's beliefs and teaching, I did a quick search on the Internet, and found that many of Jung's teachings seem to contradict Church teachings in the area of spirituality.
Knowing the wide-ranging knowledge base of your readership, would you consider putting the question to "your people"?
Dunno. Anyone? Anyone?
Friday, February 20, 2004
Southern Appeal rubs its hands in glee at the Leftist meltdown over Pryor
I *love* it when Leftists freak out and have hysterics. So fun to watch.
I *love* it when Leftists freak out and have hysterics. So fun to watch.
Way to go, Dubya!
Gets Pryor in on a recess appointment. Evil Party stamps tiny feet in impotent rage.
Gets Pryor in on a recess appointment. Evil Party stamps tiny feet in impotent rage.
I'm amazed
I edit lots of stuff. Most of it goes out into the giant of maw of media consumption and disappears quietly. However, one of the things I helped to edit and co-write is A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions about The Passion of The Christ. Now I am told by Matt Pinto at Ascension that the groundswell reaction to the book is unlike anything either he nor Tom Allen at Catholic Exchange had anticipated. They're both rather stunned and breathless, as am I now. The book has sold 125,000 copies in two weeks, making it, according to Matt, the fastest selling Catholic book in history. And there is no end in sight yet.
If you want to get involved in evangelization but, like most people, feel tongue-tied and vaguely inept, one easy way to do it is to order some copies of this booklet and give 'em away. They're designed to be cheap, accessible and giveable. Talk to your pastor and see if he wants to order 'em for your parish. Or organize an expedition to your local theatre and hand 'em out to people leaving the show. We'll do all the talking. You just need to say, "Here. Thought you might be interested in this."
Never ridden a huge cultural wave before. Should be interesting.
Update: Make that 130,000 copies in two weeks. It's been two and a half hours since I wrote the above, after all.
I edit lots of stuff. Most of it goes out into the giant of maw of media consumption and disappears quietly. However, one of the things I helped to edit and co-write is A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions about The Passion of The Christ. Now I am told by Matt Pinto at Ascension that the groundswell reaction to the book is unlike anything either he nor Tom Allen at Catholic Exchange had anticipated. They're both rather stunned and breathless, as am I now. The book has sold 125,000 copies in two weeks, making it, according to Matt, the fastest selling Catholic book in history. And there is no end in sight yet.
If you want to get involved in evangelization but, like most people, feel tongue-tied and vaguely inept, one easy way to do it is to order some copies of this booklet and give 'em away. They're designed to be cheap, accessible and giveable. Talk to your pastor and see if he wants to order 'em for your parish. Or organize an expedition to your local theatre and hand 'em out to people leaving the show. We'll do all the talking. You just need to say, "Here. Thought you might be interested in this."
Never ridden a huge cultural wave before. Should be interesting.
Update: Make that 130,000 copies in two weeks. It's been two and a half hours since I wrote the above, after all.
Don't forget to...
1. check out my HMSU class, Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist.
and
2. Fly away with me to France. Eet weel be, 'ow you say? "Groovalicious".
1. check out my HMSU class, Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist.
and
2. Fly away with me to France. Eet weel be, 'ow you say? "Groovalicious".
Sherry Weddell...
of the invaluable and magnificent Catherine of Siena Institute, wrote below (in the course of a conversation about the various lay movements that are popping up):
I think Sherry's take is more significant than most laypeople for a very simple reason: she's got a vastly broader experience of what's going on in the Church at the parish level than virtually any other reader of my blog (unless you happen to travel from one parish to another all over the world on a weekly basis, as Sherry does). For that reason, I'm hopeful that Sherry's assessment is in fact a reflection of reality and that the tide is indeed turning at the lay level.
Anyhow: discuss, class.
of the invaluable and magnificent Catherine of Siena Institute, wrote below (in the course of a conversation about the various lay movements that are popping up):
I have recently become aware of two additional dynamics: 1) It has been reported that there is a high-ranking group of Vatican officials who have "given up" on the parochial structure altogether and therefore, are pinning their hopes on the lay movements.
If this is true, (and it might be understandable in light of European parish experience) this is most serious because it means that they have also given up on spiritual fruitfulness of the diocesan priesthood (the majority of priests) and the 98% of Catholics who only have contact with the Church through their local parish.
The lay movements will be spiritually impoverished if they start to see themselves as "spiritual elites". As one very impressive member of a movement told me recently: "We are encouraged to participate in our parishes, but it's rather with the idea of being "salt" or "leavening" the lump. We don't expect much from the parish or from Catholics who are only involved in the parish."
After following the discusssions on this blog, I gather that most of Mark's loyal readers don't expect much either. Many have good reason. I have personal horror stories to match any of yours.
*But* as I have found in the course of my travels, there are literally a "thousand points of light" in the Catholic Church in this country. The new generation of smart, creative, orthodox Catholics are starting to move into positions of real power and influence in the parochial structures : pastors, parish and diocesan staff, and religious.
They are building alternate institutions and networks that are rapidly replacing the old tired, refugees-from-the-60's institutions. Dioceses are increasingly turning for training and advice to these up-and-coming groups for services and resources.
The tide has already turned. In 10 years, the difference in the American church as a whole will be remarkable.
A deacon from a pretty barren diocese, asked last weekend "but you are only invited into the good places". Well, actually, not all the places we work in are in good shape. Some are pretty barren, others are still in the painful throes of change - but I have met hundreds of faithful outstanding Catholics who are just now beginning to exercise their influence for good. They are reclaiming both the fullness of the faith and the structures of the Church.
In the long run, I would like to see the lay movements and lively parish structures working together in a genuine collaboration toward our common mission. Considerable change will have to happen on both sides for that happy day to arrive.
I think Sherry's take is more significant than most laypeople for a very simple reason: she's got a vastly broader experience of what's going on in the Church at the parish level than virtually any other reader of my blog (unless you happen to travel from one parish to another all over the world on a weekly basis, as Sherry does). For that reason, I'm hopeful that Sherry's assessment is in fact a reflection of reality and that the tide is indeed turning at the lay level.
Anyhow: discuss, class.
From our "We Have the Bishops We Want" file
Toys in Babeland, mentioned in the article, just offered helpful presentations at a New York area college (I forget which) in celebration of "V Day". Organized by laity, of course.
Toys in Babeland, mentioned in the article, just offered helpful presentations at a New York area college (I forget which) in celebration of "V Day". Organized by laity, of course.
Oh So True
But then, we have always primarly been creatures who "catch" our religious beliefs from people far more than we "learn" them as a subject or a body of doctrines. The problem today is that we catch our beliefs from people who are celebrities and not from people we know and love. Very often, we think such people are trustworthy because they *played* somebody we liked in a film or sang a song we like.
But then, we have always primarly been creatures who "catch" our religious beliefs from people far more than we "learn" them as a subject or a body of doctrines. The problem today is that we catch our beliefs from people who are celebrities and not from people we know and love. Very often, we think such people are trustworthy because they *played* somebody we liked in a film or sang a song we like.
My cousin's in the Guard and went to Iraq
One more reason I find the Evil Party so repellent. To equate service in the Guard with draft dodging. Despicable.
One more reason I find the Evil Party so repellent. To equate service in the Guard with draft dodging. Despicable.
A reader writes:
Please blog the following correction. I expect newspapers to misquote and misunderstand Church officials and to overemphasize minor points, but not to make up quotations out of whole cloth.
On Feb. 9 I sent you the URL of a story in the New York Daily News about Cardinal Egan denouncing the idea of redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships which you blogged under the headline, "Oddly, the NY Times did not mention this story at all." In the Comments box Bobbert quoted this passage from the story:
"A spokesman denied Egan was talking about Spears, but the cardinal's comments seemed pointed at the midriff-baring pop tart.
"'A singer marries a young man for a few hours and everyone thinks it's cute," Egan said. "It's not cute at all.'"
He then commented, "Question - why would the spokesman deny that Egan was talking about Spears, when he obviously was." I replied that I had written to Cardinal Egan thanking him for speaking out and that I had asked that question.
I have received a reply from Mr. Joseph Zwilling, Cardinal Egan's spokesman, in which he wrote:
"Following the Mass on Sunday, February 8, reporter Ralph Ortega of the Daily News asked me if the Cardinal's comments were his first since the Supreme Court of Massachusetts issued its ruling on gay marriage and since the Britney Spears wedding. I informed the reporter that these were the Cardinal's first comments, but I asked him to remember that those comments were not the sole focus of the Cardinal's homily. In fact, Cardinal Egan spoke at length about what makes a good and strong marriage, and praised four couples present at the Mass who had been married from 66 to 72 years. The reporter never asked me if the Cardinal was referring to Britney Spears.
"When I spoke with Mr. Ortega on Monday, he apologized to me for the comment in the newspaper that 'a spokesman denied Egan was talking about Spears.'" He agreed that I had not said anything of the sort and told me that an editor had changed his original story. I told Mr. Ortega on Monday that I was disappointed in his story because it did not accurately reflect everything the Cardinal had said, and that the Daily News had blown the story out of proportion by not discussing the context in which the Cardinal had made his comments. In his defense, he added that he fought to include the second story that appeared in that day's paper highlighting the couple that had been married for 72 years."
Interesting Critique of An End to Evil
Yeah, I know it's Buchanan. Still, I thought some of his points were interesting since they reflect my own skepticism about the secular messianist pretensions of a title like "An End to Evil".
Yeah, I know it's Buchanan. Still, I thought some of his points were interesting since they reflect my own skepticism about the secular messianist pretensions of a title like "An End to Evil".
Ya gotta love a 17 year old who reads First Things!
Welcome to the blogosphere, Colin! The future is yours to conquer for Christ!
Welcome to the blogosphere, Colin! The future is yours to conquer for Christ!
The Wisdom of the Simpsons Applied to Politicks, Bothe Ciuill and Ecclesiastickal
In addition to having the bishops we want, we also have the abortion and divorce laws we want. Soon we will have the gay marriage laws we want. Sorry folks. In a free society, the blame sooner or later rests with the citizens of that society. In the aggregate, Americans have chosen, for the most part, laissez faire sexuality and laissez faire morality. True, the choice has been partly passive. Our Robed Masters tell us what the law is and we say, "eh! That's not so bad! In fact, it's pretty good! It frees up my sex life considerably! And I'm *tired* of having to constrain myself! Get off my back!"
