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 Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!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
|
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Hire More PR with Their Salary Money, Cardinal! "All five of Cardinal Roger M. Mahony's top executives have resigned their posts, church officials said Wednesday, a sign of continuing turmoil in the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese." This blog gets results! A week or two ago, I suggested turning Halloween away from its darker manifestations and into a celebration of the saints. Already, the French hierarchy has heard my clarion call! Tales of the Explained Courtesy of Bill Cork This story happened about a month ago in a little town in Newfoundland and even then it sounds like an Alfred Hitchcock tale. It's real. In reparation for flagrant sins against justice Contributions and kind words for the rectory housekeeper, Rosa Restrepo, who was fired and persecuted by the clergy of St. Ignatius Cathedral, can be sent on her behalf to Julianne Wiley's PayPal account. Folks who want to give should go to PayPal, send the money to Julianne, click where it says "quasi-cash," and put in the message space that it's for Rosa Restrepo. Julianne will see to it that the bucks all get to Rosa. Be sure and specifically designate that your gift is for Rosa. Dogmatic Materialist Atheism: The Irrational Conviction that Everything Except the Atheist's Own Criticism of Theism is an Accidental Product of Wind and Weather Law: "For the Good of the Church" A past sin repented by the Cardinal? Fine. Okay. Great. But what about this?: "The accusation counters Law's sworn deposition in the Rev. Paul R. Shanley civil case, in which Law reportedly claimed he dealt with only one abuser priest - the Rev. Leonard Chambers - during his tenure as head of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau. I can conclude only two things from this: Either Cardinal Law did not prepare for his testimony by going over the files of all the abuse cases so that he'd remember stuff like this or, he's not telling the truth. What other options are there? And if he's not telling the truth still, at this late date, when all the excuses about mistakenly listening experts etc, blah blah are over, then what the use? Charity believeth all things and so I hope this discrepancy in his testimony is due to bad preparation and the ongoing case of shellshock to appears to afflict the Cardinal since January. But it's still pretty depressing to watch. I wonder who they will replace him with, whenever he goes. David Mills speaks the truth Scroll down to "Bad Shepherds". This touches on my (still being formulated) philosophy about what we lay Americans should do about bad bishops. Yes. We laity. No we can't fire them. But there are things we can do, if we are willing to do them. Somebody complained the other day that if the Pope is not going to remove bishops short of direct personal involvement in sexual sin themselves, and is (obviously) choosing to leave them there when they are grotesquely incompetent boobs like McCormack or Daily (whose testimony is some of the most cringe-making and maddening stuff you could ever read), then this appears to mean that laity are bound to do things like protest, withhold funds, and generally make life hell for a bad bishop until he gets a frickin' clue. This, according to some correspondents, is very inconveniencing and the Pope should simply remove the inconvenience by firing the worst bishops. This is, I think, part of the problem. Since I think a culture more or less gets the bishops it deserves--particularly a democratic culture like ours. We have bishops for the Age of Clinton because, at the end of the day, most of us care only enough to bitch, not to demand holiness and do something about it, both in our lives and the life of the Church. I note several things. First, as I've said, the devil's in the details. Not long ago, here in cyberspace, I was hearing rhetoric about the "hosts" and "legions" and "supermajority" of bad bishops. Not a few of my correspondents still seem to talk as though it was a given that at least 2/3 and possibly the entire American episcopacy are party, in one way or another, to deep deep corruption. Even the ones who were not utter idiots like Daily were still silent when they very likely were aware of what idiots like Daily were doing--or not doing, as the case may be. And so my question remains: how exactly does it work? If we fire the Names in the News, why not fire the rest? Why stop with the US since these problems are all over the world. Recognizing the implications of this, many of my correspondents have backed off demands for firing "bad" bishops to firing "extremely bad" bishops. And by this they mean extremely and probably criminally incompetent ones like Daily or McCormack or Law, not just deeply incompetent ones. I think a case can be made for this, and, as I've said, there are bishops I'd love to see go. But, from a purely practical perspective, I have no say in that. I can't do a thing about it other than pray. But there are things I can do (like direct my tithes elsewhere than a corrupt diocese (though Seattle seems to be doing okay). I can also protest (noisily) which I do on my blog. I can also (just as important) avoid and counter counsels of despair, which I see a great deal more of than I like. Just yesterday I was watching people on another blog saying the Church (not the American Church but the Church) doesn't have a hundred years left. Others were speaking of the Church being "doomed". This is simply false and is as much a lie as anything the worst bishop has said. It needs to stop. The Church will be here till the Last Day. We have the word of Christ on that. Get a grip. So where am I in my cogitation? Unfinished. The most problematic part of what Fr. Neuhaus note, for