Catholic and Enjoying It! |
|
 Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again! Tips are deeply appreciated! Yes! I do take Credit Cards! Atom RSS Feed         Franciscan Friars of the Assumption Province - Religious Vocations for Men   Little Way Web Store  Hard to find holy cards and photographs of St. Therese imported directly from her store in Lisieux. We specialize in carmelite spirituality and offer a wide selection of books and gifts about carmelite spirituality. This is the website you have been waiting for. Gethsemane Garden Stones  Stations of the Cross Garden Stepping Stones transform your garden into a Prayer Garden Check Out "Rock Solid"  Mark Shea's Podcast                   
ARCHIVES
My Site (Mark-Shea.com)04/01/2002 - 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 - 08/01/2002 08/01/2002 - 09/01/2002 09/01/2002 - 10/01/2002 10/01/2002 - 11/01/2002 11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002 12/01/2002 - 01/01/2003 01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 Act One: Writing for Hollywood AirMaria American Chesterton Society Ave Maria Singles Catherine of Siena Institute Catholic Educator's Resource Center Catholic Exchange Crossroads Initiative Decent Films Drudge Report Exceptional Marriages Gilbert Magazine MercatorNet Peter Kreeft Mars Hill Review St. Austin Review St. Blog's Prayer Network Star of the Sea: Catholic Resources from Paul Thigpen David Alexander's Man with Black Hat: Zydeco Catholic Mike Aquilina's Fathers of the Church Rod Bennett: Tremendous Trifles Domenico Bettinelli: Very Sensible Guy Nancy Brown: Flying Stars Elliot Bougis: Fides, Cogitatio, Actio Chris Burgwald's Veritas Cacciaguida: Defending the 12th Century Since the 14th Catholic World News - Off the Record Cosmos Liturgy Sex: That About Covers it All Disputations: Dedicated to Arguing Ross Douthat: The Atlantic's Most Sensible Writer Michael Dubruiel's Annunciations: Sanity in Cyberspace Envoy's Blog: A Banana Republic for Catholic Apologists Dawn Eden: The Dawn Patrol Get Religion: The Smartest Blog on the Web about Religion and Media Dave Hartline: The Catholic Report Heart, Mind and Strength: The Weblog of Exceptional Marriages and Other Fun Stuff Intentional Disciples: The Group Blog of the St. Catherine of Siena Institute Fr. Rob Johansen: Thrownback Christopher Johnson: Midwest Conservative Journal Daniel Larison: Eunomia Fr. Dwight Longenecker: Standing on My Head White Around the Collar Mary's Aggies: Aggies for Mary Mere Comments: Touchstone's blog Mommentary: Elinor Dashwood's Sensible Blog Barbara Nicolosi's Church of the Masses On the Square: The First Things Blog James Preece: Catholic and Loving it! (Not to be confused with another site of a similar name) Dale Price: Dyspeptic Mutterings Scott P. Richert is All About Catholicism Scrappleface: As Funny as the Onion The Shrine of the Holy Whapping: Fun Lovin' Catholic Nerds from Notre Dame Southern Appeal: The Law with 11 Catholic Herbs and Spices Andrew Sullivan: The 800 Pound Gorilla of the Blogosphere Who is Hopelessly Fuddled about Catholicism and Sex Mark Sullivan: Irish Elk Amy Welborn's Charlotte Was Both What's Wrong with the World: Sane People in Insane Times Eve Tushnet: Wide Ranging Mind Daniel Vitz: Committed to an Institute Vox Nova Blog: An Interest Catholic Group Blog Zippy Catholic: Committed to Catholic Common Sense etc
|
Saturday, August 31, 2002
Hey! It's Labor Day Weekend! So I'm outta here. But there is an article up on Catholic Exchange. See you Tuesday! Friday, August 30, 2002
It's here! GrovelSpam Apology 3.0! Complete with pointers to GrovelSpam Apology 4.0 and it's iterations 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3! Re: Your Email New letter. Same insult to our intelligence. "I had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show." Funny, everybody else knew. Rod Dreher Writes a Withering Blast of Scorn for CBS' Appalling Real Beverly Hillbillies This is the sort of godly anger that inspired Amos. Woe to CBS, who buys the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. Thanks for doing this, Rod. Don't these dolts realize there is no Big Three anymore and there are hundreds of channels to choose from? They can be contacted here. Nota Bene is having an interesting conversation with a Pentecostal pastor about "Who is a follower of Christ?" National Catholic Reporter Stamps its Tiny Foot in Impotent Rage This is good news. The "overthrow" of the evil geniuses at ICEL means we are a step closer to non-bowdlerized "translations" of the Mass. The Reporter's helpless whine is a good sign. The Planned Barrenhood Chick Who was Denied Permission to Marry in the Catholic Church laments "How can you do this to me? It's 29 days before my wedding" In other news, a third trimester abortion victim at her clinic lamented, "How can they do this to me? It's 29 days before my birth." David Alexander, Our Man In Voice of the Faithful, Takes Issue with Fr. Doyle's Wrong-Headed Defense of VOTF A reader sez: I appreciate the tone of your letter to Samuel Adams CEO Jim Koch. He certainly deserves a spanking here. However, I am disappointed in your ninth point, asking him [demanding?] that he make a financial contribution to the Poor Box of St. Patrick's Cathedral. That sounds a little too much Jesse Jackson-like to me. I certainly think it would be grand if he, and his company, did contribute, but to demand it as retribution seems to border on extortion. I don't like it when Jesse Jackson does it to corporate America, I didn't like it when the gay activisits did it to Coors, and integrity demands that I not like it when you do it to Sam Adams. I would feel a bit more Jacksonian if I had demanded Samuel Adams give something to the St. Pat's facilities and maintenance fund or the pastor's salary. I would feel absolutely Jacksonian if I had demanded Samuel Adams make an immediate deposit to my PayPal account to the tune of 1 million dollars. As it was, I demanded they give something to the poor, not the Church, and not to me. It's called penance, and is appropriate and fitting given that they have hitherto used their money to corrupt people rather than help them. The Latest Round in the War of the Rose The September issue