And so, we have, for 40 years, demanded that our bishops be ciphers who just leave us alone and we have gone along quietly with those who have worked quite hard to make sure that as many such men as possible will be the prime candidates for priesthood. In the same way, we have talked a good game about stopping abortion, rolling back our insanely destructive anti-family culture, and so forth. Now we stand on the brink of gay marriage and it will probably be a settled reality in a year. Why? Because, in its heart of hearts, our culture knows that *any* attempt to limit libertinism is a threat against all the previous libertinism we have already acquiesced to--and well, golly, we never meant it to come to *that*. That would require repentance, a great inconvenience and a loss of so much Progress! So we settle for the next perversion, we bleat a little about Those Bishops Over There and then, on the whole, we quiet down after demonstrating our outrage because, well hey, a few raped kids is a price we are willing to pay for bishops who will leave us alone, just as millions of dead kids have been a price we've shown ourselves willing to pay for 30 years in exchange for all that delicious sexual license.
Bottom line: on the whole, we laity are, for the most part, not serious. Not really. When we get serious, things change. We became serious about civil rights in the 60s and things really changed. We became serious about pollution in the 60s and 70s and things changed. But we also became *very* serious about sexual license (with the help of technology) in the 60s and 70s and effected a cultural revolution. We have been very serious about consolidating and expanding that revolt since then. We have been deadly serious about pursuit of the American Dream and have let nothing stop us in our pursuit of becoming the richest nation in the world. We showed ourselves capable of a higher kind of seriousness after 9/11--but that has largely evaporated into frippery about Janet Jackson's tits. But for the most part, American laity, on the whole, have been serious about the gospel only in the sense that when it looms as a threat to our sex lives we either actively oppose it or passively wish that those who do would pretty please be a little quieter.
So I continue to say that, on the whole, we pretty much have the culture (and therefore the bishops who reflect that culture) that we want. It's a lovely thing when, now and then, a bishop comes along who is heroic. But there's a reason St. Athanasius is *saint* Athanasius. Most of the bishops in his day were spineless conformists who reflected their culture too. Twas ever thus. And if memory serves, the Pope did not summarily fire the Eastern bishops who caved to Arianism, which was the most serious threat to confront the Church up to that time, even after, in Jerome's words, "The world woke and groaned to find itself Arian" because the bishops had all sucked up to the Imperial court. What happened was the laity preserved the faith and the bishops eventually came to reflect the faith that the laity (and Rome and Athanasius) kept shouting into the cultural winds.
So: I cannot effect the decisions that are made in Rome or in the chanceries of the US bishops too terribly much. I can point out when a bishop is a scoundrel or a saint or (usually) somewhere in the middle. I can cheer when the bishop does his job right and boo when he doesn't. I can cheer and boo when Caesar does or does not prosecute miscreants. I can wish that the Pope would do something almost no Pope has ever done: fire a bunch of bishops for being nincompoops. But what I can *mostly* do is urge laypeople to not wait around for miraculous stroke of a pen to fix everything, but roll up their sleeves and get to work now, learning their faith, living their faith, and challenging the culture of death, not only in the chanceries when it rears its ugly head, but in every sector of their lives.
Some of the most committed people in the Church are reading this blog. I can't imagine why anybody would put up with this blog for any other reason than that they care passionately about the Church. But note this: there's only about three or four thousand of you reading this each day. Andrew Sullivan's readership is several orders of magnitude larger. And the viewers of Jerry Springer or MTV are several hundred orders of magnitude larger than that. In short, you guys are a tiny minority. Most people aren't you. Most people are the folks who think abortion a civil right, who think there is something in spoon bending, the Da Vinci Code, and the notion that the Pope is "rigid" and needs to just lighten up and let Americans be freeeeeeeeee. Hence, most people can simultaneously look at the train wreck of the American Church and say, "What's so bad about homosexuality?" and even complain that attempts to limit gay priests is "scapegoating." Why? Because the bishops were pretty much doing what most people wanted them to do in the 70s and 80s and *even now*, as we discover how many lives of youth the Lavender Elephant has crushed, a huge number of laity are reluctant to even tie the Elephant up, much less drive it out of the house.
Addendum: This is not to say, "Despair and die!" Jesus had much less to work with in the in first century than he does now. Only twelve guys and one of them willing to betray him. The Holy Spirit is going to prevail. However, the way toward that is by us taking up the work we have been given and not spending huge amounts of energy being angry about things we cannot do much to change. The Holy Spirit knows how to give us good bishops. The first step toward it is for us to do whatever it is we are called to do with all our hearts. In a bit I will post some rather good news from a good friend of mine who believes the tide is already turning. I think she's probably right.
Well, enough rambling. Just wanted to get that off my chest.
In addition to having the bishops we want, we also have the abortion and divorce laws we want. Soon we will have the gay marriage laws we want. Sorry folks. In a free society, the blame sooner or later rests with the citizens of that society. In the aggregate, Americans have chosen, for the most part, laissez faire sexuality and laissez faire morality. True, the choice has been partly passive. Our Robed Masters tell us what the law is and we say, "eh! That's not so bad! In fact, it's pretty good! It frees up my sex life considerably! And I'm *tired* of having to constrain myself! Get off my back!"
And so, we have, for 40 years, demanded that our bishops be ciphers who just leave us alone and we have gone along quietly with those who have worked quite hard to make sure that as many such men as possible will be the prime candidates for priesthood. In the same way, we have talked a good game about stopping abortion, rolling back our insanely destructive anti-family culture, and so forth. Now we stand on the brink of gay marriage and it will probably be a settled reality in a year. Why? Because, in its heart of hearts, our culture knows that *any* attempt to limit libertinism is a threat against all the previous libertinism we have already acquiesced to--and well, golly, we never meant it to come to *that*. That would require repentance, a great inconvenience and a loss of so much Progress! So we settle for the next perversion, we bleat a little about Those Bishops Over There and then, on the whole, we quiet down after demonstrating our outrage because, well hey, a few raped kids is a price we are willing to pay for bishops who will leave us alone, just as millions of dead kids have been a price we've shown ourselves willing to pay for 30 years in exchange for all that delicious sexual license.
Bottom line: on the whole, we laity are, for the most part, not serious. Not really. When we get serious, things change. We became serious about civil rights in the 60s and things really changed. We became serious about pollution in the 60s and 70s and things changed. But we also became *very* serious about sexual license (with the help of technology) in the 60s and 70s and effected a cultural revolution. We have been very serious about consolidating and expanding that revolt since then. We have been deadly serious about pursuit of the American Dream and have let nothing stop us in our pursuit of becoming the richest nation in the world. We showed ourselves capable of a higher kind of seriousness after 9/11--but that has largely evaporated into frippery about Janet Jackson's tits. But for the most part, American laity, on the whole, have been serious about the gospel only in the sense that when it looms as a threat to our sex lives we either actively oppose it or passively wish that those who do would pretty please be a little quieter.
So I continue to say that, on the whole, we pretty much have the culture (and therefore the bishops who reflect that culture) that we want. It's a lovely thing when, now and then, a bishop comes along who is heroic. But there's a reason St. Athanasius is *saint* Athanasius. Most of the bishops in his day were spineless conformists who reflected their culture too. Twas ever thus. And if memory serves, the Pope did not summarily fire the Eastern bishops who caved to Arianism, which was the most serious threat to confront the Church up to that time, even after, in Jerome's words, "The world woke and groaned to find itself Arian" because the bishops had all sucked up to the Imperial court. What happened was the laity preserved the faith and the bishops eventually came to reflect the faith that the laity (and Rome and Athanasius) kept shouting into the cultural winds.
So: I cannot effect the decisions that are made in Rome or in the chanceries of the US bishops too terribly much. I can point out when a bishop is a scoundrel or a saint or (usually) somewhere in the middle. I can cheer when the bishop does his job right and boo when he doesn't. I can cheer and boo when Caesar does or does not prosecute miscreants. I can wish that the Pope would do something almost no Pope has ever done: fire a bunch of bishops for being nincompoops. But what I can *mostly* do is urge laypeople to not wait around for miraculous stroke of a pen to fix everything, but roll up their sleeves and get to work now, learning their faith, living their faith, and challenging the culture of death, not only in the chanceries when it rears its ugly head, but in every sector of their lives.
Some of the most committed people in the Church are reading this blog. I can't imagine why anybody would put up with this blog for any other reason than that they care passionately about the Church. But note this: there's only about three or four thousand of you reading this each day. Andrew Sullivan's readership is several orders of magnitude larger. And the viewers of Jerry Springer or MTV are several hundred orders of magnitude larger than that. In short, you guys are a tiny minority. Most people aren't you. Most people are the folks who think abortion a civil right, who think there is something in spoon bending, the Da Vinci Code, and the notion that the Pope is "rigid" and needs to just lighten up and let Americans be freeeeeeeeee. Hence, most people can simultaneously look at the train wreck of the American Church and say, "What's so bad about homosexuality?" and even complain that attempts to limit gay priests is "scapegoating." Why? Because the bishops were pretty much doing what most people wanted them to do in the 70s and 80s and *even now*, as we discover how many lives of youth the Lavender Elephant has crushed, a huge number of laity are reluctant to even tie the Elephant up, much less drive it out of the house.
Addendum: This is not to say, "Despair and die!" Jesus had much less to work with in the in first century than he does now. Only twelve guys and one of them willing to betray him. The Holy Spirit is going to prevail. However, the way toward that is by us taking up the work we have been given and not spending huge amounts of energy being angry about things we cannot do much to change. The Holy Spirit knows how to give us good bishops. The first step toward it is for us to do whatever it is we are called to do with all our hearts. In a bit I will post some rather good news from a good friend of mine who believes the tide is already turning. I think she's probably right.
Well, enough rambling. Just wanted to get that off my chest.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Awesome post from Dale Price
I wish that some Professionally Trained Chaplains were capable of demonstrating 1/10 of the human sympathy and insight that Dale has.
I wish that some Professionally Trained Chaplains were capable of demonstrating 1/10 of the human sympathy and insight that Dale has.