me, is this: Speaking of bishop, he says, "We believe they were made such by the Holy Spirit, and we cannot unmake them unless they have demonstrated beyond moral doubt that they have repudiated what the Spirit did or have otherwise created grave public scandal." If Bp. Daily's et al gross incompetence is not creating grave moral scandal, what is? On the other hand, I do take seriously the danger of Rome's adopting a broader policy for amputating bad bishops and think many of my fellow Catholics are underestimating it. I also take more seriously than most of my correspondents (judging from what I've read) the reality that, as Fr. Neuhaus says, "reliance on the grace of office, which is, after all, solemnly taught as a gift of the Spirit." I think the Pope take that grace extremely seriously and is counting on it to work in the lives of the American episcopacy in a way most of us are not. In short, I think he really is praying for a miracle, not as an outside hope, but as a result of faith in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Our Faith, after all, enourages us to take the reality and even (if I may be so bold) the *likelihood* of such miracles seriously, just as it binds us to think that a miracle occurs on the altar, not "now and then" but every single time the Eucharist is consecrated. So I'm still waffling here. Meantime, I reiterate that my point that my purpose is not to say, "The Pope's gamble is absolutely right" but rather to insist that claims that the Pope is acting out of contempt for the laity are, in my view, wrong. Meantime, I don't see any reason to go easy on persistently moronic or irresponsible local bishops. It seems to me a good case can be made that laity will have to act as truly loyal opposition to bishops who continue to stonewall, make excuses, act like idiots and try to evade responsibility. It's why I blasted Cardinal Keeler's act of human sacrifice against accused priests. It's why I post the grotesque deposition of Bp. Daily for public scorn. It's why I think laypeople *should* make life hell for men like Joseph "They aren't my children" Imesch and the many other pathetic excuses for shepherds we have to endure. I don't believe the Church should be turned into a giant political action lobby. But I do believe there is such a thing as the sensus fidelium (and punishment for sin) and that laity have a right to the truth and to the Faith. When, as Mills point out, the bishops are persistently too timid to deliver the Faith, they should get an earful. But while we give them an earful, we should also check the mirror. One thing we laypeople will have to face sooner or later is that our bishops reflect something of us back to us. We have been content with their torpor and timidity because we don't really want the gospel in full strength. Catholics voted in huge numbers for William Jefferson Clinton. Catholics support, in huge numbers, abortion. Catholics are content, in huge numbers, to know nothing of their Faith, or to replace it with whatever gimcrack nonsense they can pick up from any and every quack. Many Catholics are enthusiastic supporters of precisely the agendas which our timid bishops timidly oppose. It's all well and good to get all righteous with our bishops. But until (for instance) Catholics in the Boston area face the fact that a creature like Paul Shanley was lionized for years as the Brave Street Priest Who Told the Church Off, that righteousness rings hollow. A few months ago, one of the lawyers for the victims of Shanley said it all: "If he weren't a damned pervert, he'd be my hero." The stupidity of bishops who let him prey is a reflection of the stupidity of the culture that we laypeople have created. I can do a small amount to change my bishop. I can do a hell of a lot more to change myself and the culture I help create. As a layperson, that's where I think I should focus. A bit more on gratitude "The test of all happiness is gratitude; and I felt grateful, though I hardly knew to whom. Children are grateful when Santa Claus puts in their stockings gifts of toys or sweets. Could I not be grateful to Santa Claus when he put in my stockings the gift of two miraculous legs? We thank people for birthday presents of cigars and slippers. Can I thank no one for the birthday present of birth?" - GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Chapter 4 Gratitude No metaphysician ever felt the deficiency of language so much as the grateful. -Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832) Tales of the Semi-Explained A reader sez: A little over 20 years ago I was about 3 months pregnant with my first child. My husband was asleep in the car, and I was driving the 200 miles home from a visit to family. Some time around midnight, on a very quiet country highway, I decided I needed to turn left into a roadside all-night café to get some coffee. I slowed almost to a stop and started to turn left. I was interrupted by a very sudden, strong impression of having been told “no” by a very determined voice. I hadn’t heard anything with my ears at all, but I hesitated for a half second or so, thinking “that’s peculiar.” I started to proceed with my turn across the highway, and this time it felt like my shoulders had been physically pulled back into my seat, with a very commanding sense of “no!” again. I had just enough time to wrinkle my forehead and start on some version of “what the..” when a semi truck blew past me between me and the café. Both incidents couldn’t possible have taken more than 3 or 4 seconds all together. I have a very bad tendency not to use my rear-view mirror. If I had turned we would have been struck by the semi, no question. Jody is very grateful for that second-to-last line. He will be able to expand it from a guarded guess into a dogma in no time. He needs to. For his creed demands it. Me, I'm open to either natural or supernatural possibilities, or a little of both. Surprise! I pretty much agree with locdog's take on the Catholic Faith Quickly going point by point: 1. Agreed. 