of Crisis apparently has a piece on Michael Rose's critique of Louvain. Fr. Rob Johansen has some comments. Oh, and final arguments in the Grip 'n Grin Discussion Getting up to Speed Lately, I've been getting email from people describing their acts of piety in the "Cult of Rod". I haven't quite known what this is all about. Now I see that Rod has laid out his own personal Book of Leviticus for the edification of cult members over in a comments box on Amy's blog. It reads as follows: Attention Cult of Rod devotees! You are hereby commanded under pain of excommunication to deliver unto your Guru the following items: 1) a complete collection of "The Simpsons" episodes from seasons three, eight and nine; 2) a bottle of your favorite hot sauce; 3) a case of Zapp's Crawtators; 4) the keys to your Saab convertible. Be thee well advised, brethren and sistren, that you won't get into the temple unless you can recite the LSU Tigers "Hot Boudin/Cold Cous-Cous" cheer in flawless Latin. Let the word go forth... I gotta get me one of them cults. Do you think it would be undignified for a newly minted god to demand free roof repair, an exterminator for a carpenter ant problem in the kitchen and some good chocolate? Or should I hold on that till I've filled you with a sense of awe and fear? For now, I will promulgate my Extra Special Cult Chant in the hope it catches on: Salmon are fish! Salmon are pretty! Salmon have scales! Doo Wah Diddy! Let me know if you are starting to feel mind-numbed. There's a lot of home repair I need to get done. Thursday, August 29, 2002
Pope as Teacher, Pope as Flag Stephen's reaction to my piece puts me in mind of one of the odd phenomena I have observed. Namely, there are those who love the Pope as a teacher and those who love him as a sort of flag. My thoughts on how facing the altar and the world side-by-side will inevitably lead to the creation of strong and vibrant communities came from teachings done at my parish on the Pope's encyclical Mission of the Redeemer and other formal teaching on the Church's mandate to evangelize. In short, I cribbed my ideas from John Paul II, who among other things, says that the way to make a parish strong is not to practice endless introspection but to throw the parish into the work of evangelizing. In sneering at and mischaracterizing what I had to say, Stephen was, all unaware, attacking the Pope's teaching. He is doing so, it appears to me, because he thinks the Pope is a sort of Flag and I, who have disagreed with Rod Dreher, but defended him as a faithful son of the Church, am an opponent of that Flag in Stephen's extremely simple black and white world. In this worldview, it matters not so much whether you take the Pope's teaching seriously or not as that you stand next to the Flag. Now, I'm all for the Church's teaching on the Pope as a sign of the unity of the Church. But I don't think that unity is preserved by dividing the world into blacks and whites and then attacking everything a "black" says simply because he's "black". This is, in fact, what Stephen has done. And in doing so, he has wound up attacking something John Paul has pointed out, that the health of the Church is bound up with her approach to the Eucharist and the work of evangelization. This "Pope as Flag" mentality is often carried very far. Often it is so dominant that when the Pope says or does something a Flag-waver can't bear, the "Powerful Forces" excuse is brought out to explain it away. So, for instance, when the Pope says (as he did forty years ago) that "Beat Music" (what we now call rock and roll) should be used as a tool for evangelization, I've known representatives of the "True Catholic Kids Should Only Listen to Gregorian Chant" crowd explain that "Powerful Forces" were at work in the Vatican or somewhere Behind the Scenes, tricking the Pope into saying things like that. He doesn't--he can't--really mean that, because that would mean he taught something at variance with My Understanding of the Faith. This is classic "Pope as Flag, not Teacher" thinking too. So: a question: Is the Pope your teacher or just your flag? Something to think about. Stephen Hand's critique of my piece on "community building" is mystifying me He somehow forms the idea that I am pitting community against the transcendental dimension of the Mass and demanding people choose one or the other. Read the piece yourself. I could have sworn I said both were the goal, but that we get the former by focusing on the latter, not that the latter alone is important and the former must be rejected. However, even weirder than this is the fact that Stephen has opted to put me in his email kill-file, so that I can't respond to him in any way but on a public blog. Then, he uses my comments box to advertise an odd swipe at my piece. He's welcome to use my comments box--even for that. But there is something rather ungracious about kill-filing a person and then showing up to advertise further insults against them on their own comment box, doncha think Stephen? This is community building? This is the social dimension of the gospel? Another abusive priest is found after the clerical mafia's efforts to hide him fail I hope they can put this guy away but I fear the statute of limitations will work against it. Maybe they can nail him for fleeing justice? After that though, I hope they can also jail his accomplices. Enough! Now Here's a Cool Idea! It turns out that 99% of the priests out there are good guys. They need encouragement and we need to be reminded just how good they are. Check out Thankyoufather.com. Read a cool story or two and leave one of your own if you've got one. My Pal James Akin of Catholic Answers has a blog! Your one-stop shopping point for all your apologetics needs. And, if you come from a Reformed background (which I don't) he's Da Man for answering your questions since he's been where you are and can scratch where you itch. A Priest in Medicine Hat with Spine Frances Quisling lecturing the priest on upholding Church teaching is like Michael Dukakis in a tank. From the "My Readers Are Just So Incredibly Classy" Department Mr. Koch -- I won't publish the name, address, and phone stuff, but I would urge you to check out this reader's