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 Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!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
|
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Went to See The Passion of the Christ on Friday The quick assessment: Hands down the finest film ever made about Jesus Christ. Period. The longer assessment: Let's get a few things out of the way immediately. First: Thanks, Mel, for having the great courage to make this film. It was a profoundly *manly* thing to do and has given us a portrayal of Jesus that is, in the very best sense of the word, the most masculine Jesus ever committed to celluloid. Interestingly, several men I have talked to have spoken of the film in that way as well. The sense of sheer *warfare* that permeates the film is overwhelming. And it is deeply and profoundly warfare with powers and principalities, not with flesh and blood. Jesus has no enmity to his human adversaries. He prays for them repeatedly. But his hostility to the devil is implacable, utter, and steely. Indeed, if I were the devil, I would quail in terror at what is, for Lucifer, the single most frightening moment in the film: the look of Resolve on the face of the Risen Christ in the final moments of the film. Satan has done his worst. Now it's Time to wrest the entire cosmos away from him. Second: I cannot speak for Jews because I am not Jewish. So I'm not going to go around telling Jews what they can and cannot feel about the film. If it makes some Jewish people feel upset then they are entitled to their reactions. That's what works of art do: provoke reactions. However, I *can* tell Jewish people and anybody else who will listen what this work of art did to me and to the 30 teens and adults (and the packed theatre) who, well, not "saw" but experienced it on Friday. It made us pray. It made us feel ashamed of our sins. It made us embrace each other. It made us weep. It took our breath away at times--both because of the depth of human cruelty and the awe of divine love. It made me admire Gibson's theological depth and his artistic vision. We left the theatre in silence and did not at all feel very inclined to find baseball bats with which to smash synagogue windows. Personally, I felt a strong need to go sit before Jesus in the Tabernacle. I thought of the sins I'd confessed and been forgiven of a couple of days before--and what it cost to have those awesome words of absolution given me. I thought how easily I hold grudges and how much I've fallen into the habit of contemptuously dismissing people who hurt me. I thought of how troubling it was to me that the violence did not trouble me more. I came away from it asking God for a compassionate heart. My son and his friends, God bless their beautiful young souls, immediately went away for a retreat and he came back the wonderful laughing boy I've known all these years, yet there was a seriousness in the joy--like a young boy becoming a man. I came away from the film not only with gratitude for the Sacrifice, but with joy over the gift of all those kids. I did not, and I daresay no Christian did, come away from the film saying, "I want to hit a Jew." The very idea that anybody could come away thinking that is so repulsive, so *alien* to this film that I cannot believe anybody could come away desiring that. The reason for that is simple: The film is so deeply immersed in the message of the gospel that only a wilful misreading by a Christian could derive a message of hate from it. Indeed, apart from Jesus and Mary, the strongest character--a character so strong he actually threatens to overshadow Jesus as Mercutio threatens to overshadow Romeo--is Simon of Cyrene. In his relatively short time on the screen, he establishes himself as a true hero. And Gibson is careful to identify that hero as Jewish. He is not a believer in Jesus, but he is a deeply humane man (though fearful at first) and he stand up with immense courage to the Roman brute squad (who are the true villains of the film). By the time he has walked the Via Dolorosa with Christ, he is a changed man, but so should be any Catholic anti-semites lingering out in Hooterville. In one of the most moving images in the film (I still well up when I think of it), he and Jesus make the final ascent to Golgotha with their arms linked over the cross. Are there Jewish villains in the film? Of course. The film is true to the gospels in that it makes clear that the Temple elite and some of the citizenry (though not all) wanted Jesus dead. To get rid of that fact you must get rid of the gospels themselves. But to this Catholic, I was moved far more to think of some of my own bishops and their selfish clinging to power than I was to generalities about The International Jew or some sort of theorizing about racial guilt. Caiaphas acts, not as all Jews act, but as all corrupt men act--particularly when they are clinging to power. As the reviewer for TIME pointed out, calling criticism of the Sanhedrin "anti-semitic" is as dumb as saying "Either you are with the Republican Party or you are with the terrorists." It is possible to fault the ruling class without despising the entire people. Then, as now, there were lots of Jews who defended Jesus--and not all of them were his disciples as both the cinematic Simon of Cyrene and Rabbi Gamaliel in the book of Acts shows. As is commonly known, Gibson draws on a variety of sources: the NT, the stations of the cross, Emmerich's visions, and his own imagination. Of course, secular viewers have complained about the violence and, particularly, the blood of the film. One particularly desperate writer not only assumes the film is anti-semitic but also tries to cash in on old American Know-Nothing chips and ignite some good old Protestant hatred of the film. But it's a total non-starter. Evangelicals are wild about the thing, and well they should be. A tiny minority of Fundies complain that it takes liberties with Scripture, but these are indeed