Dreher vs. Shea! Steel Cage Death Match!
Because Rod's response below is so massive, I am only snipping out select remarks and replying to them. I urge you to go to the comments where Rod responds to me to get the whole context of what he has to say.
Rod writes after quoting Ut Unum Sint:
Which the Pope has done with the American bishops.
That's not Mark's view. I don't believe the pontiff has no right to remove bishops. But what is more important (and really must be kept in view or you won't understand what I'm saying) I also don't believe *the Pope believes* he has no right to remove bishops. Remember: I don't write what I write because I agree with the Pope's prudential judgments here. I write what I write because it seems to me that most people are making the mistake of assuming the Pope thinks like they do. I don't think the Pope thinks like us. So the first task of prudence is to see things as they are, not as we wish them to be. The first task, therefore, in analyzing the Pope's behavior is to understand what he thinks he's doing, not what we would do if we were in his shoes. We can go on disagreeing with him if we like. But if we can't be bothered to try to understand him, then we cannot intelligently comment on things like his culpability or lack thereof in addressing the Situation.
I think Tom has responded to this pretty well, so I will cut n paste him:
Rod continues
I know because these discussions are largely limited to comments boxes on blogs. I know because most of the Catholics I know are not all that worked up about the Situation, just as they are not worked up about cloning, abortion, the question of the Justice of the war in Iraq, or most other things that burn up ASCII here. Most Catholics are poorly catechized, largely indifferent to global issues, and feel a much stronger link to their local parish and Fr. Whosit than they do to their bishop, who is a figure as remote from most Catholic lives as the president of Peru. I know because we've both repeatedly seen Fr. Warm and Friendly defended by parishioners from facing the music. I know it because there's no difference in abortion and divorce statistic between Catholics and non-Christians. I know it because your average Catholic would be shocked into Episcopalianism if they woke up tomorrow to find Bruskewitz was their bishop. The press in Albany is scrutinizing Hubbard. Do you see much indicating that the vast majority of the laity there know or care? I'm seeing reports of Rah Rah Hubbard stuff from the laity.
That said, when I write "We have the bishops we want" I do not do so in order to absolve the bishops of their responsibility, nor to say the Pope has none. Rather, I do so because, as a layman, I feel it is my responsibility to direct laypeople to what *we* can most affect: the lay sphere. The reality is that the Church is 99% Us. We have far more influence on the life of the Church then we give ourselves credit for. The post-conciliar Church is, in large part, our creation. Yes, clergy have done their bit. But the reality is that *we* have made the Church what it is for the most part?I mean the Church as it is lived all the rest of the time outside of Mass. And we've made a royal mess of it through our fault, through our fault, through our own most grievous fault. The first thing and most helpful things we laity can do is acknowledge that, not with a view to saying "It's not the responsibility of abusive clergy and the bishops who love them" but with a view to saying that we are largely the architects of a sexually deranged culture of relativism that is in love with the sacrament of aborrtion, gung ho for divorce and gay marriage, lazy as hell about learning the Faith, and no quite sure what's so bad about consensual cannibalism, though our dull consciences can still work up the steam to say that it's pretty icky.
Of course there are. And we clever Americans who do not need Rome to tell us how to govern ourselves have devised ingenious bureaucratic structures to keep them from ever coming to Rome's attention. Like it or not, Rome is not omniscient. It relies on the principle that grace perfects nature and it relies on subsidiarity. So it relies on the people closest to the ground to serve up the candidates for the episcopacy. Far too often, that has meant Rome was given the choice of a wimp, a pervert, and a cipher and told, "Pick one." So they picked the best of the three losers.
Of course. But the reform, it seems to me, needs primarily to happen here, not in Rome. Rome seems to have not had similar problems with the candidates proposed to it by Africans (with some notable exceptions). It looks very much like a "garbage in, garbage out" situation.
How does saying, "JPII is employing a risky strategy which I don't think is working" saying that he is does not have any blame? Obviously, if he's doing something that is not working, he is responsible for it. What I don't think is that his failure is evidence of sins of contempt, cowardice, sloth, etc. I think he's acted in good faith, but he's wrong. In my book, that's means he shares responsibility, and therefore blame.
I don't call it an ingenious plan. I call it a risk and a gamble, rooted in John Paul's understanding of the Tradition. Personally, I don't think it's working too well. But I also don't think that John Paul is guilty of simply ignoring the wounded or the Tradition. I think he's acting in good faith. But I think that sometimes you can act in good faith and make serious blunders.
Actually, my real purpose is to say, "Do not despair. Do not panic. And don't assume that the Pope's course of action is rooted in sin. It could just be possible that he is trying his best to be faithful to the Tradition."
Finally, a note to other readers: I think what Rod does is another valuable function of the Body of Christ. Because I do believe that it is the obligation of the laity to speak out and make life very very uncomfortable for bishops who flout the Tradition, I have never had a big problem with Rod doing that. If my reading of what the Pope is up to is correct, it seems to me that he is hoping for an energized laity to demand our right to the truth. This is why Rod's ire at episcopal shiftiness has never bothered me. My sole concern has been that we all try to approach the problem from within the Tradition, since it is the Tradition that will be the means by which our Lord heals his wounded Body. Each member of the body has a role to play and I think Rod had been playing his role to the best of his ability--much as I think the Pope has been. Wherever there may be a place I disagree with either of them, it is not because I think them guilty of some sin.
And now, to work!
Because Rod's response below is so massive, I am only snipping out select remarks and replying to them. I urge you to go to the comments where Rod responds to me to get the whole context of what he has to say.
Rod writes after quoting Ut Unum Sint:
It is clear that the Pope is saying that he has a responsibility to be a watchdog over various areas of Christian life, including Church doctrine and discipline. When someone ignores Church doctrine or discipline in "pursuit of personal interests," the Pope has the duty to "admonish," among other things.
Which the Pope has done with the American bishops.
Now, "Ut Unum Sint" was released five months later. It is hard to believe that Rome would have moved in this way against Bp. Gaillot with the Holy Father putting finishing touches on an encylical that -- if Mark's view is correct -- would have effectively declared that the pontiff has no right to remove bishops.
That's not Mark's view. I don't believe the pontiff has no right to remove bishops. But what is more important (and really must be kept in view or you won't understand what I'm saying) I also don't believe *the Pope believes* he has no right to remove bishops. Remember: I don't write what I write because I agree with the Pope's prudential judgments here. I write what I write because it seems to me that most people are making the mistake of assuming the Pope thinks like they do. I don't think the Pope thinks like us. So the first task of prudence is to see things as they are, not as we wish them to be. The first task, therefore, in analyzing the Pope's behavior is to understand what he thinks he's doing, not what we would do if we were in his shoes. We can go on disagreeing with him if we like. But if we can't be bothered to try to understand him, then we cannot intelligently comment on things like his culpability or lack thereof in addressing the Situation.
If Gaillot was removed, then reassigned to a virtual diocese, then the principle is established that John Paul believes that such a drastic move is sometimes permissible. The question then becomes: why have the actions of the American hierarchy, most especially in permitting the sexual violation of children and minors, not risen to this level of concern in the Vatican?
The only reasonable answer I can come up with is: the Holy Father and his advisers have concluded that this situation isn't critical.
Moreover, John Paul has never, to my knowledge, admonished these bishops in public. Think of the good he would do if he'd read them the riot act in a public address! Think of how much encouragement that would give to victims and their families, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands, and maybe millions, of faithful Catholics struggling to keep the faith intact in places like Albany. But the Pope says in "Ut Unum Sint" that the first responsibility of his office is "unity." So we all have to pretend that there's no serious problem here for the sake of keeping up the appearance of unity.
I think Tom has responded to this pretty well, so I will cut n paste him:
Your argument -- as opposed to your opinions about what the Pope could and should do -- seems to be that what the Pope actually has done "amounts to placing unity before truth."
But what truth? That men should not rape children? That men should not allow other men to rape children? These are natural truths, as you've often pointed out, knowable to all without appeal to faith, and no one denies them. In fact, the Pope has even gone further than strictly natural knowledge in declaring "that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young."
So what is it the Pope is placing unity before? Not the truth of the Faith, for concern with which Bishop Gaillot seems to have been deassigned.
You want to draw conclusions from the facts that, in one case, the Pope removed a bishop, and in another case, the Pope didn't. But you're assuming the two cases are similar enough in nature that they require similar responses. The cases differ, though, in their relationships to the truth you claim the Pope is placing after unity. Your argument fails because it rests on a similarity between cases right at a point where they differ.
I think the real argument Rod and others are advancing goes something like this: If things are bad enough, the Pope will remove a bishop (see Gaillot). The pope hasn't removed any American bishops. Therefore, the pope doesn't think things are bad enough in America. But anyone who isn't a fool or a knave has to admit things in America are awful. Therefore the Pope is either a fool or a knave.
As I wrote above, the way "things are bad" under Gaillot are different from the way "things are bad" under your least favorite American bishop. That equivocation alone is enough to kill the validity of the argument.
But there's more that's wrong with it. The last two statements, as I've given them, imply that "admitting things in America are awful" is equivalent to following a certain course of action. Put another way, they say that, if certain circumstances exist, there is only one prudent choice -- and, as it happens, that one prudent choice is an action that is clear and visible to all.
It's at this point a faulty understanding of the Church, the papacy, and the lay vocation will really hurt an argument. If you don't understand the papacy, your judgment on what is prudent for a pope to do is going to be doubtful. This is compounded by the fact that the papacy can legitimately be understood in different ways; if your inadequate, but legitimate as far as it goes, understanding of the papacy does not match the Pope's understanding of the papacy, then of course the Pope's prudential judgment will likely differ from yours, and it's not at all surprising that it should not only differ but be mystifying to you.
Rod continues
And another thing: it just won't wash to say that we get the bishops we deserve, because we have such a corrupt culture. No one can deny that the clergy in any age are products of the culture in which they are raised. But to say that a Howard Hubbard or a Roger Mahony is what the Catholics of Albany want or deserve is a cop-out.
For one thing, how do you know?