blog. Oh, and Mr. Koch, there's more mail where that came from but I don't want to fill up my blog with it. Thanks, folks, for taking a moment to combat the culture of death. It does make a difference. Tim Drake on Our Lady of Hollywood, Dreher and Signs Your one-stop shopping place for all your August 2002 American Catholic cultural needs. A Sam Adams Joke Jim Koch sent the first bottles of Sam Adams off to be analyzed for FDA approval. The lab sent them back the bad news: "Your horse has diabetes." Got the Apology 2.0 GrovelSpam from Jim Koch at Boston Beer this AM Here's my reply to him: Dear Mr. Koch: Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Light Blogging Today I've hauled a vanload of Strapping Youths to my brother's house for a swim fest in the lake. Would you be sitting at a computer when it's 80 degrees and there's a perfectly beautiful lake a few yards away? Fr. Rob Johansen Wants to Know... what people think of having folks grip and grin at each other before Mass as a way of building community. I basically think people should save it for coffee hour. AmChurch does not need still more emphasis on "community building". It needs a return to the transcendent ("Seek first his kingdom and all these things shall be added as well"). Community is like health. You get it, not by seeking it, but by seeking other, more important things. For my basic take on such matters, go here. Tuesday, August 27, 2002
How Revelation Proceeds There's a little discussion going on about the Immaculate Conception and several Catholics are voicing the "She had to be immaculate so that Jesus could dwell in her womb" theory. A Protestant is (understandably) saying "Then how does the Holy Spirit dwell in the rest of us unimmaculate types?" I'm not going to try to answer that question (since I don't buy that explanation of the reason for the IC either, so I'm not obliged to). Instead, I'm going to point out something else. Folks trying to deal with some point of revelation need to remember that theories about *why* God chose to do X and not Y are different than the revelation that God has, in fact, done X and not Y. C.S. Lewis referred to this in Mere Christianity when he spoke of vitamin theories. He said that people ate their dinners for centuries without ever knowing what vitamins were. They just ate and felt better. Then somebody came up with vitamin theories to explain why dinners make you feel better when you are hungry. If, tomorrow, somebody proves that vitamins don't exist, people will go on eating their dinners and feeling better. Theories of the atonement are the same way. We know *that* Christ's death and resurrection have atoned for our sins. We don't really know how and all our various theories attempting to explain how are just that: theories about the Reality, not the Reality itself. What matters is that we receive the atonement in faith and baptism. Theories of how it all works are handy, but quite secondary. They are not the revelation, only our attempts to understand the revelation. Dittos for the Immaculate Conception. What is revealed is the fact that Mary was preserved from sin (both original and actual). Why God chose to do so is an entirely secondary question. Bad explanations by Catholics don't refute the revelation. They merely show that some Catholics have inadequate theories about why God does the strange and wonderful things he does. It is worth noting that revelation proceeds much more like falling in love than like deriving the solution to a math problem. The early Church did not come up with a passel of doctrines and then say, "Let's tell people that God is a Trinity, Mary is sinless, and predestination and free will are both true so that we can play logic games with this cool leatherbound book we just published." Rather, revelation hit them on the head out of clear blue sky and they spent the rest of their lives asking, "What the heck was that?" Just as we don't get up in the morning planning to meet That Special (Wo)Man Who Changes our Lives Forever, so the apostles were not expecting to meet Jesus and have him do all the weird things he did. They weren't expecting the Resurrection. Or Pentecost. Or the conversion of the Gentiles. Or Mary. These things happened and then the Church has spent 2000 years trying to figure out what happened and what it all means. This means that the Church often doesn't really know *why* it teaches what it teaches. "Why no women priests?" somebody asks. And the Church spends several decades or centuries saying, "Good question. All we know is what Jesus told us to do. Here are some possible reasons why. But the important thing is Jesus told us to do it this way." Same with the Immaculate Conception. The Church is satisfied *that* Mary is immaculately conceived and sinless. Reasons *why* God might have chosen to do this are an entirely secondary matter. Some Gutsy Orthodox Attack Sexual Abuse in Their Communion More power to ya. It appears the Lord is cleaning house everywhere. Part of What Helped Make a Catholic of Me was This Sort of Thing I wrote, in plain English, using short, easy-to-read words: "By the way, you do know, don't you, that Mary's sinlessness is due to the grace of Christ and not to some intrinsic merit of her own? For example, Christ saved me from a life as a drug dealing Nazi skinhead. Do you know how? By keeping me from ever falling into those sins in the first place. He did the same thing for Mary, only he kept her from falling into any sin, including original sin. That's the basic Catholic belief. Not a claim that she needed no savior, but rather a claim that she was completely saved" The reader to whom I was replying then wrote back: "You seem to think Mary didn't need a Savior." It's this sort of pre-recorded response to Catholic teaching that I found singularly depressing in so many Protestant attempts to deal with what the Church teaches when I was trying to evaluate the claims of the Church vs. Protestant critiques. So many critiques boiled down, like this one, to saying "Catholics *can't* say Mary is saved by the grace of Christ because my tape-recorded response is only crafted to deal with the straw man Catholic who (my teachers assure me) believe Mary needed no Savior. So