a tiny minority. The rest recognize that liberties with Scripture are an old artistic practice. And the liberties are not so much contradictions as they are theological illustrations of obvious Scriptural teachings. So, for instance, Evangelicals know that there is "Power in the Blood". So do Catholics. After all, the blood, the selfsame blood that is splattered all over the scourgers at the Pillar, is the blood that we drink on the altar. We say in earnest, what the mob said in unconscious irony: "May his blood be on us and on our children." I pray that prayer will be granted me and my children all the days of our lives. So do Evangelicals. The main difference is that, as a Catholic, I regard the blood of Christ as being just as physical now (albeit sacramentally) as it was then, while my Evangelical friends have a piety that tends to be wary of encounters with the Incarnation in the here and now. (Though encounters with things like this film may serve to alter that.) And since Gibson is a Catholic, he has no trouble with that identification between the blood on the floor of the guardroom and the blood in the chalice. So we are shown the scene (straight from Emmerich) in which Mary blots up the blood of Christ with towels just as a Catholic would blot the spilled Precious Blood with a purificator. It's all one for Gibson because it's all one for any Catholic who knows his faith. This link between Catholic teaching and the imagery of the film is brilliantly shown in the way Gibson has edited the film. So for instance, as Jesus gazes up to Mount Calvary, the scene suddenly cuts to the Sermon on the Mount and his admonition to love your enemies. As he is beaten, he falls on his back and can see only the foot of the soldier who is scourging him. The scene then cuts to Jesus washing the feet of his disciples. And as he falls to the ground at Calvary at the very feet of the Jewish rulers who condemn him (and who, by this time, an ignorant Christian may be tempted to blame) Gibson chooses that moment to flashback to Jesus saying, "No one takes my life from me. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again." The awesome power of this film comes from the connections it makes (at least for me). I literally caught my breath when Gibson cuts to a scene from the Last Supper where the Passover bread is brought to the table, wrapped in cloth. The bread is set at the table and the cloth is taken off, then Gibson cuts back to Jesus being stripped of his garments. The bread is elevated for the consecration at the Last Supper, and Gibson cuts to the elevation of the cross ("If I be lifted up, I shall draw all men to me.") These kinds of juxtapositions occur throughout the film. Probably the most moving one is the scene where Mary is simply paralyzed by fear and cannot follow Jesus any further on the road. He stumbles under his cross. She has a flashback of him falling as a child and her running to comfort him. It somehow gives her the will to run to him again with the same words "I'm here." She is a comfort for him, yet he is somehow the greater comfort for her. His grace has made it possible for her to wrench free of her paralyzing fear. He looks at her and says, "Behold, I make all things new" (words from Revelation that remind us of the cosmic backdrop to this harrowing torment. I could go on and on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that this film is one of the most theologically informed films I've ever seen. Not a frame of it is left to chance. As to the complaints about blood and gore, I'm afraid that from a Catholic perspective, this only illustrates to me that most people don't, at the end of the day, *really* believe what we say when we talk about the blood of Christ and the agonies of the cross and so forth. In the end, I suspect there is something of the spirit that whispered to Simon Peter on Caesarea Philippi at work: "No, Master! This must never be!" We say that because (we assure ourselves) we don't want this "pornographic violence" (as the suddenly puritanical Andrew Sullivan and similiar critics have clucked). But, in reality, we are upset because we don't want to face that fact that the man who endured this said, "Take up *your* cross and follow me." It's not him we're concerned with. It's saving our own skins--as Peter himself discovered. In our heart of hearts, our response to the message of the cross is, if we are normal, "No. No thanks. Not if it involved that. He can't be serious." Don't feel too smug about the Sullivans of the world recoiling in horror from that. If you don't recoil, you haven't thought about the implications of the gospel. I *hope* that, should it be necessary, I can someday be willing to endure what the gospel has cost some of our brothers and sisters--and supremely, our Lord. But I don't know if I could. I fervently pray I shall never have to find out. In the meantime, I remember the counsel of a Father of the Church (Ephraim the Syrian, I think) who said, "Be kind to everyone you meet, for every person is fighting a great battle." Brief update: Interested readers can now purchase a signed copy of A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions about the Passion of the Christ from me. (Sorry, but the signature is just me. The other four authors are unavailable.) The response to the book continues to be overwhelming (300,000 copies requested so far and no letup in sight.) If you are interested in bulk orders, go to www.evangelization.com. Secret Agent Man Writes the Definitive Takedown of Bill Cork's Relentless Carping Everytime I read Cork's blog these days, my mind is inexorably drawn back to the Emperor in Amadeus who sniff "too many notes". Bill has sniffed so relentlessly for so long, he's in danger of sucking his nose into his face. By the way, don't forget to scroll up and read Secret Agent Man's actual review of the film too. It's very, very good. I don't have much to add to the news about the ... ...John Jay report that hasn't been talked