I know because these discussions are largely limited to comments boxes on blogs. I know because most of the Catholics I know are not all that worked up about the Situation, just as they are not worked up about cloning, abortion, the question of the Justice of the war in Iraq, or most other things that burn up ASCII here. Most Catholics are poorly catechized, largely indifferent to global issues, and feel a much stronger link to their local parish and Fr. Whosit than they do to their bishop, who is a figure as remote from most Catholic lives as the president of Peru. I know because we've both repeatedly seen Fr. Warm and Friendly defended by parishioners from facing the music. I know it because there's no difference in abortion and divorce statistic between Catholics and non-Christians. I know it because your average Catholic would be shocked into Episcopalianism if they woke up tomorrow to find Bruskewitz was their bishop. The press in Albany is scrutinizing Hubbard. Do you see much indicating that the vast majority of the laity there know or care? I'm seeing reports of Rah Rah Hubbard stuff from the laity.
That said, when I write "We have the bishops we want" I do not do so in order to absolve the bishops of their responsibility, nor to say the Pope has none. Rather, I do so because, as a layman, I feel it is my responsibility to direct laypeople to what *we* can most affect: the lay sphere. The reality is that the Church is 99% Us. We have far more influence on the life of the Church then we give ourselves credit for. The post-conciliar Church is, in large part, our creation. Yes, clergy have done their bit. But the reality is that *we* have made the Church what it is for the most part?I mean the Church as it is lived all the rest of the time outside of Mass. And we've made a royal mess of it through our fault, through our fault, through our own most grievous fault. The first thing and most helpful things we laity can do is acknowledge that, not with a view to saying "It's not the responsibility of abusive clergy and the bishops who love them" but with a view to saying that we are largely the architects of a sexually deranged culture of relativism that is in love with the sacrament of aborrtion, gung ho for divorce and gay marriage, lazy as hell about learning the Faith, and no quite sure what's so bad about consensual cannibalism, though our dull consciences can still work up the steam to say that it's pretty icky.
If we had elections, it's quite possible that Hubbard and Mahony (to name but two) would have been elected. But we don't have a democracy in the Church because we don't believe that's how God would have us governed. That gives Rome a great deal of power -- and thus responsibility -- to choose godly men as bishops. You cannot tell me that there are not truly godly men in the priesthood.
Of course there are. And we clever Americans who do not need Rome to tell us how to govern ourselves have devised ingenious bureaucratic structures to keep them from ever coming to Rome's attention. Like it or not, Rome is not omniscient. It relies on the principle that grace perfects nature and it relies on subsidiarity. So it relies on the people closest to the ground to serve up the candidates for the episcopacy. Far too often, that has meant Rome was given the choice of a wimp, a pervert, and a cipher and told, "Pick one." So they picked the best of the three losers.
And if the system is only capable of producing failures and mediocrities, with the occasional good bishop slipping through the cracks, then there must be a reform in the system.
Of course. But the reform, it seems to me, needs primarily to happen here, not in Rome. Rome seems to have not had similar problems with the candidates proposed to it by Africans (with some notable exceptions). It looks very much like a "garbage in, garbage out" situation.
We can construct sophisticated analyses that explain in the abstract why John Paul Can Never Be Blamed For Any Of This, and they may satisfy intellectually and emotionally (the latter more than the former, I'm afraid). But what does that say to the father and mother in the pew, who are trying to raise their children in a Church like this?
How does saying, "JPII is employing a risky strategy which I don't think is working" saying that he is does not have any blame? Obviously, if he's doing something that is not working, he is responsible for it. What I don't think is that his failure is evidence of sins of contempt, cowardice, sloth, etc. I think he's acted in good faith, but he's wrong. In my book, that's means he shares responsibility, and therefore blame.
5. I find the most interesting and complex form of denial to be the "Lemons-to-Lemonade" strategy, whose chief exponent is our generous host, star of stage and screen and winner of a raft of Sibleys, Mark Shea. Mark acknowledges that John Paul's reaction to this crisis has been mystifying, he figures that the Holy Father is actually following an ingenious plan to force the bishops to clean up their own messes. When someone says, "But look, the pain and cost of the bishops' messes are falling on the faithful, not the bishops," the fallback position here is the Full Masochist, which holds that we get the bishops we deserve.
I don't call it an ingenious plan. I call it a risk and a gamble, rooted in John Paul's understanding of the Tradition. Personally, I don't think it's working too well. But I also don't think that John Paul is guilty of simply ignoring the wounded or the Tradition. I think he's acting in good faith. But I think that sometimes you can act in good faith and make serious blunders.
Thank you for clarifying. Why is it, though, that when I read your posts on this, I keep coming away with the feeling that you're trying to say, "Move on, folks, there's nothing to see here with this Pope thing"? I guess it's hard for me to separate your attempts to explain what you think is going on with JP from what looks to me like your absolving him from any responsibility for the catastrophe that has befallen us.
Actually, my real purpose is to say, "Do not despair. Do not panic. And don't assume that the Pope's course of action is rooted in sin. It could just be possible that he is trying his best to be faithful to the Tradition."
Finally, a note to other readers: I think what Rod does is another valuable function of the Body of Christ. Because I do believe that it is the obligation of the laity to speak out and make life very very uncomfortable for bishops who flout the Tradition, I have never had a big problem with Rod doing that. If my reading of what the Pope is up to is correct, it seems to me that he is hoping for an energized laity to demand our right to the truth. This is why Rod's ire at episcopal shiftiness has never bothered me. My sole concern has been that we all try to approach the problem from within the Tradition, since it is the Tradition that will be the means by which our Lord heals his wounded Body. Each member of the body has a role to play and I think Rod had been playing his role to the best of his ability--much as I think the Pope has been. Wherever there may be a place I disagree with either of them, it is not because I think them guilty of some sin.
And now, to work!
What offends this "scripture scholar" is not the film, but the gospel itself
The money quote begins with a good solid lie: "No human being could endure the kind of beating that Mel Gibson's Jesus endures. But Jesus is no human; for Mel, he is obviously Divine and only Divine." This despite the fact that Gibson makes clear that he believes in the humanity of Jesus. But the lie is only a preface for the real goal: the denunciation of the idea that Jesus suffered for our sins (note the scare quotes):
...and according to the New Testament and all Christian preaching until a growing cadre of plump suburban "scholars" and trendy Deep Thinkers in FutureChurch decided that sacrifice was a downer. Couple this with Carroll's High on Life Jesus and, behold, you are seeing the latest trend in liberal theology: flat denial that Jesus' mission was to die and rise. Nope. He was just a happy Pelagian model, here to show us all how to affirm ourselves in our okayness.
The money quote begins with a good solid lie: "No human being could endure the kind of beating that Mel Gibson's Jesus endures. But Jesus is no human; for Mel, he is obviously Divine and only Divine." This despite the fact that Gibson makes clear that he believes in the humanity of Jesus. But the lie is only a preface for the real goal: the denunciation of the idea that Jesus suffered for our sins (note the scare quotes):
Only God (or a superman) could suffer that much "for our sins", and still manage to stand. Jesus not only stands all by himself but goes on to carry the whole cross (with some help after falling a few times) to the place where he is to be crucified. In Mel's view, God's extraordinary love for humanity is measured by this unimaginable suffering "for our sins." This is the message that is marketed in this movie. This is the "gospel" according to Mel.
...and according to the New Testament and all Christian preaching until a growing cadre of plump suburban "scholars" and trendy Deep Thinkers in FutureChurch decided that sacrifice was a downer. Couple this with Carroll's High on Life Jesus and, behold, you are seeing the latest trend in liberal theology: flat denial that Jesus' mission was to die and rise. Nope. He was just a happy Pelagian model, here to show us all how to affirm ourselves in our okayness.
Lane Core sends this suggested letter to your Congressoid along
Letter to Congress Supporting Federal Marriage Amendment
As a constituent, I am writing to urge you to actively support the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56, May 21, 2003; S.J. Res 26, November 25, 2003).
"Gay" marriage does not - cannot - exist, any more than does a square wheel.
Those trying to foist the oxymoron onto our society - by judicial fiat in Massachusetts, and by executive lawlessness in San Francisco - are trying to redefine an immemorial institution, the protection of which has always been enshrined in civil law. And they are trying to do so by force of government without the consent of the governed. Indeed, in the case of California, they are attempting to do this against the will of a considerable majority of that state's electorate, as expressed in an election only four years ago.
Surely, the activists will not stop until they have tried every means, no matter how underhanded, to get their way all across the country. A federal constitutional amendment is the only sure way to stop them.
Do you, Senator, want judges and mayors to be able, at their pleasure, to render laws useless? To quell the voice of the people expressed through their representatives? To render your legislative actions impotent? That will be the precedent set - the way of the future established - if the activists get their way.
As I said, I urge you to actively support the "Musgrave Amendment" to the federal constitution:
Do not merely vote for it, speak for it;
Do not merely speak for it, fight for it.
As a lifelong [insert your state here] resident, I have no doubts whatever that an overwhelming majority of your constituents would approve.
Thanks.
This seems goofy, but actually it's quite true
For many people, sports is Number One in their lives. Whatever is Number One in your life is your god.
For many people, sports is Number One in their lives. Whatever is Number One in your life is your god.
Stupidest Question of 2004
It fills me with dread to realize that manufacturers of TV think this is a real question. I would no more take a child to see "The Passion" than I would take him to see a public guillotining. It would be an act of child abuse to force a little kid to watch such a thing.
It fills me with dread to realize that manufacturers of TV think this is a real question. I would no more take a child to see "The Passion" than I would take him to see a public guillotining. It would be an act of child abuse to force a little kid to watch such a thing.
Fascinating conversations in my comments boxes
Go here and read the comments thread. Excellent input from (I think) three priests and a very civil and intelligent discussion by all.
In addition, Rod has replied to my remarks on JPII in a series of posts which roughly equal the length of The Brothers Karamazov :). When I get time I will try to respond.
Go here and read the comments thread. Excellent input from (I think) three priests and a very civil and intelligent discussion by all.
In addition, Rod has replied to my remarks on JPII in a series of posts which roughly equal the length of The Brothers Karamazov :). When I get time I will try to respond.
Adventures in Catechesis
A dear Lutheran friend writes:
St. Sisyphus, pray for us.