I'll just repeat myself, even when it makes no sense." Um, every evening of every day, for hundreds and hundreds of years, the Church has prayed the Magnificat in which Mary says, "My spirit rejoices in God my *savior*. This is not a news flash to the Church. Please. Deal with what Catholics actually teach and throw away the pre-recorded responses. For those who are seriously trying to grapple with Catholic teaching, such rejoinders only have the effect of making a powerful case that most critics of Catholic teaching don't have a clue what they are rejecting. No Mention of the Immaculate Conception can Fail to Elicit the Famous Romans 3:23 Objection A reader sez: While I believe you are correct that there can be revelation that is not contained in Scripture, there can be no revelation that contradicts Scripture, to wit, "... for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace...." (Romans 3:23-24) A couple of points: 1. "For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all." So, since "all means all" it must follow that Paul believes God will have mercy on all. Right? Universalism is therefore a dogma, right? No? How come? Because Paul's use of "all" is in a collective sense ("You should have seen it! Everybody was at the party. They were all there!") not in an absolute "every-last-person" sense. For, of course, not all have sinned. A newborn hasn't. Has he contracted original sin? Yes. But has he "sinned" i.e. committed actual sin? No. In order to show a real contradiction between the Immaculate Conception and Scripture, you have to show that Paul mean "all" in the absolute sense, not the collective sense. 2. If "all" means "all" does this include Jesus? No. For Paul expects the reader to know--without his stating it--that Jesus is exempt from "all". In short, he expects his reader to be familiar with unwritten Tradition. A Catholic would say the same thing obtains with the Blessed Virgin. Paul expects us to know that she is a special exception, like Jesus. 3) The Assumption makes no sense apart from the Immaculate Conception. One handy thing to remember is that the whole reason the Church wrestled with this problem so long is that Romans 3:23 is as much a part of her tradition as it is that of Protestantism. It's not like the Church was unaware of this verse. It's just that the Church was aware of other aspects of the Tradition as well. It is worth noting that Augustine, the Doctor of Original Sin, who fought like a tiger for the insistence that all are afflicted with this spiritual death of original sin from our First Parents, also takes it for granted that Mary, of course, is the exception to the rule, by the grace of Christ. Quick proof text appeals are seldom terribly useful, as though a legion of saints and thinkers had somehow failed to ever notice this passage and the objector is the first person to have come across it. (By the way, you do know, don't you, that Mary's sinlessness is due to the grace of Christ and not to some intrinsic merit of her own? For example, Christ saved me from a life as a drug dealing Nazi skinhead. Do you know how? By keeping me from every falling into those sins in the first place. He did the same thing for Mary, only he kept her from falling into any sin, including original sin. That's the basic Catholic belief. Not a claim that she needed no savior, but rather a claim that she was completely saved.) Please. No questions on "Why Mary and not me?" How should I know? God has his own purposes. Certainly, though, if God wishes to do something like this, he is within his rights. He owes us nothing. BS from Boston Beer The "points scale" for public sex was not suddenly announced on the show that day. It was standard policy and Koch knew it. This jerk knew exactly what they were doing. Don't let them add dishonesty to desecration. Tell them they can pour their horse piss down the toilet for this double insult. Another Encomium to Josef Pieper A reader writes: Thanks for blogging the Pieperian Analysis of Babette's Feast. I noticed it didn't generate much discussion, but hopefully a few people read this, and are intrigued by, I think, one of the wisest philosophers of the 20th century. Hopefully, that will inspire some to read his essays. Boston Beer makes a startling discovery It appears that there are lots of other beers in the world and if a brewer chooses to spit in the eye of millions of Irish and German Catholics, they can find those other beers and drink them instead. Monday, August 26, 2002
Using my best Sister Mary Elephant Voice Let me just say that vigorous conversation is encouraged in my comments boxes, but let's play well with others, people. No mind or soul reading. Stick to the argument and don't stray into speculating on the knavish soul and sinister motives of the person with whom you disagree. Just a reminder. A reader says: You said, "an infallible definition is never new revelation" but isn't that just a mite disingenuous? The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary into heaven were both infallibly declared but both are about as close to new revelation as one could possibly get, given that there is no Scriptural support for either and little support in Tradition. Remember: Catholics don't think that all revelation is conveyed only in Scripture. They believe the Tradition transmits revelation as well. Both the sinlessness and the "dormition" or Assumption of Mary are ancient features of the Tradition (which is why the Orthodox, who split from Rome a thousand years before the definitions were promulgated) regard them as part of the Tradition. Neither definition added anything new. They merely defined more closely what the Church has always believed. It is true that the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception, but their reason for doing so is not much consolation to your average Protestant. Protestants take such a high view of original sin that they can't believe even Mary was exempt from it. Orthodox tend to reject the idea of original sin and therefore never bothered with the question of how Mary (whom they, like Catholics, believe to have been "Panagia" or "All Holy" or stainless) got that way. Catholics defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in