about pretty thoroughly. I was amazed when I read this good solid lie in the local paper: "The review board said neither celibacy nor gay priests caused the scandal, but both issues needed to be examined." If my reading of the report is accurate, what it actually said was that a mere homosexual orientation was not the problem--which is, of course, simply Catholic teaching. It doesn't matter what your temptations are. It matters how you respond to them. So a faithful celibate priest who does not act on his temptations is, among other things, not going to rape a kid. However, a priest who does give in to temptation is a problem and the statistics show that 80% of the victims were adolescent males who were abused by priests who not only were homosexually orientated, but who acted on that orientation and, in the case of a great many of them, celebrated and even flaunted it. And to pretend otherwise is simply a loud, thumping, brazen LIE. As to the rest, my first recommendation is simply that bishops such as Howard Hubbard hold themselves to the same standard they require of their priests and that, failing that, their brother bishops loudly rebuke them for their rank hypocrisy. I'd also say that the faithful have every right to make life extremely uncomfortable for men like Hubbard should they choose to ignore the policies they themselves have instituted for others. And most of all, may God bless Caesar as he does his God-given job. Since it's not Lent today I thought I'd blog a bit! For starters, here's David Morrison replying to a truly homophobic Catholic. Hint to all such Donatist as the lady David is responding to: learn the difference between virtuous resistance to concupiscence and sin. Wednesday, February 25, 2004
A few final things and I'm outta here for Lent First off, many, many thanks to all the wonderful people who make this blog the jumpin' joint it is. There's a reason I find this so interesting. I love the fascinating conversation and the input y'all give which keeps me on my toes. My profound gratitude to God first, for making homo sapiens so clever as to invent a cool technology like this, and to all my fellow homo sapiens for your wonderful contributions to the ongoing conversation. Please pray for me that I have a fruitful and spiritually successful Lent in which I draw closer to God, become more like Christ and, in a word, get rid of my sins and participate more fully in the divine nature. Pray particularly that I make good confession and really make the most of the grace of Reconciliation, of Eucharist, and most especially, of Confirmation. Please pray also that I get the work I must do well and truly underway. In a similar vein, I ask pardon of all those whom I have hurt either through deliberate sin or through cloddish inconsideration, here on this blog and I pray God's mercy and peace on any and all who have sinned against me. May we all meet one day merrily in the presence of Christ. Second, here's a final smorgasbord of links so that you guys can go for the gold and fill the comment box with a world historical record number of comments while I'm gone: Fr. Glenn Sudano on the Passion of the Christ My fellow parishioner (and another sign of hope in the rising generation) John Lindblom interviews Br. Anthony Garcia, one of the many wonderful young Dominicans in the Western Province seminary. Read it and feel a thrill of optimism for the future. Cardinal Pell wants all senior students to see the Passion. I forgot Fr. Ronald Tacelli is another great Jesuit. Yet another sign of hope in the Rising Generation! "They said the U.S. government's policy of preferring abstinence-only education would only increase those rates." Why do I get the feeling that this is a Big Lie? It's like saying that quitting smoking will only increase lung cancer rates. Marymount Manhattan College in New York hosted the V-Monologues play Feb. 14-15. Now their president adds insult to injury by informing us that the gospels are "early Christian slander". On the bright side, this is not a Jesuit school. Rod Dreher's review of The Passion of the Christ. Come fly with me and Fr. Rob Johansen on a pilgrimage to France! And to get you in the mood for talking theology with me, sign up for my class "Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist" at HMSU! And finally, if this blog has been of benefit to you, if you find yourself filled with pangs of longing for my return, if you are saying, "CAEI consistently fills me with both a crazy itch to hoot like a siamang and with a sense of serenity beyond human ken, not to mention making me laugh and think about stuff!", then please, feel free at any time during Lent to give alms to my Paypal button or, if you prefer, to buy my books and tapes or just email me, get my snailmail address, and send me a check. My dentist and children will appreciate your support deeply, as do my wife and I. God bless you all this Lent, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Not to pick especially on Jesuits or anything but... Give the President of John Carroll U hell. The president of John Carroll, Father Glynn, reportedly received over 1,000 e-mails protesting his school's production of the Vagina Monologues and its plan to give the proceeds to two pro-abortion groups. He apparently did not get the message. Let's go for 10,000. Do my reader in the Society have any suggestions on how to strike fear into the heart of a Jesuit academic? Any funding source for the University that can be leaned on? You don't have to sign your name if you fear reprisals. But it would be nice to know how to find the pressure point. An ancient Roman critic offers his opinion of sick weirdos who dwell on a crucified God Alexamenos failed to get the memo that Jesus was High on Life and came to affirm us in our okayness. A cultured critic, in his witty, transgressive little satire "Alexamenos worships his god" showed Alexamenos what a fundamentalist dolt he was and Christianity disappeared shortly thereafter. 
