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 Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!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, March 30, 2006
Heading out to Bay City, Michigan Tomorrow! March 31-April 1, I'll be speaking at a Lenten Retreat on Repentance and Conversion at St. Stanislaus Kostka in Bay City, MI. Topics: How I Got This Way; This is My Body, Salvation: Participation in the Divine Nature; and Where Are You With God? Contact Kambria McLean for more info. See you Monday! I'm happy to report I have found another sensible Jesuit As a former Evangelical, I learned elementary logic from people like Josh McDowell and his famous "train" analogy. Fact is the engine, Faith is the coal car, and feelings are the caboose. Similarly, in considering what to do about the Islamosphere, the hard reality the post-Christian West must face is that Cult is the Engine, Culture is the coal car, and the view of the human person (and everything that flows from that, including political and economic structures) is the caboose. The mistake of our current approach is that we are trying to make the caboose the engine by grafting democratic capitalism (predicated on a view of the human person that is not just foreign to Islam, but *anathema* to it) on to a culture that is founded on a vision of God and man *specifically designed* to repudiate the Christian view. Our vague evolutionary notions then encourage us to think that with sufficient time, democracy and capitalism will somehow transmute Islam into a religion that does not view man as slave and God as Master. Ain't gonna happen. Sooner or later we will have to do the hard work of a) returning to the gospel (or else our *own* democratic capitalist culture will likewise become a slave culture) and b) proclaim the gospel, not just the ersatz substitute of the American Way, to Muslims. There's an interesting discussion of the article over at Amy's place. Ed Peters on All the Complications Ensuing from TomKat's Baby and the Theology of Baptism Stay Catholic. It makes life easier. Weight of Glory Looks at the Phenomenon of Vigilantes for Jesus Jesus told the parable of the wheat and the tares for a reason. Vigilante attempts to purge the church of the impure are doomed. St. Tom DeLay Suddenly Gets Concerned about Persecuted Christians It's good to know that when Christians are really persecuted in this world, there'll be a conference--led by a politician eager to get back in the good graces of his constituents--to lift their spirits. Or perhaps I should take a more Pauline attitude: What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice. (Philippians 1:18). Yeah, that's probably better. Update: I stand corrected. Apparently DeLay has long championed persecuted Christians. Bully for him! A curious peek into the mind of one Muslim attempting to make excuses for persecuting Christians I'm thinking it's well past time for informed Catholics to begin trying to engage ordinary Muslims in the blogosphere in conversation. Another Chance for Lenten Almgiving Norberto Sanchez lost his entire family (wife and five children) this weekend in an automobile accident. Nuff said. God, be with your crucified servant in his hour of agony. When it comes to how things are going in Iraq... There are sources I trust (such as the ones Amy cites here) and sources I don't (such the Happy Talk Psy Ops Engineers of the Bush Administration profiled here). Who Could Not Love a Guy like Scalia?  I particularly love the gratuituous Catholic bashing in the caption: Antonin Scalia gestures inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. It will be a cold day in hell before you read "Obnoxious photographer shoves cameras in faces of worshippers inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross". It will be even longer before the Know-Nothings at the Herald acknowledge that they are, in effect, arguing for the extirpation of Catholics from public life. For not other logic than that is behind the exchange that prompted Scalia's perfectly fitting response: Smith was working as a freelance photographer for the Boston archdiocese’s weekly newspaper at a special Mass for lawyers Sunday when a Herald reporter asked the justice how he responds to critics who might question his impartiality as a judge given his public worship. Message: Catholic should not be judges. Reading you loud and clear, Herald. And by the way, "Vaffanculo." Happy Birthday Pentacostals! Happy Birthday to You! With more than 580 million adherents (growing by 19 million per year and It might not be a bad idea for Catholics to inquire as to the attraction of Pentacostalism and to try to build bridges with this group. This seems to me to be much more sensible approach than the "Fear them and/or dismiss them" approach of so many evangelism-allergic Fortress Catholics I meet. The faith is not supposed to hide in a fortress. The faith is supposed to go into the whole world. Two Immutable Laws of Internet Discourse 1. When somebody begins a long diatribe about the Catholic Church with "I was raised Catholic..." you can know with absolute certainty that what is about to follow will be a farrago of ignorant nonsense about the Catholic faith. 