order to clarify how a belief they shared with the Orthodox (Mary's sinlessness) could be reconciled with a belief they share with Protestants (original sin). As usual, it offended both the Orthodox and the Protestants. Part of the genius of our Faith. :) The Assumption (or Dormition as it is known in the East) was made a feast in the Eastern Church in the fourth century. This is considerably before 1950 and so is hardly "new revelation". Feasts are like icebergs in the ancient Church. When the Church gets as far as proclaiming a feast, we are looking at something that is widely received as "common knowledge" by everybody (much like nobody would be stunned if the Church formally defined that a human person exists from conception tomorrow morning). Notably, the promulgation of the feast seems to have generated no controversy at a time when itsy bitsy doctrinal variations generated huge controversies (think "homoousious vs. homoiousious") or the giant screamfest that erupted over "Theotokos vs. Christotokos". This provides strong support for the contention that it was common knowledge in the early Church that Mary had been assumed into heaven. It was a non-controversial proposition to a Church that was easily given to controversy. A reader writes: First of all, I find your work really inspirational and I pray it will bring unity in Christ between Catholics and protestants. I have read your book on Evangelicals discovering tradition and have noted some interesting concepts about divine revelation. I am also really inspired by Mary as the Ark of The New Covenant. I just wanted to mention however, I am not on the same page as you in regards to creation. It's not so much whether God created the world in a literal 7 days or not, ( however I believe He did, and the Sacred Scriptures only confirms that all throughout, even Catholic Tradition confirms that with Saturday evening Mass ) the main point here is the point of the Fall of man which is where the infallible doctrine of original sin comes in. As a result of Adam's sin death spread to all ( including all the animals ), in this way it was sin that caused pain and suffering, not God! Now when you look at the record from Adam to Christ to now scholars have been able to calculate the approxamite age of the earth. I'm not really a science buff, but how do you tie in the doctrine of original sin causing suffering to creation ( bones dated at millions of years of animals clearly tormenting each other in travail ) with the biblical account in light of Sacred Tradition ( I was under the impression that the Church would have one point affirmed for sure a literal 7 day creation, say for example Augustine, as She assures us that the Deuterocanonical books are infallibly as well the Word of God in the form of Divine Revelation - Jesus Christ Himself being the incarnate Word ). Brother, that just does not make sense to me. I do no Catholics who believe in a true 7 day creation by the way. I am applauding the Holy Spirit on how He is leading the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Praise be our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Praise be to God our Father. Praise be to the Blessed Trinity. Please respond to my e-mail thoughtfully and prayerfully, I will pray for your evangelization to bring many people to salvation in Christ and brothers and sisters to dwell in unity together. Thanks so much for your kind words. Very briefly. "Is it about oxen that God is concerned?" St. Paul asks this question and assumes that we know the answer: No. Biblical revelation concerns itself solely with our salvation. It does not pretend to be a science book of Everything. For Paul, "death" refers to human death, not the death of oysters. He gives no hint that the sin of Adam results in the death of anybody but human beings. It is reading into, not out of, the text to assume that he has in mind the suffering of animals at the hands of carnivores. And, by the way, the Catechism itself tells us that Genesis is using "figurative language" in describing the historic events of Creation and Fall (390. "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.[Cf. GS 13 # 1.] Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.[Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654.] " For my take on Genesis, see my book Making Senses Out of Scripture. To say the writer uses figurative language is not to say the events of Genesis are not historical. It is to say the writer chooses to relate an historic event in non-historical language (as Nathan did when he told of the historic event of the adultery of David in the words of the story of the man who robbed his neighbor of a ewe lamb.) But Scripture simply does not commit us to the idea that no living thing died before the fall. It has in view only human death. My suggestion: Read C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain for an attempt to wrestle with that problem. Chris Lansdown is confused about Papal Infallibility and Ex Cathedra statements He writes: I have written a few posts on the topic of contraception (totaling about 4,000 words) and have been contemplating it for a while. The upshot is that I cannot accept any of the arguments against contraception which I have yet seen, and that if Humanae Vitae is an example of the pope speaking Ex Cathedra, then I can no longer keep an open mind about papal infallibility and must reject it as false. Thank you for your time. I'm no expert in moral theology so don't look to me for the fine points. However, FWIW, Humanae Vitae, while an expression of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church (i.e. what the Church has always taught and said and therefore infallible) was not an ex cathedra definition of dogma. It simply reiterated the constant teaching of the Church that nature is good and that our technologies are to assist, not thwart, natural processes. You can't get an argument against papal infallibility out of your problems with Humanae Vitae since the Pope's position is most emphatically not contrary to either Scripture or Tradition. Saying the arguments for the Tradition don't appeal to your reason is not sufficient to rebut the infallible nature of the teaching. You