Actually, the current Pope was just a huge Beatles fan, which is how he got his name. The next Pope is rumored to be thinking of taking the name "Boy George VI" which is easier to spell than "Mahony".
Well, I'm off to throw cold water on the faces of the hundreds of readers who just fainted from horror.
A dear Lutheran friend writes:
Our son, as you probably know, joined the troop that is run by St. John's (Catholic Church & School). This has been an education, in and of itself, for us--you know, getting used to saying the Lord's Prayer short version, etc. (They do this at every meeting, which was one plus when we were looking for a troop--this isn't one of those troops that just slides over the belief in God aspect of the oath & law.)
They held a major planning meeting recently, but the scoutmaster was running late, and eight boys, most from St. John, had some time to kill. Somehow the subject of the Pope came up--what he "can do," excommunication, how he got his name. The scoutmaster's wife and I didn't feel compelled to jump on in and educate them--that's what they go to St. John's for, right!?--but we did our best to sit and look like we were neither listening in, nor giggling at them.
First of all, you did know that the current Pope is John Paul III, right? It was new information for some of the boys that the Pope gets to choose his "Popal" name (or is that spelled "Pople"). One of the older boys informed them that he must have liked "some other Popes that were named John and Paul, and he liked them both, so he chose both of them." In addition, (and this is, IMO, the exciting part) "I guess they get to choose a number too, sometimes, if they want one. I don't know why he chose 'Third' though. Like, you know, Pope John XXIII--I think he must have liked the 23rd Psalm or something."
Mind you, I'm not throwing stones. [My husband] and I taught confirmation one year, and found out that one of the commandments is, "Thou shalt not convent thine neighbor's wife." So there IS equal opportunity ignorance for those who choose to pursue it, for both Protestants and Catholics.
St. Sisyphus, pray for us.
Actually, the current Pope was just a huge Beatles fan, which is how he got his name. The next Pope is rumored to be thinking of taking the name "Boy George VI" which is easier to spell than "Mahony".
Well, I'm off to throw cold water on the faces of the hundreds of readers who just fainted from horror.
Minute Particulars is back on the air! Hooray!
I'm one of those people who think that folk who see the Death of the Faith whenever somebody holds hands during the Our Father are folk who need to endure some kind of real suffering so they can get some perspective on life. Life is too short, people.
I'm one of those people who think that folk who see the Death of the Faith whenever somebody holds hands during the Our Father are folk who need to endure some kind of real suffering so they can get some perspective on life. Life is too short, people.
Since I've been so hard on Tim at Catholics for Dean...
I gotta also give him an "attaboy" for calling Space Cadet Kucinich to renounce his Faustian bargain for the presidency at the cost of his soul. Well done, Tim.
I gotta also give him an "attaboy" for calling Space Cadet Kucinich to renounce his Faustian bargain for the presidency at the cost of his soul. Well done, Tim.
Now that I'm so popular, I must set about alienating you all
The best way to do that, I think, is to reprint here something I wrote some time back which I still believe to be true. Since I now have twice as many readers as I did then, I am assuming this will be news to at least half of you.
[ahem]
You will never understand JPII if you try to analyze him in political categories.
Look. Here's the deal: People continue to be let down by JPII because he doesn't do what they'd do about our crop of bishops: Fire Them All!!! I submit that's basically because they keep thinking that JPII thinks like them, so why doesn't he arrive at their conclusions?
JPII doesn't think like us. Here are some of his fundamental ideas:
1. A decidedly Eastern conception of his office. This is not a news flash. Read Ut Unum Sint. He treats his office much more the way an Eastern Patriarch would than the way any Latin has for a millenium.
2. A *HUGE* emphasis on the relationship between cult and culture. For JPII culture, not politics, is the real game in town. Politics and legislation are the expression of culture (see "Canada, Gay Marriage in"). If you want *real* change, you heal and/or create the culture, the laws will follow. If the culture is broke, no amount of political fixes will halt the rot. As I've been pointing out, this matters immensely in dealing with the American Church, because, like it or not, the bishops we have are a reflection of what we *want*.
The basic contract of the American Church with its leadership is, "We'll be content with a few child rapes and other indiscretions if you'll just leave us alone." Factor in abortion (which is where this started, along with Humanae Vitae) and "a few killings" (well, 1.5 million a year) is also part of the contract. We have the leadership we want, for the most part. Need still more evidence? Go here (and note from the comment there that this is not a problem confined to Catholic culture).
Now, it is customary at this point to whine about our helplessness and lack of access to the bureaucratic machinery that elects bishops and assigns priests--as if that's the sole or even the most important form of power wielded in the Church. This is, however, to think politically--precisely the terms in which JPII does not think. And the reason he doesn't think in those terms is because he's right: culture, not politics is much more determinative of how the Church lives. Don't believe that? Then explain how, if the laity are so powerless, a parish like St. Joan's can basically push a bishop like Abp. Flynn around and blow him off? If bishops hold all the cards and laypeople can only cringe and scrape before their almighty outstretched hand, then why do places like Seattle U tell Abp. Brunett to blow it out his ear and go ahead and invite the Jesus Seminar in anyway?
Answer: laypeople are the primary creators of culture and bishops have, over the past 40 years, acquiesced to the contract that we have insisted upon: Leave us alone. Give us teachers who will provide us with excuses for our sexual derangements and other enthusiasms for autonomy. We didn't much care how these teachers chose to live out their doctrine as long as it didn't bother us too much. That's the bishop's job. And we're a tolerant culture. So we lionized Shanley for years. Of course, we have our limits and don't want to go on record as approving of child rape. But after we've had our blast of indignation at these mitred ciphers we demanded, we'll cool off and move on, lest they start asserting Catholic doctrine again and endangering our Imperial Autonomous Selves and the Contract we drew up with them in the Truce of '68.
Because of this "It's the culture, stupid" analysis, I continue to think that JPII is not being passive, but active, in not short-circuiting what really needs to happen: the repentance of the American Church, not the bandaid of a few new bishops to satisfy those who think in political categories. Put in "new bishops" but leave the culture the same and you get what James Hitchcock describes.
So it's risky medicine and I'm not so sure it will work. But it's not something that mystifies me, given JPII's way of looking at things. And given the facts on the ground, I think it's the best analysis of What's Wrong with the American Church.
But that will hurt!
Right!
Next point:
3. Carmelite theology of the cross. The way to healing, for JPII, is always through the cross, not around it. The Big Teenager that is the American Church demanded autonomy and got it. Now we've wrecked the car. The worst thing in the world is for Daddy Warbucks to foot the bill. We made the mess. We clean it up.
That, in sum, is JPII's thinking, I believe. The sooner we layfolk start dealing with that and cleaning up the culture, the sooner we find our way out. As I say, if it were me, there are bishops I'd take out. But I'm not Pope. And though I disagree with his prudential judgments about certain bishops, I find that, on the whole, the "It's the culture stupid" analysis is much more profound and realistic than the bandaid approach.
The best way to do that, I think, is to reprint here something I wrote some time back which I still believe to be true. Since I now have twice as many readers as I did then, I am assuming this will be news to at least half of you.
[ahem]
You will never understand JPII if you try to analyze him in political categories.
Look. Here's the deal: People continue to be let down by JPII because he doesn't do what they'd do about our crop of bishops: Fire Them All!!! I submit that's basically because they keep thinking that JPII thinks like them, so why doesn't he arrive at their conclusions?
JPII doesn't think like us. Here are some of his fundamental ideas:
1. A decidedly Eastern conception of his office. This is not a news flash. Read Ut Unum Sint. He treats his office much more the way an Eastern Patriarch would than the way any Latin has for a millenium.
2. A *HUGE* emphasis on the relationship between cult and culture. For JPII culture, not politics, is the real game in town. Politics and legislation are the expression of culture (see "Canada, Gay Marriage in"). If you want *real* change, you heal and/or create the culture, the laws will follow. If the culture is broke, no amount of political fixes will halt the rot. As I've been pointing out, this matters immensely in dealing with the American Church, because, like it or not, the bishops we have are a reflection of what we *want*.
The basic contract of the American Church with its leadership is, "We'll be content with a few child rapes and other indiscretions if you'll just leave us alone." Factor in abortion (which is where this started, along with Humanae Vitae) and "a few killings" (well, 1.5 million a year) is also part of the contract. We have the leadership we want, for the most part. Need still more evidence? Go here (and note from the comment there that this is not a problem confined to Catholic culture).
Now, it is customary at this point to whine about our helplessness and lack of access to the bureaucratic machinery that elects bishops and assigns priests--as if that's the sole or even the most important form of power wielded in the Church. This is, however, to think politically--precisely the terms in which JPII does not think. And the reason he doesn't think in those terms is because he's right: culture, not politics is much more determinative of how the Church lives. Don't believe that? Then explain how, if the laity are so powerless, a parish like St. Joan's can basically push a bishop like Abp. Flynn around and blow him off? If bishops hold all the cards and laypeople can only cringe and scrape before their almighty outstretched hand, then why do places like Seattle U tell Abp. Brunett to blow it out his ear and go ahead and invite the Jesus Seminar in anyway?
Answer: laypeople are the primary creators of culture and bishops have, over the past 40 years, acquiesced to the contract that we have insisted upon: Leave us alone. Give us teachers who will provide us with excuses for our sexual derangements and other enthusiasms for autonomy. We didn't much care how these teachers chose to live out their doctrine as long as it didn't bother us too much. That's the bishop's job. And we're a tolerant culture. So we lionized Shanley for years. Of course, we have our limits and don't want to go on record as approving of child rape. But after we've had our blast of indignation at these mitred ciphers we demanded, we'll cool off and move on, lest they start asserting Catholic doctrine again and endangering our Imperial Autonomous Selves and the Contract we drew up with them in the Truce of '68.
Because of this "It's the culture, stupid" analysis, I continue to think that JPII is not being passive, but active, in not short-circuiting what really needs to happen: the repentance of the American Church, not the bandaid of a few new bishops to satisfy those who think in political categories. Put in "new bishops" but leave the culture the same and you get what James Hitchcock describes.
So it's risky medicine and I'm not so sure it will work. But it's not something that mystifies me, given JPII's way of looking at things. And given the facts on the ground, I think it's the best analysis of What's Wrong with the American Church.