2. Again, agreed. Catholics don't buy the Once Saved, Always Saved scenario. 3. Again, agreed. The Church does not teach that only those in visible communion with the Catholic Church will be saved. Indeed, there are a couple of Arian saints in the Roman Martyrology. If She did think only Catholic could be saved, ecumenism would be completely impossible. The basic rule of thumb is "No salvation outside the Church" coupled with "We don't know where 'outside' is." 4. Agreed. And generously spoken. Thanks. 5. Agreed. However, for Catholics this begins to get into questions of "What Christ has commanded" not merely "optional worship styles." For Catholics, the liturgy is, quite simply, what Christ has commanded us to do. We can't opt out of it or we disobey what Christ has commanded. I don't object to other forms of prayer, just so long as they don't replace the liturgy since the Church quite literally exists because of and for the Eucharist. 6. Agreed. 7. And this is the only part where, naturally, I think locdog is mistaken. The Faith is a whole weave and the bits he doesn't like cannot be removed. The priesthood, the Marian doctrines, and supremely, the Real Presence in the Eucharist are absolutely integral to Catholic faith. Get rid of them and you've not trimmed the fat, you've beheaded the Church and torn out its heart, which is the Eucharist, the living and substantial presence of Christ in our midst. I agree that catechesis often sucks in the Catholic Church and that this can lead to legalism or superstition. But the solution to this is not to get rid of aspects of the faith that don't happen to appeal to you. That indeed, is precisely why catechesis sucks. Too many catechists are trying to tame the faith to their suburban view of life and whatever it is they think current PC standards demand. The real answer is to proclaim the whole faith--even the bits we dislike--so that we will be challenged and changed by God's revelation and not just try to make it a lap dog of our whims. On the whole though, I agree with locdog's remarks. Tales of the Unexplained, Part 5 A friend of mine (Dan O'Neill, president of Mercy Corps) once had lunch with a miracle. Or rather the recipient of a miracle. Round about 1920, this guy had been an infant in the care of nuns working at one of St. Frances Cabrini's hospitals. He had an eye infection and one of the nurses was supposed to give him a 5% silver nitrate (I think) solution. She accidently gave him 100% solution. By the time she discovered her mistake several hours later, his eyes were gone. The nuns began a novena to Frances Cabrini. To their astonishment, when they removed the bandages, his eyes were there again. All that remained were two small scars on the bridge of his nose. The miracle was evidence in her canonization. He grew up and became a priest and was present at her canonization in the 40s. Tales of the Unexplained, Part 4 In the spring following my dad's death (Spring 1984), I had a very strange and moving conversation with my mother, who began by nervously telling me she had decided to let the funeral parlor that had cremated my father’s body dispose of his ashes. She was, she said, very worried that this was somehow improper for her to have done. But then she continued, "I was in the bedroom the other day, very upset and wondering if I'd done the right thing in letting the funeral home take care of your father's ashes. So I finally said aloud, 'I hope you don't mind what I've done, Pat. I just didn't know what else to do.' " "Just then, Mark, the music box your father gave me started playing!" I looked at her in surprise. That music box was an intricate, complicated little gizmo. You have to open doors and push little buttons in it to make it go. I asked my mom, "Did you bump the table it was sitting on somehow or move it in some way?" "No," she said. "You know and I know you have to open that music box for it to play, but it just sat there—closed—and playing the theme from 'Dr. Zhivago.' (It had been "their song".) I tell you, it made the hair stand up on my neck, but it also made me feel so peaceful." This incident happened while I was still Evangelical and had grave reservations about things like "communion with the dead" (which was indistinguishable from "seance" as far as I could tell). I've since changed my views. But that's another story. Wednesday, October 30, 2002
Just a note of thanks to y'all All you readers, commenters, emailers, critics, huzzah-ers and everybody in between sure make this blog an interesting adventure. Thanks to y'all for tuning in. I'm mighty beholden to you. Picking the brain of Fr. Neuhaus (Warning: Long!) Figuring it couldn't hurt to try, and not being in a position to write the Pope, I figured I'd try asking Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, if he could give me some clues on what the rhyme and reason is to getting rid of bad bishops. Here's my note to him: Dear Fr. Neuhaus: Graciously (thanks!) Fr. Neuhaus replies: To your question about removing bishops: Oops! Eric Svendsen, graduate of Wilbur Weed Boxtop Diploma Mill for Those Who Want to Play Ph.D's on the Internet, erstwhile anti-Catholic professional, and chief cook and bottle washer for Not Roman.org (www.ntrmin.org), might have spoken too soon. Seizing on the somewhat dubious "James ossuary" news last week, he gleefully announced that this was proof of what he was already bound and determined to believe without proof anyway: that Mary was not a Perpetual Virgin. Now, however, some scholars are having second thoughts about the ossuary's bona fides (requires registration). Me: I'm easy either way. If it's genuine (which we'll never know), it just lends credence to the Eastern Church's explanation of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. If