would have to show that the teaching is absolutely contrary to Scripture and Tradition. It's not. Just to be clear, Papal infallibility is simply a corollary of the infallibility of the Church. It is reflected in Jesus' promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and, in particular, in his promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth. An infallible definition is never new revelation. It is merely a clarified description of old revelation. (See this article for a discussion of that.) Thus, infallibility is a negative charism, not a positive act of inspired prophecy. In plain English, it's the promise of the Holy Spirit that when the Church is guided to define its teaching formally, the Holy Spirit will not permit her to define error as doctrine. Some Christians have a problem with this and see in this a denial of human freedom. Yet very few such Christians have any problem thinking that, as Paul said, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" or in thinking that the Scriptures (which recorded precisely what the Holy Spirit intended to be written) were not also written in complete freedom by the human authors. Same principle obtains here. Catholics would argue that the infallibility is not an expression of slavery, but of freedom. The Church is *liberated* to proclaim the truth in defining doctrine, set free (in that moment) from the bondage of ignorance, stupidity and sin to clearly articulate the revelation. Papal infallibility is simply a corrollary of this. Other sources (see Catholic Answers, for instance), give the biblical, patristic and theological arguments for this better than me though. So I'll let them do it. To see what I have to say about infallibility, go here. How Not to "Defend" the Pope Readers of my blog will know that, though I agree with Rod about the greatness of JPII, I disagree with him about what the Pope is up to and think that he is attempting a risky medicine in keeping the bad bishops where they are to suffer the consequence of their manifold sins. I can, however, appreciate the anguish Rod feels as somebody who has had to deal on a more or less daily basis with the stories of victims, the lies of bishops, and the crimes of priests. We differ on what and whether the Pope is doing something about it. But, having gotten to know Rod over the past several months, I would tremble before God to suggest that he is motivated by love of money or contempt for the Church or the Holy Father. Stephen Hand does not tremble. For Hand, Rod Dreher can't, of course, be an honorable Catholic with whom one has a legitimate disagreement about a prudential decision. No. He must demonized as a man lusting for power and eager to crucify the Holy Father. He has to be characterized as a false son of the Church more in love with money and power than with the good of souls and the ruined lives of children and their families. Yes. I'm so sure the Holy Father would appreciate this sort of defense. With friends like Hand, the Holy Father doesn't need enemies. I'm sure this sort of thing happens constantly It's stories like this that make me want to be a "spokesman" when I grow up. What other line of work is there where you'd get to say, "We're still looking for either a naked man with huge eyes or an emu"? This is cool! A look at Babette's Feast (what?! You've never seen it? Get it from Amazon right here!) in light of the thought of Josef Pieper. (What? You've never read Pieper? 20th Century lay German Thomist. Man! Is he good. Try his Leisure: The Basis of Culture for starters.) Sunday, August 25, 2002
Friday, August 23, 2002
I'm outta here again! August means short weeks, long weekends. This time we're out the door to Washington Park near Anacortes, on the beeyootiful shores of Puget Sound. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, we're having more fun. While I'm gone remember: you kids don't put no beans up your noses. And it's never too late to leave a tip at the PayPal button conveniently located on the left side of the screen. Or, if you like, buy my books and/or tapes! Or hire me to come speak at your parish or conference! Democratic capitalism. Novak, Neuhaus, and Weigel would so proud. Doug Sirman responds... to my puzzled question about why so many Protestants are fascinated with the internal workings of a communion to which they don't belong. Doug (a Protestant himself, though with Romish leanings) writes: Good question. Frankly, I believe that many prots see the Roman Catholic Church as "Mother Church" even if they won't consciously admit it. Like caring what happens in your home town, even though you don't live there anymore. Okay. I can buy that. Integrity ponders the response of St. Blog's to Rod Dreher's piece As far as "polarization" goes, I think part of it is due to the fact that, at the end of the day, none of us can (humanly speaking) do anything to change anything. So we turn to talking to each other and from there, arguing with each other. I'm beginning to think that, in my own life, there is nothing for it but prayer and the attempt to be obedient to the Spirit as best I can. Unremarkable insight, I know. But there it is. The prophets' message, when you break it down, is similarly unremarkable: "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires: Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly before your God." Leaving the Church is absolutely out of the question. It is Christ's Church. I reject utterly the idea that I even have the right to leave him over this--as though the sins of other people are somehow vastly more grave than my own or as though they can or should separate me from Christ and the Church which is his body. At the same time, leaving the Church as it is, is out of the question. But I have no power to change anything by firing off letters or writing this blog, at least as far as the hierarchy goes. But I can attempt to obey Christ (I'm bad at this) and I can try to bleat about wrongdoing and try to encourage people about what's still good. There is, by the way, still a great deal of good. Remember, remember, how newspapers work. They never tell you what's good in the world. Doesn't sell papers. Their task is to announce "Admiral Bangs is