But that will hurt!
Right!
Next point:
3. Carmelite theology of the cross. The way to healing, for JPII, is always through the cross, not around it. The Big Teenager that is the American Church demanded autonomy and got it. Now we've wrecked the car. The worst thing in the world is for Daddy Warbucks to foot the bill. We made the mess. We clean it up.
That, in sum, is JPII's thinking, I believe. The sooner we layfolk start dealing with that and cleaning up the culture, the sooner we find our way out. As I say, if it were me, there are bishops I'd take out. But I'm not Pope. And though I disagree with his prudential judgments about certain bishops, I find that, on the whole, the "It's the culture stupid" analysis is much more profound and realistic than the bandaid approach.
Only an idiot would think this would affect prolife religious conservatives view of Bush
If anything, Evangelicals *love* their converts to have really ugly sins in their past.
I'm beginning to think the Dems are trying to become the Stupid and Evil Party.
If anything, Evangelicals *love* their converts to have really ugly sins in their past.
I'm beginning to think the Dems are trying to become the Stupid and Evil Party.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
So your son is a filmmaker who has made perhaps the most controversial film of his generation, as an homage of thanks to Jesus for saving him from despair...
He's been repeatedly charged with being an anti-semite and reviled, in no small part because he tries to give you the honor a son should give his father. What do you do?
Well, if you are Hutton Gibson, you selfishly seize the limelight afforded you in in order to air your crackpot ideas, with absolutely no consideration for your son's attempts to distance himself from said nutty ideas while still honoring you as the fourth commandment bids him to.
Hutton Gibson's not my dad, so I feel no filial loyalty to him. I think he's a miserable selfish old jerk who thinks of nothing but Hutton Gibson and who does not give a rip about the humiliation he causes his son, nor about the mud he flings on the name of Christ with his idiotic and hateful blather.
Makes it rather easy for me to understand the terrific pain the younger Gibson has had to deal with and his earlier temptations to end it all. I wonder how many of us could survive an upbringing with a father like that.
He's been repeatedly charged with being an anti-semite and reviled, in no small part because he tries to give you the honor a son should give his father. What do you do?
Well, if you are Hutton Gibson, you selfishly seize the limelight afforded you in in order to air your crackpot ideas, with absolutely no consideration for your son's attempts to distance himself from said nutty ideas while still honoring you as the fourth commandment bids him to.
Hutton Gibson's not my dad, so I feel no filial loyalty to him. I think he's a miserable selfish old jerk who thinks of nothing but Hutton Gibson and who does not give a rip about the humiliation he causes his son, nor about the mud he flings on the name of Christ with his idiotic and hateful blather.
Makes it rather easy for me to understand the terrific pain the younger Gibson has had to deal with and his earlier temptations to end it all. I wonder how many of us could survive an upbringing with a father like that.
Spokesorganism for League of Offended Viruses Files Suit Against Blog Author Shea
"We bitterly resent being compared with dolts like this guy," declared Xdsflwr, the spokesorganism for Viral life worldwide. "This maroon makes us look like geniuses. And I should know because I have been inside plenty of brains in my time."
I apologize again. I wonder if it's possible to be dumber than molecules.
"We bitterly resent being compared with dolts like this guy," declared Xdsflwr, the spokesorganism for Viral life worldwide. "This maroon makes us look like geniuses. And I should know because I have been inside plenty of brains in my time."
I apologize again. I wonder if it's possible to be dumber than molecules.
David Klinghoffer points out the obvious
It is no more an indictment of the entire Jewish people to say that the Jerusalem authorities and a local mob were complicit in the death of Jesus, than it is an indictment of all Italians to say that he "suffered under Pontius Pilate".
It is also, by Christian reckoning, no less an indictment of the whole human race. He died because of me. I may just as well have pounded the nails myself.
It is no more an indictment of the entire Jewish people to say that the Jerusalem authorities and a local mob were complicit in the death of Jesus, than it is an indictment of all Italians to say that he "suffered under Pontius Pilate".
It is also, by Christian reckoning, no less an indictment of the whole human race. He died because of me. I may just as well have pounded the nails myself.
More trouble for...
My readers are so great!
The Catholic Business Network of Montgomery County, Inc.
P.O. Box 30104
Bethesda, MD 20824
Phone 301-608-2166
Fax 301-608-2167
To whom it may concern:
I am quite concerned about what I read on your website today (I received word of it today through a huge local e-mail network of MD Catholics and Christians who believe in the sanctity of all human life, born and unborn).
According to your website, your organization has invited the Honorable Chris Van Hollen of the U.S. House of Representatives, 8th District, to speak at your upcoming breakfast on March 12, 2004. Rep. Van Hollen is unabashedly pro-abortion, and has no business speaking to a group of Catholics other than to renounce his un-Christian, uncivilized views on this issue.
Two possibilities occurred to me: either 1) your organization is unaware of Rep. Van Hollen's established pro-abortion record, and the subsequent threat he poses to women and the unborn as a sitting member of the Health and Human Services Committee, and therefore this invitation was one made innocently, or 2) you are aware of his pro-abortion record, but your organization thinks (as many Catholics these days do) that there are "other issues" besides the life issue.
If it is the former, let me say that the record is clear. His campaign was built on his pro-abortion record. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. He is PROUD of it. If you at all followed last year's elections, this should come as no surprise. He is the recipient of the Planned Parenthood Betty Tyler Public Affairs Award for his "leadership on 'choice' issues." You may contact his office directly and they will not even attempt to paint him as remotely pro-life-he is an avowed pro-choice/pro-abortion politician, and he has expressed ZERO interest in changing these views, as evidenced by this quote on his webpage: "I will continue to fight for a woman's right to choose."
If the latter, I would begin by addressing your attention to the recent, ongoing "scandal" involving the priest sex-abuse of minors. There were many Catholic leaders who knew of the problem and chose to ignore it, perhaps favoring "other issues." But we all understand: THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN COMES FIRST! History will show these men to be cowards, as if the masses (like me and probably you, too) are not already convinced as much. As a known "Catholic" institution, your organization would be wise to consider it 's role and responsibility in the community at large in practicing and upholding the "Gospel of Life." For the record, the "life" issue supercedes all others. To put it in secular terms, wiithout life, there is no liberty and no pursuit of happiness. We all understand: THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN COMES FIRST! On this we will be judged.
As Catholics, we are charged with giving full witness to Christ, in season and out of season. The Holy Father is clear on this, and the US Bishops also just recently took up the issue of dealing with pro-abortion politicians. As a known Catholic organization, you really should not be inviting professed pro-abort politicians in to "educate us." Quite frankly it is they who need the education from us, and unless the expressed purpose of having him address your organization is so that you can directly challenge him on his pro-abortion views and voting, then that kind of dialogue should be undertaken through letters, phone calls, or visits with him at his office. Inviting him to speak gives the false appearance that his views are "welcome."
It seems early enough at this point that you could still disinvite him. You should. I can almost assure you that the pro-lifers in Montgomery County-and I've seen them in action before: they are relentless!-will simply not give your organization a "pass" on this. On the contrary, they will take action to ensure that Catholic/Christian teaching is absolutely clear: Life is sacred, and our elected officials have a duty to protect it. I hope you will do your part.
Sincerely
My readers are so great!
A huge debate about the Ninth Amendment is Engulfing the Blogosphere
Go here for the post heard round the world. Scroll up to follow the argument.
Go here for the post heard round the world. Scroll up to follow the argument.
"People"? I ain't "people." I am a - "a shimmering, glowing star in the cinema firmament."
MOST INFORMATIVE BLOG
Catholic and Enjoying It - Mark Shea
BEST OVERALL
Catholic and Enjoying It - Mark Shea
BEST BLOG BY A MAN
Catholic and Enjoying It - Mark Shea
BEST APOLOGETICS BLOG
Catholic and Enjoying It - Mark Shea
It is with towering, overwhelming, sky-scaling humility that I wish to accept the accolades that have been heaped on my swiftly expanding head. Some are born great. Some achieve greatness. Some have greatness thrust upon them.
And some, like me, do all three.
I could bore you all by thanking the little people who helped me to where I am today. But why bother? After all, they are just little people and it would take the focus off ME in my Hour of Triumph and Exaltation. So instead, let's just talk about me, shall we?
Please feel free to register your gushing obsequies and frothing adulation in the comments boxes below. Any bribes for future favors from St. Blog's Holy Roman Emperor and Sexiest Man Alive will be duly considered in direct proportion to the size of the bribe. (See my PayPal link on the left rail).
"If we bring a little joy into your humdrum lives, it makes us feel as if our hard work ain't been in vain for nothing." - Lina Lamont, Singin' in the Rain
MOST INFORMATIVE BLOG
Catholic and Enjoying It - Mark Shea
BEST OVERALL
Catholic and Enjoying It - Mark Shea
BEST BLOG BY A MAN
Catholic and Enjoying It - Mark Shea
BEST APOLOGETICS BLOG
Catholic and Enjoying It - Mark Shea
It is with towering, overwhelming, sky-scaling humility that I wish to accept the accolades that have been heaped on my swiftly expanding head. Some are born great. Some achieve greatness. Some have greatness thrust upon them.
And some, like me, do all three.
I could bore you all by thanking the little people who helped me to where I am today. But why bother? After all, they are just little people and it would take the focus off ME in my Hour of Triumph and Exaltation. So instead, let's just talk about me, shall we?
Please feel free to register your gushing obsequies and frothing adulation in the comments boxes below. Any bribes for future favors from St. Blog's Holy Roman Emperor and Sexiest Man Alive will be duly considered in direct proportion to the size of the bribe. (See my PayPal link on the left rail).