"We preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles." Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Don't forget! It's CAEI's Extremely Truncated Pledge Week! I go off the air at midnight and return after Easter (and on some Sundays). So I won't have my regular pledge drive. But our financial needs are ongoing here at Chez Shea what with dentists and college. So if you like the work I do here, please consider throwing some cash in the cyber guitar case. If you like to get something for your money (besides this blog, I mean, which I work hard at), you can buy my books and tapes. And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead. This means war - Andrew Sullivan to Bush. In Andrew's narcissistic world, defining marriage to mean what it has always meant is an act of aggression. But using judicial fiat to overturn an understanding of marriage that is millennia old is not. As I say, there can be no peace between those who tolerate homosexual practice but still regard it as a sin and those who demand we approve of it as a positive good and accord it all the protections reserved for the Family. In the end, the Gay Fascist Brigade believes that any attempts to limit its encroachment on the privilege which healthy civilizations have always accorded the family are to be crushed ruthlessly. I firmly believe that, given the choice between, on the one hand, a Clinton who would end the War on Terror immediately but approve gay marriage and, on the other hand, Bush, Sullivan would unhesitatingly vote for Clinton. It is *all* about gay sex for Andrew. The Islamofascist threat was the largest threat to gay sex on the radar for the past two years, so he backed Bush. Now Bush is the largest threat to gay sex for Andrew, so he will back anybody who supports gay sex, even if they mean to oppose everything Sullivan has written about the War on Terror. The Typically Sane Michael Medved on the Passion film In fact, all of the most controversial scenes and lines of dialogue stem directly from the Gospels, chapter and verse. This means that critics of the movie inevitably train their fire on Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, rather than "Saint" Mel. James White is upset by Protestants who love Jesus more than they hate the Catholic Church And Then? has the scoop. Fr. Tom on the Canadian Bishops' muted response to the Passion It's amazing how the Catholic Church continues to attract converts despite the amazing timidity and shame for the gospel that so many of her ministers reflect. Of course, it leaves a clear field for things like A Guide to the Passion (which, as of yesterday had passed 160,000 copies sold and will, by the end of the day, probably be past 170,000 thankyouveddymuch), which I am glad of. But it would be nice if the bishops could do something besides clear their throats nervously and tug at their collars. Dictionaries are not lawbooks. Appeals to them are paper barriers against a dragon who does not care about precise definitions of words. The problem is active homosexuals in the priesthood. And that's the problem the bishops have to face up to and deal with. Yup. Fr. Rob weigh in on the the Report that's about to come out and on the Passion which he, like everybody else in the whole wide world but me, got to see. Boston Globe Launches Counter-Attack In a world riven by war and conflicts over gay marriage and the economy, the secular media can still spot the Real Enemy. So today, the Globes' front page is devoted to a nice balance of three attacks on the film. They report. You submit to your betters. Actually, this is good news. The dragon gets furious when he knows his time is short. There will be some very good fruit from this film, I think. Lane Core and Mark Windsor Want to Unleash the Power of the Blog Fight the Power! Read Mark and Lane's conversation here, here, and here. Then go forth, conquering and to conquer (or at least, writing a letter or two). Don't just bend over for this latest assault on marriage and the family. "As far as Ginsberg's pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love." That would be Camille Paglia who, as a reader points out, "'conservatives' and 'conservative' Catholics often praise (see National Review) and linked to by (this ought to surprise you) Michael Rose's Crux News." As somebody who has himself sometimes found reason to enjoy some of Paglia's iconoclastic rants, I can only say that I do so in the full awareness that she is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lunatic. Another living illustration that libertarianism is a philosophy for people with no children. I point to this essay as a fairly typical example of what to expect in coming years as the "What's so bad about sex with children?" Agitprop Machine gets thoroughly ginned up. My Jesuit reader send me links to Good Jesuits I happily blog them: Fr. John Kavanaugh, S.J. regularly writes columns with good insights: My apologies for forgetting Fr. Mitch Pacwa. And I also should mention the delightful Fr. James V. Schall. Bush Throws Away Andrew Sullivan's Vote No wonder Sullivan is talking more and more like he want's Edwards to win. The polestar of his journalism exceeds all other considerations. Good Morning! It's Days 5 through 7 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week Please consider a gift to your humble scribe and click on the PayPal button to the left so that C&EI can stay on the air and our latest dental (and soon college) bills can be paid. You can either make a straight donation or, if you like to get something for your money (beyond this blog, I mean), you can buy my books and tapes. And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead. Today's your day. Yesterday, other people were pitching in to help out. Now the little angel on your shoulder (you know the one that looks just like you with the little tinfoil halo?) is saying, "C'mon, do the right thing! You *love* this blog!" Meanwhile... Vatican Critical of Zero Tolerance Policy Here's the money graf: The experts said a zero-tolerance policy was mistaken and even dangerous. Most agreed that such a policy can actually increase the chances that offenders