Dead!" to a world that never knew Admiral Bangs had been born. And so you hear *only* about Scandal and come to fear that there is only scandal. There isn't. There is the million year old priest who heard my first confession and set me on a road to healing whom I can never repay. There is the Catherine of Siena Institute. There is Scott Hahn. There are the burgeoning lay movements that are raising up holy laypeople who will parent tomorrows reformers. There is (still) this Pope, whose contributions to the betterment of the human condition and the progress of the gospel are epic. There is Rod Dreher. There is Gerard Serafin. There is Tom Hoopes. Passionate laypeople who, at the end of the day, desire life, joy and prosperity for all the members of Christ, not the destruction of the Church and the triumph of the culture of death. There is my parish and (in the case of many of you) your parish. There is my family, a colossal gift. There are good bishops, not absolutely flawless (who is?) but good, wise, holy, compassionate, and *honest* bishops. There are the kids who went to World Youth Day (including my own) who long for the challenge of a holy life. There is, in the end, unstoppable till the Last Day, the Holy Eucharist which continues to call people. There is the woman who walked up to my priest after months of sitting in the back of the Church and said, "How do I become Catholic?" When he chatted with her to ask what the attraction was, she said, "You know that little thing you give everybody to eat? I want that!" There is the Holy Spirit who says "Very well. You shall have that!" J.R.R. Tolkien once remarked, "I am a Catholic. I do not expect history to be anything but one long defeat." But we are not of history, we are merely in it, for the present. And though the last lights off the black West went Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs— Because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings. or, as Lady Julian or Norwich relates the Lord Jesus told her, "All will be well and all will be well, and all manner of thing will be well." Situation desperate, Christ has triumphed. But now we must roll up our sleeves and get back to work. A PSA from Fr. Paul Hartmann For those of you who might be interested, no matter where you are, next Monday morning from 7am to 8am CDT, Archbishop-elect Timothy Dolan will be doing an hour long, radio interview (open to callers). He has done this sort of thing twice before and it is quite exciting. It is also quite enjoyable to listen to the banter between the Bishop and his brother Bob, a host of the program that he is appearing on. It is possible to listen via the internet (you may have to download Windows Media Player). Johansen on Dreher on Johansen Oh, and by the way, Fr. Johansen says it's "vomitorium" not "regurgitarium". I stand corrected. Thursday, August 22, 2002
Mark Shea Catches Nihil Obstat in a Typo! Alert the Media! Nihil writes in the comment box at this entry: Mark, Check it out! There is a SPACE between "Parish" and the period! Nihil Obstat has been BUSTED! Now we do the dance of joy! AIDS as a spiritual metaphor A major American corporation sponsors sex in St. Pat's on a solemn Catholic feast day. The response from the cardinal of New York? Not a sound. Wanna know why? CNN commentary: "I hardly think that the Catholic League is in the right position to be saying who should lose their job over indecent sex acts!" Now the beauxeau on CNN is, of course, too ignorant to know that Catholic League is a) a lay organization and b) not exactly in the forefront of trying to offer justifications for our abusive priests or the bishops who love them. But the comment still points to the problem: the good Cardinal of New York, and so many of his fellow bishops, *have* put themselves in the position--for the rest of their lives--of being wholly unable to credibly challenge almost any assault on the Church from every degenerate wahoo out there. It's actually *better* if they keep their trap shut than if they moralize about desecration of the Eucharist when the very hands which have confected it have been down the pants of little boys--or have signed paperwork protecting such hands and endangering more little boys. They, who were supposed be a vital part of the Church's immune system from a world that still hates the Church and wishes to destroy her, are now largely rendered unable to defend her. So the job falls to lay organizations like the Catholic League and to lay people who are not (except by ignoramuses like the CNN commentator) associated with the Scandal. I hope these dedicated folks are up to the job cuz it's theirs whether they are or not. The Ikea catalogue may already have overtaken the Bible as the world's most widely distributed publication. Speaking of the Triumph of Pleasure Sandra Miesel mentions to me that "the lead headline in this morning's Indy STAR is that three gay couples are suing the state for the right to marry. One lesbian pair has a son, made from donor sperm and the egg of one implanted in the other. (Resquisite picture of them with baby.) And when we have gay marriage, can polygamy and incestuous unions be far behind?" All of which brings us back to David Mills observation on the Touchstone blog the other day that pushing the sexual perversion envelope is an unstoppable process, since saying "no" to the form of perversion we find appalling might endanger the form of perversion we kinda like. This is why (mark my words, you heard it here first), within a generation bishops will be condemned, not for permitting sex with children, but for forbidding it. Christopher Lansdown is Puzzling over the Church's Objection to Artificial Contraception It's an honorable attempt to grapple with the problem, but I think he makes some important mistakes. Most importantly, he conflates all technology with the attempt to "thwart" nature. It's not. Some technology thwarts nature. Some technology perfects or enhances nature. It's the difference between being shot with a bullet and being shot with penicillin when you are dying of a raging fever. My basic reason for coming to accept the Church's position is that I can ultimately make little distinction between arguments for artificial