"If we bring a little joy into your humdrum lives, it makes us feel as if our hard work ain't been in vain for nothing." - Lina Lamont, Singin' in the Rain
Why I think same sex attracted males should not *automatically* be rejected from the priesthood
First, a quick disclaimer, I'm not trying to tell the ordained office its business here. If those who are in charge of designing the process for admitting candidates think that it's just too risky, I can certainly understand that, given the catastrophes that an open door policy to gay priests has resulted in. Nonetheless, here's what I'm thinking:
"Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted." (Hebrews 2:17-18)
Those who wish to exclude same sex attracted males from the priesthood, even when they have a proven record of fidelity to the Church's teaching in body, mind and spirit seem to me to be rejecting not only the Church's teaching on concupiscence (which distinguishes between temptation--which is not sin--and giving in to temptation--which *is* sin). However, beyond this, they are also denying Catholics who struggle with same sex temptation good pastoral models who can say, with authority, "You can do this." Jesus was subject to temptation, yet without sin. And it is precisely *because* of this that he is a good high priest for us. The stupidity of the Church in our present hour is that it has given us far too many priests who have dealt with the problem of homosexual temptation by saying, "It's not a temptation. It's a virtue!" But it is equally stupid, it seems to me, to say of homosexual temptation: "It's not a temptation. It's a sin that renders you uniquely unfit for the priesthood, no matter how faithul you have been as a Catholic." It leaves Catholics who are struggling against that sin high and dry, pastorally speaking.
First, a quick disclaimer, I'm not trying to tell the ordained office its business here. If those who are in charge of designing the process for admitting candidates think that it's just too risky, I can certainly understand that, given the catastrophes that an open door policy to gay priests has resulted in. Nonetheless, here's what I'm thinking:
"Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted." (Hebrews 2:17-18)
Those who wish to exclude same sex attracted males from the priesthood, even when they have a proven record of fidelity to the Church's teaching in body, mind and spirit seem to me to be rejecting not only the Church's teaching on concupiscence (which distinguishes between temptation--which is not sin--and giving in to temptation--which *is* sin). However, beyond this, they are also denying Catholics who struggle with same sex temptation good pastoral models who can say, with authority, "You can do this." Jesus was subject to temptation, yet without sin. And it is precisely *because* of this that he is a good high priest for us. The stupidity of the Church in our present hour is that it has given us far too many priests who have dealt with the problem of homosexual temptation by saying, "It's not a temptation. It's a virtue!" But it is equally stupid, it seems to me, to say of homosexual temptation: "It's not a temptation. It's a sin that renders you uniquely unfit for the priesthood, no matter how faithul you have been as a Catholic." It leaves Catholics who are struggling against that sin high and dry, pastorally speaking.
"Evangelization" as Self-Medication
Disputations has a delightfully droll account of a recent run-in with a so-called Protestant Evangelist.
Before Catholic guffaw too loudly, let me just add that Catholic "apologists" are often guilty of the same thing. Essentially, it comes down to the fact that some people have some sort of need to just... just.. HIT somebody as hard as they possibly can. But, being Christians, they know they should not do that. So instead, they hit people as hard as they possibly can, but lie to themselves that what they are really doing is "the Lord's work". They're not ignorantly insulting people about whom they know nothing and ignoring all pleas to be listened to as though the Target were a fellow human being and not merely an impersonal object for insults and verbal kidney punches! Heavens to betsy, no! They are "sharing God's love!"
It's rather strange and sick, but it's fairly common in Christian circles (Note that, O Protestant *and* Catholic--and I should, Eastern Orthodox--readers).
For my Catholic readers, I recommend Mark Brumley's wonderful book How Not to Share Your Faith
Disputations has a delightfully droll account of a recent run-in with a so-called Protestant Evangelist.
Before Catholic guffaw too loudly, let me just add that Catholic "apologists" are often guilty of the same thing. Essentially, it comes down to the fact that some people have some sort of need to just... just.. HIT somebody as hard as they possibly can. But, being Christians, they know they should not do that. So instead, they hit people as hard as they possibly can, but lie to themselves that what they are really doing is "the Lord's work". They're not ignorantly insulting people about whom they know nothing and ignoring all pleas to be listened to as though the Target were a fellow human being and not merely an impersonal object for insults and verbal kidney punches! Heavens to betsy, no! They are "sharing God's love!"
It's rather strange and sick, but it's fairly common in Christian circles (Note that, O Protestant *and* Catholic--and I should, Eastern Orthodox--readers).
For my Catholic readers, I recommend Mark Brumley's wonderful book How Not to Share Your Faith
Just so long as they aren't praying or doing Bible studies
So good to see higher education achieving its noble mission.
So good to see higher education achieving its noble mission.
For those inclined to read between lines...
When I remark that things in Albany look fishy, I mean exactly that. Things don't add up. The priest is reportedly behind a letter documenting shenanigans in Albany. That priest tells Fr. Wilson he was forced to lie and the diocese produces a signed statement disavowing his involvement in the letter. The bishop's story contradicts what Fr. Wilson reports the priest had to say concerning whether he went to the bishop on Friday of his own accord, or was peremptorly summoned. The priest ends up dead shortly after speaking with Fr. Wilson. The press doesn't call it suicide but the diocese calls it "apparent suicide."
Call me crazy, but I'd say that's fishy. What I have not said and do not say is "This is evidence of murder" or "The bishop is a liar" or "Rome know all about this and does not care" or any one of a number of other conclusions that are currently being leapt to in my comments boxes.
What we've got here is a number of unanswered riddles that we do not have the data to untangle. Fevered hearsay reports, followed by Grand Conclusions about the Nature of the Roman Catholic Church are most unhelpful. So are grand conclusions about Hubbard or Minkler, or the various other folk involved. I have kept my own reportage brief for this reason. The simple fact is, nobody knows what's going on here yet. My own educated guesses are that Minkler did indeed kill himself and that he probably did so because he was indeed forced to lie about a letter that he did indeed write about abuses and sin that have indeed involved Hubbard.
But that's just a guess. I could be wrong. As to the more extreme extrapolations about What This Means About Pope John Paul II: it means, well, more or less nothing until we have any clear idea what we are talking about.
So please: preface all prognostications with things like "Here's my guess..." and conclude them with statements like, "But then, what do I know?" Better still, stick to facts if your prognostications are prone to throw gas on a fire of rumor-mongering and doomsaying.
When I remark that things in Albany look fishy, I mean exactly that. Things don't add up. The priest is reportedly behind a letter documenting shenanigans in Albany. That priest tells Fr. Wilson he was forced to lie and the diocese produces a signed statement disavowing his involvement in the letter. The bishop's story contradicts what Fr. Wilson reports the priest had to say concerning whether he went to the bishop on Friday of his own accord, or was peremptorly summoned. The priest ends up dead shortly after speaking with Fr. Wilson. The press doesn't call it suicide but the diocese calls it "apparent suicide."
Call me crazy, but I'd say that's fishy. What I have not said and do not say is "This is evidence of murder" or "The bishop is a liar" or "Rome know all about this and does not care" or any one of a number of other conclusions that are currently being leapt to in my comments boxes.
What we've got here is a number of unanswered riddles that we do not have the data to untangle. Fevered hearsay reports, followed by Grand Conclusions about the Nature of the Roman Catholic Church are most unhelpful. So are grand conclusions about Hubbard or Minkler, or the various other folk involved. I have kept my own reportage brief for this reason. The simple fact is, nobody knows what's going on here yet. My own educated guesses are that Minkler did indeed kill himself and that he probably did so because he was indeed forced to lie about a letter that he did indeed write about abuses and sin that have indeed involved Hubbard.
But that's just a guess. I could be wrong. As to the more extreme extrapolations about What This Means About Pope John Paul II: it means, well, more or less nothing until we have any clear idea what we are talking about.
So please: preface all prognostications with things like "Here's my guess..." and conclude them with statements like, "But then, what do I know?" Better still, stick to facts if your prognostications are prone to throw gas on a fire of rumor-mongering and doomsaying.
Sigh
So Foxman goes to Rome to demand that the Vatican Do Something about the Passion.
Right.
It's as stupid as going to the Knesset to demand Israel Do Something about the latest issue of Heeb Magazine.
Its' cheap grandstanding. I'm finding it very hard to take anything Foxman says seriously anymore.
So Foxman goes to Rome to demand that the Vatican Do Something about the Passion.
Right.
It's as stupid as going to the Knesset to demand Israel Do Something about the latest issue of Heeb Magazine.
Its' cheap grandstanding. I'm finding it very hard to take anything Foxman says seriously anymore.
By the way, have I mentioned
...that I will be doing an online class on the Eucharist for HMSU? I'll be gone for a veeeeeery long, veeeeeeeery dull Lent. You won't find anything from me posted here. It will be veeeeeeery dreary. I wonder how you'll survive, personally.
However, I *will* be easily accessible in my class "Power in the Blood: The Life-Changing Power of the Eucharist" over at HMSU.
Just a thought!
...that I will be doing an online class on the Eucharist for HMSU? I'll be gone for a veeeeeery long, veeeeeeeery dull Lent. You won't find anything from me posted here. It will be veeeeeeery dreary. I wonder how you'll survive, personally.
However, I *will* be easily accessible in my class "Power in the Blood: The Life-Changing Power of the Eucharist" over at HMSU.
Just a thought!
Shea to Plankton: I concede your point completely
I'm not even sure viral life could be as dumb as some public school teachers and administrators.
Have I mentioned how glad we are to homeschool lately?
I'm not even sure viral life could be as dumb as some public school teachers and administrators.
Have I mentioned how glad we are to homeschool lately?
Expect more such sympathetic profiles as time wears on
A culture which is bound and determined to push the envelope when it comes to sexual thrill-seeking can only continue in the same direction. Any attempt to limit depravity will, of course, constitute a basis for asking "If this is wrong, why isn't *this* depravity (which we just legitimated) wrong as well?"
There will come a time, I think within my lifetime, when the central question for the Chattering Classes will be "What's so bad about sex with minors anyway?" A lot of spadework still needs to be done before the NY Times can make that it's social reform crusade du jour. But I have no doubt it will happen. Look for deployment of the extremely useful word "taboo". You'll know adulation for some depravity in the pages of the New York Times is just over the horizon then.
A culture which is bound and determined to push the envelope when it comes to sexual thrill-seeking can only continue in the same direction. Any attempt to limit depravity will, of course, constitute a basis for asking "If this is wrong, why isn't *this* depravity (which we just legitimated) wrong as well?"