it's not, we're where we were originally. How they eschew extremism in Saudi Arabia "Among the participants was one of the leaders of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, who was hugged and kissed by hundreds of participants." Amy Weighs in on the Shea/Dreher Debate I agree. I do wish it were possible to just... ask, "Why are you pursuing this policy?" It would make all this argument between us ignorant people much less necessary. By the way, Amy: Haloscan seems to work pretty good. Tales of the Unexplained, Commentary By the way, several things should be noted. First, you'll note that while I think such things are happening all over the world, I don't think it is typical for them to happen to everybody everyday. Certain people do have charisms of miracles and healing (see, f'rinstance St. Padre Pio, who seems to have been abundantly graced in this department). At the same time, I don't think the things I've mentioned here are all that rare. My own suspicion is that most people have curious stories like this in their background, only they think everybody will react to them like they're nuts or liars. Most people that bear witness to such events (usually when it's dragged out of them or they feel extremely safe and among friends) are not exhibitionist, liars, or lunatics, but are ordinary people who are amazed, awestruck and a little creeped out by such things. I post such things not because I think my experiences unusual but because I think them average. Tales of the Unexplained, Number 3 About 20 years ago, I was on a retreat out in Eastern Washington. I had a friend whom I had not seen or talked to in several years, about whom I was not thinking and had not thought in months, and who was, at that point, the farthest thing from my mind. She was living in New York, trying to break into the theatre (that didn't pan out). We'd just drifted apart. Anyway, I woke out of a sound sleep on Sunday morning with an extremely vivid dream. I seldom dream and usually, when I do, I can't remember them. But this dream was so vivid that I could still see it even with my eyes open. My friend was sitting in a dark room, crying. This disturbed me already because she's not a crier. In the dream, she was talking, not to me, but to her mother. Oddly, I knew this, even though I couldn't see her mother. She was crying because she had broken up with her boyfriend and felt used, etc. At the end of the dream, God spoke and said, "It's time for you to come home to me" or words to that effect. The dream stayed with me over the next several days, to the point that I finally felt that perhaps it was important that I call her. I didn't have her number (we hadn't spoken in over a year or two) so I got it from a mutual friend and called. I felt really weird calling because, well.. what would *you* say to somebody you aren't that close to under the circumstances? How do you break the ice? Particularly when, of course, you aren't at all sure the dream is anything other than a bit of underdone potato. But I bit the bullet and told her about the dream and asked if everything was alright. There was a long pause. "When did you have that dream?" she asked. "Last Saturday night/Sunday morning." "I broke up with my boyfriend last Saturday night." Long silence. I was as weirded out as she was, of course. And it's hard to continue from there with "Hey! How about them Yankees!" So we mostly just fumbled for words. Then, her other line beeped. She put me on hold, and came back on, sounding even more weirded out than ever. "I gotta go," she said, "You'll never guess who's on the other line." "Who?" "My mother." She hadn't talked with her yet about this. An example of desperate naturalistic dogmatism Fr. Benedict Groeschel is fond of recounting tales of Mrs. Whosit, the little Jewish lady that lived next door to him in Brooklyn when he was growing up. Her son went off to college and came back explaining that the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea at low tide. Mrs. Whosit, cocking one eyebrow, rejoined (in a wonderfully thick New York Jewish accent), "You were there?" I feel the spirit of Mrs. Whosit hovering over me whenever I read things like this. And, of course, the guy's from So Cal. Everything is explicable in terms of drugs there. Just a reminder, brand spanking new "Real Jesuses" are always a reflection of the culture that creates them. Pete Vere Weighs in on the Shea/Dreher Debate By the way, after you've read this, scroll down and check out "Sister Nouveau Mary Rides Again!" Tales of the Unexplained, Number 2 In December 1987, just as I was entering the Church, a friend of mine (a very close friend) was working in the burn unit of Harborview in Seattle. Harborview has the finest burn ward in the Northwest and gets patients from the four surrounding states. They had brought in an 18 month old girl who had third degree burns over 90% of her body. It looked like child abuse (she'd been put in boiling water and the burns were from the head down.) The doctors were struggling to keep her alive, but could not stem the infections and were not able to do skin grafts. Her immune system was collapsing and the nurses were saying she'd be dead by the weekend (it was about midweek or so). My friend, who has remarkable charisms of intercession and discernment, called to say that she had a strong sense that we should pray for her and that this was not the end of the story. So we did. We had masses said. I decided to try the very practical experiment of prayer to the saints (for me, still a novelty and something rather nervous-making). I specifically asked St. Bartholomew (who was martyred by being flayed alive) and the Blessed Virgin (since, if this was child abuse, the girl obviously needed a mother) to pray. My friend returned to work a few days later and went to the girl's room to pray. She was gone. My friend, assuming she'd died, checked with the head nurse to find out when it had happened. She wasn't dead, the nurse replied. She's downstairs playing. All her skin had regenerated without a single graft. Sold me on prayer to the saints. Of course, it could be that the finest burn ward in four states had made an egregious mistake and misdiagnosed first degree burns as third degree burns. A naturalist dogmatist has to say this. I'm open to the possibility, however, of a miracle. Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Tales of the Unexplained, Number 1 A woman I worked with about 15 years ago told me about a curious incident which had happened to her a few years earlier. She was, she said, diagnosed with diabetes when she went into diabetic shock and had to be hospitalized at Ballard Hospital in Seattle. They got her under control, got the insulin levels all ducky and kept her in for a day or so to make sure all was well. She was at that stage of recovery where she was well enough to be bored, but not quite well enough to be released. She said she was laying around in her bed one Sunday morning, listening to what she took to be a radio in the next room. As she focused on the noise, she realized she was listening to a Mass. She's an ex-Catholic but having nothing else to do, she listened. She heard the readings, the homily, the prayers of the people (including a prayer for the repose of Fr. So and So, and, finally, a prayer for her own recovery--by name. Now this woman's mother was associated with St. Martin's College in Olympia (about 50 miles south of Seattle), so she figured she was hearing a mass being broadcast from there. (It's a Benedictine school.) The next day, her Mom showed up for a visit, and she thanked her, saying she'd heard the broadcast and appreciate the prayers. Her mom was dumbfounded. The mass had not been broadcast. They checked with the priest. Nope. No broadcast. Yet my friend was able to describe the homily, the prayers, etc. The funny thing was, she remained an ex-Catholic even after this. She was very concerned that I not think she was crazy, but she was also unpersuaded that God loved her. "If God really loved me, why do I have diabetes?" she said. I thought, "Sheesh, lady! Whaddaya want? An engraved invitation?" Unleash the Power of the Blog! Chesterton once observed that it was always perilous to talk politics with women because of the imminent danger that they would want to do something about it and not just go on jawing as men do. Julianne Wiley proves this again by writing: Attention, Cyber-Sleuths! So, instead of bitching about corrupt priests and their mighty mighty organs, how about some practical bucks going Rosa's way? Contact Julianne if you have Rosa's address and send some bucks along for Rosa. And yes, Julianne's on the level and not a scam. I know her work. Okay. I've switched to Haloscan. Seems to work. Apologies to everybody whose comments vanished. I couldn't stand YACCS crummy software anymore. He woke one morning and found, to his surprise, that he had come to hate the YACCS comments boxes It was a long time in building, this passionate hatred. Was it the 50/50 chance of actually seeing the comments or getting the software to accept a posting that bothered him the most? It was hard to say. All he knew was that this elusive pixie, this hoyden, this digital slut that dallied with his feelings and left him wondering if she loved him or just thought him a toy in some sick game--she had toyed with him once too often. He was determined to find somebody else: a comments box that would accept his words and those of his friends, that would be there for him when he needed her, that wouldn't flake out just when something really beautiful was happening.... More info on the utter credulity of theists and the open-mindedness of dogmatic materialism A reader sends along the following: Apropos the current discussion, the official web site of Lourdes has several pages documenting the official process for review of claimed miraculous cures. No point in even checking this out. Some miracles are fake, therefore all are. Americans: Eager to Think Everywhere is Here No, Georgetown. There really are intolerant bigots by the bushel in the Muslim community. Face it, and face it down, or expect more where that came from. It's Jewish students like the ones chronicled here who give the biggest lie to the notion of some sort of monolithic Jewish conspiracy. These spineless guys are suicidal, not conspirators bent on advancing the Nefarious Jewish Agenda. Rod complains... The Duns Scotus of Flatbush tendered his resignation to the Holy Father recently, having turned 75. He continues in office today, even though we've known since forever that he was going to reach mandatory retirement age this fall, and have known since the first Daily depositions were made public earlier this year what kind of bishop he was (i.e., that he had, through his own malfeasance in office, facilitated the serial rape of Catholic children by wicked priests). Why does he continue in office today? What are the faithful to conclude about the way Rome sees them? Why does Rome move with lightning speed to remove bishops like O'Connell and Weakland, who are tainted by personal sex scandal, but does nothing about Law, Daily et alia, who have allowed through their misgovernance children to be sexually abused by their priests? Well, this (hopefully) faithful member of the flock doesn't conclude anything, not having the information to do so. I do, however, keep other possibilities in mind besides, "John Paul holds the laity in contempt." Here are some of the possibilities I keep in mind: Most bishops through most of the Church's history are, I would guess, compromised--deeply compromised--by something or other they've done in response to something one or more of their priests has done, whether sexually, financially, politically or otherwise. The more I look at the problem, the