contraception and arguments for the return of the regurgitarium. What lies at the back of both is the notion that the revealed purposes of some natural function are less important than My Sovereign Right to Pleasure. The revealed purpose of eating is nourishment, conviviality, and (in the Eucharist) communion with God. The revealed purpose of sex is union and fruitfulness (and, in the sacrament of matrimony) participation in and imaging of the cosmic union of Christ the Groom with the Bride who is the Church. The insistence at the back of artificial contraception is that Pleasure is the goal and union and fruitfulness are merely by products or, worse still, positive evils to be overcome. I see no difference between that and the rationale for gorging yourself, puking it up, and doing it all again. It's just a question of which pleasure you happen to prefer more: orgasm, or taste. Some will argue feebly that with the regurgitarium you hurt others in a starving world by wasting food. And so you do. But the exaltation of My Pleasure Uber Alles has racked up quite a body count in the abortuaries of the world too. Once pleasure is the guiding criteria, things cannot help but come to that pass. Opie and Dopie Get the Heave-Ho from Viacom If they get hired by anybody as a reward for their stunt then their advertisers should be informed that this a bad marketing strategy. Puny Radio Free HMS continues its insignificant rebellion Meanwhile, a Great and Good Man struggles to bring Order to a blog thrown into chaos by the increasingly bizarre and frightening behavior of its power-crazed leader. Peter Sean Bradley Finds Another Great Reason for Being Catholic Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine there is laughter and good red wine. At least I've always heard it so. Benedicamus Domino! (Dunno if that's exactly right. But we does our bestest. Kudos to Hilaire Belloc who wrote this or something a great deal like it.) Dave Alexander Weighs in on the Ongoing "Should the Pope Can Bad American Bishops" debate: "It's the other way around, Mark" Very interesting article on the Reflections document! The writer suggests, quite cogently, that it's an insult to Jews not to engage in evangelical conversation with them. A reader writes a good cut n' paste letter to the swine at Sam Adams Beer Adapt as you like and mail it to them here: Dear Sam Adams brewers: How stupid do you have to be to be a brewer and then deliberately torque off Irish Catholics? Seattle vs. Saginaw A reader writes: I was in Seattle last week for a seminar for work. It's a gorgeous city. I really hope I get the chance to come back for a real family vacation some time. A trek to Mount Rainier seems like fun. I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment of the glories of Seattle. There is no place on earth more beautiful in the summer especially. It's a strange thing to hear Seattle held up as a model of Catholic orthodoxy. This tells me how bleak it must be in Saginaw more than anything else. Apropos the close-minded and unfortunate exegesis of your homilist. A priest (not at my beloved Blessed Sacrament parish) also gave the strong impression that Jesus was a racist at the homily I attended. He allowed as how Our Lord permitted himself to be "converted" and that we need to imitate that. No Padre. We need to be converted in order to conform to Christ who does not change, not in order to go along with an imaginary Christ who conforms to the opinions of the NY Times editorial board. Jesus was not "converted" from racism because he was not a racist. Remember him? He's the guy who shocked his racist and sexist countrymen by talking with women, Samaritans, and Roman centurions. He did not have his consciousness raised by the Canaanite woman. He challenged his Judean countrymen (and his bigoted disciples) by joshing with her and then honoring her faith (read the whole passage, not with the voice of Charlton Heston in your head, but with the playful sparring of a culture that highly values verbal ingenuity and it has a very different feel). And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly. Remember, such passage cannot be read in isolation. Matthew locates this encounter in the middle of a long series of passages which show Jesus challenging the preconceptions of the Pharisee (and of his disciples) about just who was "in" and "out". Jesus has already made very clear that furriners are not the "dogs" that the common parlance of his countrymen thought they were. He does not suddenly don a Klan hood in this passage. He is playing. And playing with a woman who has a lot of moxie. Such women are not strangers in Scripture. They turn up in the Old Testament a number of times, often to challenge very important figures indeed with pleas to Do the Right Thing. She stands in a long biblical Tradition of women who pled their just case before everybody from Judah to King David. And Jesus, so far from recoiling from her, thoroughly likes her. Wednesday, August 21, 2002
What would be fitting justice, I wonder? Having sex on the desk of the Chairman of the Board of Sam Adams during a board meeting? No. That would be contrary to Catholic moral teaching. Flooding their offices with, uh, used beer? Again, vandalism is a sin. Can't do it. How about just burying them in mail and a boycott of their horse piss that will make them rue the day they thought they could sponsor a desecration of the Mass? I Matter Again! Nihil Obstat has criteecked my grammer again! Its grate to have you back N.O.! You're droll wit is not unappreeshiated by every body. Just a note on Rod's piece Rod tells me it won't be free online till Sunday. Then you'll be able to read it at OpinionJournal.com. Just FYI. I Don't Buy the "Armchair Quarterback" view of Rod's Complaint A reader objects that "What's most troubling to me is the attitude of those who, from their armchairs, think themselves able to outdo the Pope, a man of known brilliance and sanctity, on matters of prudential judgment." I reply that the Persians debated every matter twice: once when sober, once when drunk. There's wisdom in that. A view of a volatile situation from a great height is valuable. So is a view from Ground Zero. The Pope has a crucial |