might strike again because it removes them from supervision and the only jobs they have known for decades. Juxtaposed with the story just below this, it's pretty easy to blow one's stack. Nonetheless, it's important not to, for a number of reasons. First, if the news article is accurate, the report basically says "Criminal activity should be dealt with by Caesar." So I don't see how the Vatican is trying to thwart justice here. Rather, it's trying to deal with the mercy end of things, which is its job. The problem with 'zero tolerance' thinking is that that it treats all abusive activity as absolutely equal and completely overlooks what is, after all, the mission of the Church: the redemption and reclamation of sinners. If the abuse is determined to be criminal then Caesar should do his job and throw the abuser in the clink. But what of abuse that is, say, 40 years old, rather minor (say, a seminarian's night of passion with an underage former girlfriend), fully repented, and even the victim has forgiven it (yes, such things do happen)? Zero tolerance says "Off with his head! 40 years of penitent faithful service of God's people is *nothing*. No mercy!" This is not exactly what I hope to hear from God when I go to confession. In short, the problem with zero tolerance thinking is that it is, oddly enough, counter to the gospel, which teaches us (particularly in matters of moral decisionmaking) to deal with the *person* and not with some sort of statistical formula or a one-size-fits-all template. The adulterous woman was, for her persecutors, a variable in a moral equation. She was guilty of adultery, therefore the machine of the Law had a particular formula for processing this piece of meat. Jesus saw the woman, the person. And he directed himself to her particular situation and her penitent heart. Strictly speaking, he did not obey the clear letter of the law. But that was because he knew that mercy transcends the letter. That is one of the reasons Mercy is the most scandalous teaching of the gospel. So is the Vatican calling for abusive priests to not be prosecuted? No. Is it calling for further endangerment of kids? Not that I can see. It appears to me to be saying that if you just indiscriminately kick out priests without paying attention to who they are and what their history is, you are probably setting up a lot of repeat offenders with zero supervision since rootless despairing people with no purpose left in life tend to do Bad Things more frequently than people who have some link to the Body of Christ (of which they are, after all, still a part). In other words, it's saying that if the main mission is to protect people from becoming victims of abusers, zero tolerance is dumb if it only serves to exacerbate the problem. Justice will not be served if, in the rush to just inflict as many punches as we can on somebody in our rage at priestly abuse, we in fact wind up creating the conditions for more abuse. That seems reasonable to me. I'm one of those annoying people who always thinks zero tolerance policies are stupid and who thought this policy was particularly stupid. It *sounds* great and has a pleasing sound bite quality to the ear, but what it boils down to in real life is that some priest who gave a back rub to some kid at a camp 25 years ago and who regretted it and went on to live an exemplary life is in *exactly* the same moral category ("File under "Irredeemable Monster") as some serial rapist who has shown no remorse for his crimes. The 19 year old seminarian who bedded a 17 year old girl on a night of passion 30 years ago, is *exactly* the same, and to be treated with exactly the same mercilessness, as a priest who carefully and deliberately targeted boy after boy after boy after boy after boy (or girl after girl, or spousal abuse victim after spousal abuse victim) for decades. As far as I can tell, zero tolerance thinking is just another instance of episcopal irresponsibility. Only instead of cutting lay victims adrift, the bishops are now cutting their priests adrift on the slightest pretense. It's an approach to the problem that seems to me just as foreign to the gospel as the previous irresponsibility to victims was. All hate mail gratefully accepted. So very sad May God grant him the peace he could not find in life and have mercy on his soul--and on the souls of those who sinned against him so grievously. Monday, February 23, 2004
Fascinating discussion going on below One of my gay readers on this thread, trying desperately to say, "Don't stand so close to me" to a pedophilia propagandist who is copying word for word from the Gay Agitprop Playbook, tries the "consent" ploy. The arguments may sound the same but the pedophilia argument is false. Why? Children and consent. Both homosexuality and pedophilia may be sins, but the former can be legal while the latter can remain illegal. Children, we are informed, are incapable of "consent". Oh, and besides, it's against the law. Of course, children are, in fact, capable of all sorts of consent to all sorts of things. And, of course, laws can be changed (sort of like when a court decides by fiat that gay marriage is suddenly "the law". Oh, but that could never happen with pedophilia because.... uh, it just never could. Not even when pedophile apologists hammer away at the culture for the next 20 years as gay apologists hammered away at the culture for the past 20 years, pointing out (with a growing battery of "experts" at their command) that children are capable of strong emotional attachments, that our notions of childhood ability to make "informed judgements" is not reflected by the latest data, that there isn't even the risk of pregnancy to consider if they are young enough, that consent is a private personal thing and blah blah blah. Nope. No amount of sloppy sentimental movies of the week about "forbidden love" and sympathetic portraits of children who found the Adult Who Really Cared but were cruelly hampered in their hopes for a better life by Evil Strait-Laced Fundamentalist Parents will break down that cultural barrier. No endless series of profiles of the surprisingly happy and well-adjusted lives of pedophiles in the NY