There will come a time, I think within my lifetime, when the central question for the Chattering Classes will be "What's so bad about sex with minors anyway?" A lot of spadework still needs to be done before the NY Times can make that it's social reform crusade du jour. But I have no doubt it will happen. Look for deployment of the extremely useful word "taboo". You'll know adulation for some depravity in the pages of the New York Times is just over the horizon then.
Just to clarify, the all-important, critical, crucial thing is fidelity, fidelity, fidelity
When I speak of the possibility of ordaining a faithful man who feels same sex attraction, I mean a FAITHFUL man. One who has shown himself mature and capable of really living the gospel. As a general rule, I am inclined to think our culture is less and less capable of producing such people and that gay culture, which is profoundly narcissistic is least capable of all. So I suspect the Church would be wise to turn down the vast majority of gay men who apply for the priesthood. I also believe the bishops have shown themselves spectacularly unwilling to address the catastrophinc results of the current Lavender Elephant in the Living Room.
When I speak of the possibility of ordaining a faithful man who feels same sex attraction, I mean a FAITHFUL man. One who has shown himself mature and capable of really living the gospel. As a general rule, I am inclined to think our culture is less and less capable of producing such people and that gay culture, which is profoundly narcissistic is least capable of all. So I suspect the Church would be wise to turn down the vast majority of gay men who apply for the priesthood. I also believe the bishops have shown themselves spectacularly unwilling to address the catastrophinc results of the current Lavender Elephant in the Living Room.
Half a billion dollars
Pretty soon we'll be talking real money. Ah well, better to spend it here than blow it on my son's tuition.
Pretty soon we'll be talking real money. Ah well, better to spend it here than blow it on my son's tuition.
Sensible take on the distinction between Same Sex Attraction and Homosexual Behavior
Read Fr. Telford's piece.
There is thing that I notice among both the zealous pro-homosexual types *and* the (rather few) folk in my comments boxes who say that the mere *temptation* to same sex eros makes a person somehow peculiarly wicked and (among other things) categorical unfit for the priesthood: both basically believe that a person *is* his appetites. Because of this, of course, the growing demand among the gay rights movement is not merely for tolerance but for approval. You must *love* the disordered appetite or you automatically must hate the person who feels it and acts on it. Conversely, for the true homophobe, you must reject the person with the disordered appetite, not accept the person and distinguish him from his appetites. The two are identical for both the pro-gay activist and the homophobe who insists that no person, no matter how faithfully they have lived the gospel, can possibly be a fit candidate for Holy Orders if they have *this* form of concupiscence.
Read Fr. Telford's piece.
There is thing that I notice among both the zealous pro-homosexual types *and* the (rather few) folk in my comments boxes who say that the mere *temptation* to same sex eros makes a person somehow peculiarly wicked and (among other things) categorical unfit for the priesthood: both basically believe that a person *is* his appetites. Because of this, of course, the growing demand among the gay rights movement is not merely for tolerance but for approval. You must *love* the disordered appetite or you automatically must hate the person who feels it and acts on it. Conversely, for the true homophobe, you must reject the person with the disordered appetite, not accept the person and distinguish him from his appetites. The two are identical for both the pro-gay activist and the homophobe who insists that no person, no matter how faithfully they have lived the gospel, can possibly be a fit candidate for Holy Orders if they have *this* form of concupiscence.
Attention Western Washingtonians!
"An Examination of Some Common Myths about the Civil War"
A Lecture by Tracy McKenzie, Ph.D.,
Department of History,
The University of Washington
Casey Commons
Casey Hall
Seattle University
Thursday, February 26, 7:30 PM
"An Examination of Some Common Myths about the Civil War"
A Lecture by Tracy McKenzie, Ph.D.,
Department of History,
The University of Washington
Casey Commons
Casey Hall
Seattle University
Thursday, February 26, 7:30 PM
Another pro-active reader takes on the Catholic Business Network
Thanks for the update on the Catholic Business Network here in Montgomery County (our motto: "Where no stupid liberal idea will go untried"). I'm a Catholic small business owner, and on the board of a Catholic school that has received money from them in the past. After reading your blog, I sent them a letter, and our school board is planning on writing them a protest letter as well.
Here is my letter:
Paul Zurkowski
Catholic Business Network of Montgomery County, Inc.
P.O. Box 30104
Bethesda, MD 20824
Dear Mr. Zurkowski,
I am a co-founder of Vansam Software, Inc., a software development company here in Montgomery County. I am also a practicing Catholic, and am a member of the Board of Directors for Mother of God school, a Catholic primary school in Montgomery County which has benefited from past CBN-MC functions. I have been interested in joining CBN-MC for some time, and I am especially attracted to your mission to "apply the principles of the Roman Catholic faith to [our] daily lives in the marketplace" and "advance Catholic morality, values, and ethics in the marketplace".
That is why it troubled me to recently find out that CBN-MC was sponsoring a breakfast (March 12, 2004) in which Rep. Christopher Van Hollen would be the featured speaker. Rep. Van Hollen's stances and voting record on issues related to abortion are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. As just one example, Van Hollen voted against banning the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. To give such a speaker a place of honor in a Catholic setting shows an endorsement of actions that attack Catholic morality, values and ethics at their very core.
Please reconsider the invitation to Rep. Van Hollen, cancel this event, and reclaim your charter as the Catholic Business Network.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
O'Brien Convicted
Good to see that nobody is above the law. Tragic to see such a man disgrace his office so. May he find the mercy of Christ.
Good to see that nobody is above the law. Tragic to see such a man disgrace his office so. May he find the mercy of Christ.
Fr. Wilson writes concerning the priest who turned up dead in Albany this past Sunday
Friday evening, upon returning to my rectory from Manhattan, I found an email from a friend telling me that a Fr John Minkler of Albany would be contacting me, that he was in trouble with his bishop and needed advice. There was a phone message from Fr Minkler. I phoned him at about 8PM, and he chose to return my call immediately. We spoke for about an hour.
He was apprehensive and very burdened. He explained that he had just returned from five days of retreat, to find that his name had been mentioned publicly in the media, in connection with a report that had been sent to John Cardinal O'Connor about the state of the Albany Diocese.
This was the first confirmation I had ever had of something I heard a couple of years ago -- that Cardinal O'Connor, a couple of years before his death, was extremely disturbed about the state of the Church in Abany and Rochester, and was trying to stir up interest in the Holy See in intervening. Fr Minkler confirmed this and said that he had written a report and submitted it to Cardinal O'Connor.
Now, he was very upset that his name had come out in this regard, and he was seeking advice, which I gave him. I will say nothing else about this part of the conversation, because it is between me and a brother priest.
He did not tell me that he had actually been to the chancery that day and spoken with Bishop Hubbard. Nor did he tell me that he had signed an affadavit stating that he had not written the report.
At the end of the conversation, he was much more relaxed than he had been earlier. I told him that I'd be glad to be of any help I could to him, that I'd find him canonical counsel if he needed it, that we have a guest room here at the Rectory if he needed a place to crash. By the time we signed off, he had promised to keep in touch, knew that he had support, and I was in no way anxious about his state of mind. I expected to hear again from him in a few days. Our mutual friend phoned me the next morning (Saturday) to ask if we had connected; I said yes and briefed him, and he phoned Fr Minkler and found him in good shape.
Subsequent points of interest:
I had never spoken with Fr Minkler before, nor do I think I had ever heard of him, but we had several friends in common, it turns out. One is a NYC priest whom Fr Minkler called Friday afternoon. Fr Minkler never mentioned to him, either, about the chancery interview and the affadavit he had signed.
Fr Minkler did, though, tell our mutual friend who had first put us together that he had seen the Bishop. Here, though, his account differs from what Bp Hubbard said at the press conference. Hubbard said that Fr Minkler had turned up, unannounced and upset, at the chancery office. My friend was told by Fr Minkler that he had received a peremptory summons to the chancery via phone msg, which was waiting when he returned from retreat.
I think he was deeply unhappy and regretful about having signed the false affadavit. He told our mutual friend, "They forced me to lie." He never mentioned it to me, or to the other priest he spoke with. I think it was a very heavy burden to him.
Beyond that, I can't say I understand the situation. Not having known him, I couldn't begin to guess how he'd handle stress. There will undoubtedly be a lot more details forthcoming in the next few days, but it's a sad situation and I wish we could have been of more help to him.
Bill Cork Continues to Debase Himself
Now that I've seen the interview, Cork's strange vendetta against the Passion becomes all the more bizarre. Last night's interview made clear that Gibson does not deny the Holocaust, does not deny 6 million Jews were murdered, does not, in fact, subscribe to his father's kooky ideas. But, rather reasonably, Gibson does still try to observe the fourth commandment and honor his father and, at any rate, his father's views are not reflected in the film. All rather plain sailing, I thought. So what does Bill Cork, stooping down from the chancery to instruct the hoi polloi do? Why, offer this bit of irrelevance--and only this in response to the interview. Shameful. Apparently smear tactics are still part of the chancery handbook in some dioceses.
Now that I've seen the interview, Cork's strange vendetta against the Passion becomes all the more bizarre. Last night's interview made clear that Gibson does not deny the Holocaust, does not deny 6 million Jews were murdered, does not, in fact, subscribe to his father's kooky ideas. But, rather reasonably, Gibson does still try to observe the fourth commandment and honor his father and, at any rate, his father's views are not reflected in the film. All rather plain sailing, I thought. So what does Bill Cork, stooping down from the chancery to instruct the hoi polloi do? Why, offer this bit of irrelevance--and only this in response to the interview. Shameful. Apparently smear tactics are still part of the chancery handbook in some dioceses.
Another ecumenical barrier bites the dust
Dean at Blogs for God writes:
Dean at Blogs for God writes:
"I never, ever, EVER want to hear from another evangelical that Catholics aren't Christians. One need only watch the beginning of the interview to see one Catholic's accurate grasp on essential historical Christian theology. And I'm not talking about Ms. Sawyer."
The Entire Sawyer/Gibson Interview is Available in Quicktime here
I think he acquitted himself quite well. If he's a RadTrad, he's not a very good one. He's absorbed quite a bit of Vatican II. Which is, of course, all to the good.
I think he acquitted himself quite well. If he's a RadTrad, he's not a very good one. He's absorbed quite a bit of Vatican II. Which is, of course, all to the good.