more I have to conclude that this is probably the norm, and moreso in a sexually depraved culture like ours (you should see what bishops after the Reformation had to deal with!). So let's do a gedankenexperiment, take your suggestion, and ax local bishops who aren't guilty of sexual depravity themselves, but who have profoundly failed to govern when others under their authority did sin. What's the cutoff point for kicking out such bishops? If the Pope kicks out Law, Daily, McCormack and Mahony, why not the rest of the European and American episcopacy except for Bruskewitz and Dolan--given your diagnosis that corruption is the rule and not the exception? If not this extremis, then what's the criteria for sorting them out? How much malfeasance is allowable? The devil's in the details. And, of course, the problem remains that if the Pope has failed in his office, then he should be kicked out too on the same grounds as all the others. If the episcopate *as an office* is the problem then what are we saying? That Catholic theology is wrong? Big questions ensue. I basically don't see any way out but through. The Church's basic habit is to perform amputations only when absolutely necessary and to conserve as much as possible. It is also to be as lenient as possible when the offender acknowledges his offense. When the amputation was necessary, it happened swiftly to guys like O'Connell. But to break with this pattern of making amputation as rare as possible and to instead urge it as normative medicine is to issue an open-ended call for the Pope to abandon the Council's emphasis on collegiality, to reject the Church's teaching about the autonomy of the local bishop and to make the Holy Father a monarch the envy of Hildebrand. Such ideas have consequences, since they lead to a truly hyper-clericalist model in which the Church is truly under the sole rule of one man in Rome. And if the next man is a man, not like Karol Woytila but more like O'Connell or Gumbleton, or a heartfelt authoritarian, what then? So mass firings of bishops is just not going to happen. I think it's unrealistic to demand it and I think it's not fair to suggest that the only possible motivation for refusing to adopt such measures is clericalism. As a member of the (hopefully) faithful laity, I honestly don't think we're seeing Papal contempt for the laity. I think we're seeing the normal struggle of the Church, and particularly of the Holy Father, to choose between multiple evils and multiple goods. A reader asks Someone asked for a recommendation for a book about the Marian dogmas. (She was asking about the Assumption in particular, and was curious about what the Church Fathers wrote -- I suspect there must be a few good books that cover this.) If you know, then feel free to Unleash the Power of the Blog and help him out. Update: Oh! D'oh! Try Mary Through the Centuries by Jaroslav Pelikan Samples of Bishop Daily's Testimony I'm particularly curious about the first section, since I can't for the life of me decode it into English. The rest is decodable, and unbearable. from Bishop Daily's deposition, day two (August 22, 2002) I guess it's never too late to start. Monday, October 28, 2002
Jody Attempts to Spin his Dogmatism But it doesn't fly. My point in critiquing Jody's condescending "I don't take the word of a pimply adolescent" dismissal of Rod's story was not to say, "Rod said it. I believe it. That settles it." It was to point out the hypocrisy of suggesting that a theistic adolescent's testimony is not to be trusted, but that Jody's adolescent atheist philosophizing is a solid foundation for a lifetime. Look. It's really quite simple. For a purported claim of the miraculous or the supernatural, it is the theist who is free to ask questions to find things out. The atheist, on the other hand, is bound to ask questions in order to keep from finding out that anything supernatural occurred. For the theist, it is quite on the cards that the reputedly supernatural event was really a fraud, or a funny noise in the drainage pipes, or hysterical blindness, or what have you. This is, after all, what the Church does in investigating stuff like Lourdes and other Marian apparations. The Church tends to be as suspicious of such claims as an atheist. And indeed most claims of miracles are rejected by the Church, not (as Jody appears to suggest) credulously believed because theists are too simple-minded to ask obvious things. So, if it turns out that Rod Dreher's tale of flying Ouija boards is unsubstantiated, my faith can live with that. I don't automatically believe every report of a miracle or supernatural event to be true. But if it turns out it's not a fake or explicable by any naturalistic means, Jody's faith is in ruins. For his dogma is much smaller. To avoid this desperate plight, Jody makes use of logic like this: "Miracle after miracle turns out to be bogus, confused or misunderstood." Translation: some claims of the supernatural are fake, therefore they all are. Sound logic indeed. What is really going on here, of course, is credo ut intelligam: Jody believes in atheism that he may understand. When confronted with the eucharistic miracle, or the healings at Lourdes which which are *not* explicable, he simply embraces an atheism of the gaps and passes over them in silence, pointing all the more vigorously to things which have been explained and hoping simple-minded dogmatic atheists will vociferously shout "Amen!" Open-minded people can acknowledge the possibility of mystery. For the atheist, the naturalistic explanation, no matter how preposterous, is better than acknowledging that atheism is an extraordinarily frail little system of order. The most delicious part of Jody's post is the brassy final line: "He's made up his mind, don't confuse him with facts." This is, of course, precisely the position Jody is in. I'm open minded. Rod's story (or the others recounted