Times will change things. No increasing deployment of the word "taboo" and pleas from Episcopalians for Man Boy Love (established 2010 AD) will budge our unalterable... present mood for which most people could not give a coherent argument against a trained sophist like Mr. Ashford. But no matter. For what, after all, is more solid, sure, and everlasting than a mood, except maybe a wisp of cloud or snowflake? Nope. My gay reader is dreaming if he thinks that the Man Boy Love contingent will not continue to push the rhetoric the Gay Agitprop Brigade has deployed with such overwhelming success. And he's dreaming if he thinks our "transgressive" Manufacturers of Culture will not embrace that logic as kinda cool and start promoting it out of sheer love of watching the bourgeoisie squirm. And he's especially crazy if he think that Gay Agitprop Brigade will not fall in line behind it when it finally gets cultural traction and defend it to the death. For the simple fact is, if the Man Boy Love agitprop is false, so is the gay agitprop. For Shea's Law is clear: Every expansion of perversion must be defended, lest the previous expansion be called into question. It is an iron law of human existence: The culture that despises virginity is the culture that despises children. Suggest reading: Abandoning Children to Their Rights. If you don't believe that there are people both evil and idiotic enough to say, "children should have rights identical to adults" and who are promoting "'an autonomous view' of children's rights that is 'more based on choice than needs' of children", then you are simply naive about the capacity of the human race for evil. My son's cry of despair: "I tried not being perfect and I failed!" I know how he feels. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. After the movie ended, there were no shouts of anti-Semitic rage. The mood of the audience was quiet gratitude and deep obligation to live up to Christian standards. How different from a Saudi mosque after a Wahhabi sermon. Rod Dreher Has a Lovely Take on The Passion I'm convinced this is going to be a great film and one of the salient evangelistic moments of our generation. However, in my ongoing effort to be fair, I should also notes that I have privately divided opposition to the film into "intelligent" and "stoopid" categories. The stoopid form of opposition to the film is often transparently due to the fact that a great many people loathe, not the film, but the gospel itself. And so we get bonehead complaints from the "Jesus' Real Message Was About Funding Libraries and Caring and Sharing" types who try to tell us, with a straight face, that his death was entirely incidental to his life. Also dumb is the professional handwringing which insists that any depiction of the death of Christ which involves any other Jew than Jesus is necessarily antisemitic. But there are intelligent critiques of the film too. Or rather, of the idea of trying to put the central event of the Christian faith on film. They boil down to this: There is death in the camera, says C.S. Lewis. Somehow a "realistic" depiction often winds up landing us further away from the reality than a depiction in other forms. We got a whiff of this with the film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. Wonderful on so many levels, and yet still not the same experience--not as *good* an experience as the novel itself. The Word has a power that the photograph can't match. Several Eastern Orthodox writers have cautioned that the attempt to remove the presentation of the gospel story from the context of the liturgy is inherently problematic since God has chosen to mediate the Mystery to us in that way, and not through more "realistic" means. I think there is wisdom in this concern. I don't necessarily agree with it (like I say, I'm looking forward to the film and think it will have a profound impact for good). But I see the reasonableness of the concern and think it worth considering and respecting. So I thought I'd bring it up. Well, well, well! Funny. Ono Ekeh has been writing in to Amy Welborn's comments boxes forever, singing the praises of John Kerry with evangelistic fervor, and yet, as far as I can recall, he never got around to mentioning certain other rather salient facts : An Activist In the Bishops' Conference I know Jesus had whores in his following. But I don't think people who sell their souls to promote a radical pro-abort and ridicule the Church's teaching on the value of human life and the dignity of marriage is quite what He had in mind. Have you checked out HMSU yet? My online class, "Power in the Blood: The Life Changing Power of the Eucharist" will rock your world (in the Petrine sense of the word). Hurry! Registration closes March 1. Where else but on my blog would you get to find a headline like... "Babushka Swears That Superstition is Orthodox" ...or discover a cool site like "The Onion Dome"? Written, I might add, by people who are practically my neighbors! Why, if I were you, I would click on my PayPal button and make a donation to the Quarterly Fund Drive in weepy gratitude for all this blog means to you! Amy Welborn is Awesome You will need this book in coming years. When they make the film, the mere fact that Russell Crowe is in it will constitute Settled Scientific Proof that the "facts" behind the Da Vinci Code are so solid that no rational person can believe the "official story" foisted on witless gulls by a sinister Church. Learn to refute the Latest Real Jesus and you will be doing a real work of mercy for a lot of people who are going to be influenced by this well-written, fast-paced, engaging piece of lying crap by Dan Brown. Heresy is self-sterilizing One of the nice things about the "High on Life Jesus" version of Christianity is that, in addition to being so dull that no sentient being can remain in its presence without nodding off or committing suicide is the fact that it is so high and mighty and aloof from the foolish cattle who are going to see the Passion, that it will not, of course, avail itself of any opportunity to evangelize or catechize people who will be walking out of the theatres, stunned by what they have seen