below) might or might not have supernatural elements to them. I know I live in a universe with more than one floor, so I'm open to one or other or even both possibilities. But Jody is not open-minded. Questions must, even if it's stupid, be simply and solely ordered toward denial of the possibility of the supernatural. Mass spontaneous hallucinations, lying on the part of witnesses who have nothing to gain, insanity, prodigies of naturalistic healing, spectacular concatenations of coincidence, etc. etc. are all to be preferred over the possibility that a supernatural event took place. And if none of these fly, then silence, which is why he passes over the Eucharist miracle I linked to. Why? Because Jody has a dogmatic little system of order and the supernatural must not disturb it. His mind is, indeed, made up. Do not confuse him with facts. The Icon is an Entire Education in God, if you know how to approach it Here's a site devoted to wonderful icons, and here's a Dominican priest who can educate you in their language and spirituality. Just a reminder I know this drives the Lidless Eye types crazy (which, of course, makes it all the more attractive to me to post), but it should be noted that the Church's basic posture toward Islam is this: Lumen Gentium, Chapter II, Many Catholics don't want to remember this, and prefer to indulge in American rah rah rhetoric disguised as theology, and make unwarranted declarations to the effect that Muslims "don't worship the same God we do" (as though there is another God). Nope. Muslims worship the One God, the only one there is. They have a very truncated understanding of him. And, as I will freely admit, the distorted understanding of God has led to a very popular, very evil, and very dangerous radicalism which must be opposed. But it remains the case even so that Islam can and does preserve some elements of real revelation which the Church is bound to affirm. These documents from Vatican II do not teach "We're all really saying the same thing." They do, however, affirm that there are some common elements between Catholic Faith and Islam which the Church can and must affirm, since they are aspects of her own Tradition, present in the Islamic tradition as well. The problem with the zeal to declare that somebody outside your group is a "devil" or "doesn't worship the same God we do" is that you typically find yourself condemning everything about them, only to find that, in the process, you've condemned something about your own Tradition. This is unwise, particularly if your Tradition come from the mouth of the Incarnate God. You don't want to throw out chunks of it, merely to satisfy your urge to despise Muslims. This guy gets his mighty mighty organ to the tune of $$$Gazillion This poor old lady gets the shaft. Don't tell me: Somewhere in their vision statement it says something like, "We, the People of God in the Palm Beach diocese are dedicated to singing a world of justice and peace. With the help of She Who is, we seek to body forth the compassion of Christ to the cry of the poor. Etc. Blah Blah." Inspired by the Muse, I have written a "Gathering Song" based on the unforgettable "Anthem" by Tom Conry, suitable for use at the Palm Beach cathedral. Your stories of the supernatural Speaking of which, why not use the comments box below to give me your stories of encounters with the supernatural. I expect most people have something in their past. When I get a chance, I'll tell you about the girl who was miraculously healed of third degree burns over 90% of her body, or lady who heard some remarkable things she couldn't have heard by natural means, or some of the other odd things I've either experienced myself or known others to experience. Such things do happen. Only a dogma prevents you from disbelieving there's an element of the supernatural involved. Let's hear your story. The Atheist as True Believer Down below, Rod commented over the weekend on a rather creepy incident which took place when he was a young sprout in boarding school. Curiously, Jody (who, you recall, chose to become an atheist based on the mental processes of the teenager who happened to be himself), writes in response, "Not to take away from Rod's childhood experiences, but a remembered story from the 15th or 16th or 17th year of life is not proof that ouija boards are real and Satan is waiting just out of earshot to send kids spiraling into madness and self destruction." This is followed by a number of questions which, being translated, say, "Such things do not fit my philosophy, so they cannot be real." In short, Jody's reaction is an act of faith, not a response to the evidence. This is, if anything, more common with atheists than it is with supposedly "dogmatic" (read: "ignorant and obscurantist") religious believers. Reality has a way of impinging on neat little philosophies, both religious and atheistic. Our little systems of order are forever breaking down. The faith system most under assault by reality is the one which denies the biggest chunk of reality, because reality goes on being what it is. Since God and the supernatural are ultimately the biggest part of reality (He existed before all else and, when heaven and earth pass away, will still exist), atheism has a tough row to hoe to continue plodding away in denial of reality. Believers in the supernatural are free to believe in all sorts of supernatural phenomena they can't explain. Rigorous dogmatic atheists (and all atheists are dogmatic) have to get rid of every speck of the supernatural, or their system is in ruins. Once again, Chesterton says it better than me: Any one who likes, therefore, may call my belief in God merely mystical; the phrase is not worth fighting about. But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant's word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant's word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant's story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism -- the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence -- it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, "Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles," they answer, "But mediaevals were superstitious"; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say "a peasant saw a ghost," I am told, "But peasants are so credulous." If I ask, "Why credulous?" the only answer is -- that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland. And so, for instance, when presented with a home videotape of a Eucharistic miracle at Betania, which numerous other eyewitnesses attest, which an honest priest attests, which the bishop attests, and which my own senses attest, I can say, "We live in a world that is stranger than we know. God can do as he likes." and believe the miracle occurred. Jody, however, is constrained by an extremely limiting dogma (promulgated, you will recall, by a 15 year old who once read some dubious stuff on comparative religion and who thereby decided that this was the (convenient for him) Last Word on how Christianity is Really Just Mithraism/paganism Dressed Up in Jewish Robes). This controlling dogma, promulgated by a 15 year old and never reconsidered by the adult, is what now compels Jody to make purely faith-based statements (some of them extremely far-fetched) to reject what a straightforward believer in the supernatural could just take in stride. To believe in the supernatural is a great aid to broad-mindedness. Why I speak of Radical Islam and not Islam One of my readers writes: "Moslems are devils and they can be all lumped." Um, no they aren't and no they can't. To say otherwise is to directly reject the clear teaching of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. It is, in short, to be a very bad Christian indeed. No human being is a devil. Our Lord could get away with calling Judas a "devil" because he had the little advantage of being God and knowing human hearts. We lack this handy gift of insight. For us, the basic playbook is "We wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with powers and principalities, with spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places." (Eph 6:12). Yes, there is real evil and even real demonic evil at work in the world. But no, we are not thereby anointed with the right to reduce every single adherent of Islam to a "devil". The war against Radical Islam is necessary because Radical Islam wants to kill you. There are other expressions of Islam that don't. These are to be encouraged in the hope that focus on Islam at its healthiest will lead the adherent to Christ. Calling them all "devils" is a quick way to make more radicals. Technology for the 50% of the population with IQs below average Why yes! I'd love to be part of this sinister Orwellian rush to be a cog in the Servile State! The most important thing to me is to not be left out! Siege Weaponry for the Home Heard an interview with this guy on Rewind. In case you were wondering what to get me for Christmas. Saturday, October 26, 2002
I've arrived! Somebody's started a blog devoted to attacking me. It's like having my own personal Nihil Obstat. More proof that Americans have far too much time on their hands. I do like the Flame Warriors illustration though. "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde Update: Justin Katz has a theory about who's running the site. However, their self-description as "us homo, tree hugging, and hairy-legged Seattle artsy feminists" doesn't square with the usual readership of Der Remnant. Great graphic though. T. Marzen: Interesting Darth Sidious/Darth Sheader theory. My agents of evil will have to kill you, of course. Sandra: What Remnant hit piece? Radical Islam Delenda Est The leader was a Wahabi, of course. And hostages were released, not on the basis of whether they supported the Chechens, but on the basis of whether they were Muslim. I wonder what sort of outrage will convince the French. Blowing up the Eiffel Tower? Speaking of the occult... One of my readers expressed the common notion that occult activity is bad because it's not real (in short, it's all just human fakery). However, Rod Dreher, in the comment on the HellCo article just below, demonstrates that this judgment may be premature at times. For my own take on the Church's teaching concerning the folly of fiddling about with the occult, see "You Can Trust Me, I'm a Psychic". HellCo's Corporate Propaganda A bit of whimsy for the season. Bet you never thought of a Ouija board as a demonstration of sacramentality before, didja? Friday, October 25, 2002
A ways back... Eve Tushnet shepherded a symposium for Crisis Magazine called "Christianity from the Outside" featuring various perspectives on the Faith from a bunch of different non-Christians. It was an interesting piece. One of the contributors was Christopher Hitchens, for whom I have warm respect and with whom I disagree completely when it comes to theology (he's an atheist). In the course of his contribution to the symposium, he asked, "Why do you look forward to a second visit from the Redeemer, and why is this necessary?" Here's my response, "Is the Second Coming Necessary?", which is in the latest issue of Crisis (November 2002). Which one are you? I think I tend uncomfortably toward "tireless rebutter" sometimes. But then, the heart is desperately wicked and past understanding. Who can know it? You guys may have a very different diagnosis of me. If so, do me a favor and send obsequious flattery instead. "Human beings cannot bear too much reality." - T. S. Eliot :) Lotsa Shea chatter over at HMS blog Blogger was down today (grrrrrr) so I posted a bunch of stuff over there. And now a question for y'all to argue about so I can do other work for a while: Should you pray for Hitler's or Osama bin Laden's soul? I say, "Yes, of course." Discuss. |