and asking, perhaps for the first time, "Who is this Jesus?" That means they leave the work of answering that question to... well, people like Catholic Exchange and Ascension Press and our book "A Guide to the Passion" or else folks like the Daughters of St. Paul. I like that arrangement a great deal. :) More Catholic Evangelization in Tandem with The Passion of the Christ The Daughters of St. Paul are on board and down with it! Academic Brownshirts on the March! Which, by the logic of some of my gay readers, means I think all academics are brownshirts, of course, including one of my closest friends. Selfish and Proud of It! Look. Nobody's forcing anybody to have kids. These guys can do as they like. But all the twaddle about how noble they are being and their "concerns about overpopulation" is bullshit. These are selfish oinkers who dislike children, feel vaguely threatened by the awareness that they are out of the mainstream opinion on this subject, and have decided to make their piggery into a Positive Social Movement to salve their oinky consciences and cash in on the largesse that Americans typically bestow on cranky minorities. There have always been a few W.C. Fields in the world. But Fields knew his loathing of children was funny. These people are demanding to be taken seriously--which just makes them funnier... and more revolting. "He said there is a "very distinct possibility" that homosexuals will set their sights on redefining religious marriage." But of course! This is all about trying to force homosexuality as a positive good on the majority. The fact that it is a sin and will always be a sin means, ultimately, the orthodox Christians will have open war made upon their faith as a "hate crime" before this is done. There cannot be peaceful coexistence for the Gay Brownshirt Brigade. Is anybody surprised by this? In a given large human population, there are going to be some perverts. Why should Protestants be exempt from that? Dad! Can *we* learn Aramaic? Please? Please? Huh? Can we? Pleeeeeeeeeeze? The cry of the Rising Generation. Jane Ganahl defends child abuse, as long as it's of boys Another feminist becomes a parody of herself. Works out her rage at childhood sufferings by inflicting them on a new generation of innocent kids. De-Woodstockification Proceeds Apace Greeley disturbed to find that statistics reveal the majority of the new generation of priests actually believe what the church teaches. Since it's NRO they have to talk this way But, of course, the reality is that "conservative" bishops (for instance, in Omaha) are just as capable of self-centered narcissism as O'Brien was. It's an equal opportunity sin, though I have to concede that O'Brien's narcissism is in a class by itself. Good Morning! Today is Days 1 through 4 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week I will be gone starting Ash Wednesday and through Lent. That means I will not be around in March for the normal quarterly Fund Drive. However, I hope that my efforts over the past two months will still be meritorious enough to persuade you to help a distinctly lower middle class writer help keep a roof over his family's head and food in their bellies. (And I will pop in on Sundays during Lent.) For all newbies, just a word on this blog: I work half time for Catholic Exchange.com for a rather modest paycheck. I also have four kids (two of whom are locustlike adolescents). The rest of my income is earned by scraping together what I can from freelancing and speaking. In addition, I offer my work on this blog in the hope of building up the Church a bit, providing some amusement and education for readers, and creating a unique space where folk can come together to discuss issues in life, the culture and the Church that pretty much can't be discussed this way in any other media. If you like what I do here: I ask, once a quarter, that folk will do for this service what they would do for any other form of thought-provoking, entertaining, well-written stuff: pay for it as best they can. After all, where else can you find Rod Dreher, Fr. Paul Mankowski, Sandra Meisel and a host of others telling me I'm all wet? What other source puts you in touch with Trogdor *and* a compare/contrast discussion of the High on Life Jesus and the dreaded "atonement theology" Jesus? Who else quotes Lina Lamont *and* Thomas Aquinas? And where else would you be able to talk to an actual living Holy Roman Emperor? So please, if you enjoy C&EI, could you give generously to my Paypal button on the left rail and help me keep on with making the blog a financially viable use of my time? I love doing it, but there's only so many hours in a day and writing is time intensive. If I don't make enough here, raw economic reality means I gotta make the money somewhere else writing something else. Oh! And if you prefer to get a goody for your investment in quality blogging, consider buying my books and tapes for yourself and 20 or 30 of your closest personal friends. Also, if PayPal gives you the jibblies for some reason, feel free to email me and I can give you my snail mail address. I'm happy to take a check! Thanks ever so for your lovely support of CAEI! It is deeply appreciated! Sunday, February 22, 2004
Chris Johnson (apparently) get a visit from the subject of the handwringing sympathy ad for pedophilia masquerading as journalism that I blogged the other day I wonder if any of my gay readers are going to wander over there and insist that he stop borrowing from the Gay Agitprop Handbook to justify his sinful behavior? It's hard to tell the rhetoric apart. I don't agree with the good bishop on everything, but man, do I like him! Burke for Archbish... Oh. I guess they've already taken care of that. I begin to hope for an American Pope after all. (Relax. It'll never happen.) Mammon and Moloch, Inc. Eating children and making a fat profit off of it for over 5000 years. Business fell on hard times during the apex of the damned Catholic Church. But now the old firm is tanned, rested, and ready for all the new opportunities that a technology divorced from Christian influence affords. Oh, and meanwhile, Euro schools are wondering whether Christian education should teach Christian morals. So paralyzed are the ninnies debating this that the only voice of sanity comes from an atheist: In an opinion article for London's Times that same day, a self-proclaimed atheist, Mick Hume, stated: "If there is to be RE in state schools, I would prefer my children to be taught full-on Christianity than offered a vapid pick-and-mix of multicultural spirituality." Yes. A fine time to entrust the power of determining what "human" shall henceforth mean to the children of Adam. As long as they promise not to wantoning destroy human life for the sake of Massive Money, I'm sure they will do just great. Steve Greydanus on the Passion Here and here. Ebert and Roeper love it too. But they aren't Highly Trained Professional Chancery People, so disregard such critics--unless they hate the film. Then they are the last word in professional film criticism. A Guide to Passion in the News! When a major media source like the Bucyrus Telegraph-Forum (serving Bucyrus and Crawford County Ohio) sits up and takes notice, you *know* you've arrived. Word is we've signed Arnold Ziffle as a major celebrity promoter. The High on Life Jesus Meme Continues to Gather Steam I just love how the impartial media levels the playing field so that a few academics with the Latest Dimwitted Fad are on an absolutely equal footing with All Christians at All Times. There is, you see, the "camp" that says the death and resurrection are completely inconsequential to the gospel and the "atonement theology camp" (which has, you know, kooks like Mel Gibson in it) who, get this, think Jesus died for their sins. Can you imagine? They actually think that. But highly educated theologians are, of course, clearing up that ridiculous misreading of the gospels. Some of my readers have been expressing the hope that the launch of the Passion will be a big Cultural Victory and that The Tide Has Turned in American Culture. Mmmmmaybe. I merely note that the apostles probably had similar thoughts on Palm Sunday. They were right about the coming triumph of Christ. But they forgot to take into account that said triumph always comes through the cross, not without it. Moral: Expect the devil to be *more* furious, for he knows his time is short. The attacks on the film, the body of Christ, and so forth will be *more* vicious, I reckon. Oh! And look here's Mitch Albom demanding Mel do what nobody ever demands *you* do about embarrassing things your parents have said. And there's Andy Rooney trying and convicting Gibson of being a "wacko" because, because, well, dammit, he just is. He made a movie about Jesus after all! What further proof do you need? Expect more of the High on Life Jesus meme as the serpent attempts the laughable Big Lie of denying that Jesus mission had anything to do with death and resurrection at all. He loves Big Lies. Interesting discussions of... two responses from two different bishops to The Passion. Don't forget to read Amy's followup. Yes! The Archdiocese of Denver gets it! Check out the link to "A Guide to the Passion" on their home page. This is a Golden Opportunity for Catholic evangelization. Carpe diem! Thank you, Denver! Archbishop Chaput: Mazeltov! Bishop of Cincinnatti attempts to square circle Bishop Pilarczyk specifically cites the Catechism to buttress his claim that barring special rights for homosexuals is "unjust discrimination". Yet he also opposes a gay rights law that is the goal of those attempting to overturn "Article XII" to the city charter. A Jesuit writes me: Why do you encourage the kind of Jesuit bashing that regularly goes on in the comments section of your blog? When you title a post "Jesuits, of course" you make it sound as if this is all you can expect from the Society of Jesus, which is untrue. Then, naturally, the comments that follow are a rush of anti-Jesuit remarks. I do not understand why you associate anything/everything bad going on at a Jesuit university with the Jesuits. When something goes bad at another Catholic enterprise, you don't post things like "Catholics, of course" or "Diocesans, of course." You just aren't giving the Jesuits a fair shake. I rejoice that there are good signs for the future and I do indeed implore our Father that they continue through Jesus Christ. I certainly do not intend to sow despair among good Jesuits and I say, "God bless you for your hard work in the Vineyard." Please understand I write out of my experience. I have known or know of the following Jesuits whom I regard very highly (excluding you, O Anonymous Jesuit writer, who I also regard highly but who doesn't count since I'm replying to you): John Hardon, Joseph Fessio, Robert Spitzer, and Paul Mankowski. That's it. I've exhausted my list of positive experiences with Jesuits. That doesn't mean all the rest are bad. But the rest of my experience has been dreadful. Here in Seattle, I'm awaiting the moment Rome opens interreligious dialogue with the people who run Seattle U. The horror stories I could tell about the dreck their theology department pumps out could curl your hair. And when I survey the Stalinist and Machiavellian treachery of places like USF, my opinion drops lower. So I'm reflecting my experience. But I do not mean to claim that my experience is universal and I shall most certainly blog anything positive you'd care to send me about the Jesuits. I'd love to see the old Society pull it together and see a new birth of fidelity. But then I'd like that for the whole American Church. So please forgive me if I've "bashed" Jesuits. I haven't meant to. It's just the the news stories I'm sent seem to reflect my experience. Please, please, please show me the good stuff they're doing. I'd be tickled pink to run it. Answer: yes The Stupid Party has always been run by Mammon First Conservatives who are reluctantly allied with Family First Conservatives. We've gotten bones thrown to us over the year to keep us on the reservation. But the real energy is directed far more to Mammon. And even that has largely been abandoned now that the Stupid Party holds both Congress and the White House. They're spending like drunken sailors. Hence the name "Stupid Party". |
20.jpg){kind=link}