2. When somebody concludes a moral argument with "This does not make me a bad person", you can be certain that they are a moral imbecile. More Hilarity from the "Extirpate Religion From the Public Square" crowd The fun thing about stories like this (apart from the amusing spectacle of watching Bill O'Reilly bravely defending the Easter Bunny) is that weird cross currents in our culture that this points out. Many is the Fundie or Evangelical who has expressed a dislike of the Easter Bunny because he's, you know, *pagan* and all. The emphasis for years has been on "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" and a dislike of all the non-Christian stuff Easter (like Christmas) has acquired over the centuries. But now, when the ultra-paranoid legions of the ACLU and their minions attack the Easter Bunny in their insane zeal to make sure that no passing non-Christian feels "oppressed" by his hippity-hoppity evangelism for a Theocratic Fascist state, conservative Protestants are forced into the weird position of having to defend this little cultural bauble because they recognize that an attack on the Easter Bunny is yet another attack on the Christian faith and part and parcel of an ongoing campaign to eradicate every last vestige of the Western Catholic tradition and culture from American life. A reader writes: Here is an article from the latest National Catholic Register that I thought you might find interesting. It's a good article and raises a lot of good points, but I still can't help but think it misses the point a bit. I guess I don't necessarily agree that there has to be a dichotomy between literature and pop culture. It used to be that artists created their work for the consumption of ordinary people. Shakespeare entertained the groundlings. Dickens is one of the literary greats of the 19th century and he wrote for the ordinary Joe. The Lord of the Rings is, at once, great literature and an icon of pop culture. But when the professional critics get involved, there is alwasy the temptation to pull "litritchuh" away from the unwashed herd and seal it into a mausoleum of upper crust sensibility. It think its possible (for somebody else, not me) to write fiction informed by a Catholic sensibility that is both good and popular. No telling though, how that will happen. An opportunity to put the parable of the Sheep and the Goats into Action A brother in Christ needs a little help. Locate the Paypal button on his right rail. Grip mouse. Let conscience guide hand. A reader asks: I'm not sure if you are the guy to help answer this but I thought I would give it a shot anyway: I'm a faithful Catholic here in the Archdiocese of Denver (a born-again cradle Catholic if you will) but also an American who believes in a sustainable immigration policy, controlling our borders, actually enforcing our laws, and not rewarding law-breakers. Obviously the mass recent pro-illegal immigrations demonstrations have been in the news lately. In that news and the resulting commentary, I've heard a couple of talk show hosts railing against the Catholic Church for actively promoting these demonstrations and undermining this country and its laws (Michael Reagan and Michael Savage to be precise--both have been laudatory of the Church in the past so I don't think its outright anti-Catholic bigotry). The motive they purport being the Church needs people in the pews and the easiest way is to get Catholics from Mexico. I understand the Church's teaching and I also want what is best for all involved. However, I don't want a wide-open border for any number of logical reasons. And I certainly don't want my Church actively involved in undermining this country's borders or its laws and promoting people to come here illegally, either directly or indirectly. I've tried to find more exact reporting of the Church's involvement in these types of activities but have not been able to find anything other than some rather disconcerting pro-illegal immigration sentiments by the Archbishop of Los Angeles (I have found stuff about Marxist organization and Spanish media outlets promoting the demonstrations). Would you have any insight into what the Church's actual role in these demonstrations or other efforts that might be considered counter-productive to maintaining what is left of our border and our immigration laws might be? Your personal thoughts of course would be more than welcome. You're right. I'm not the guy to help answer this question because I've given it very little thought. I haven't familiarized myself with the teaching of the bishops on this matter and am of two minds about the subject. On the one hand, it seems to me that Caesar certainly has a right and even a duty to maintain his borders, particularly in an age of terrorism. On the other hand, I don't take civil law as an absolute. The law is made for man, not man for the law. If, as is the case, the American economy is willing to quietly let illegals across the border in order to exploit them as a bottomless pool of cheap labor, then it seems to me fair that these human beings should enjoy the accomodation of the country that is exploiting them. If that means more paperwork for a bureaucrat, well then, so be it. I think the notion that the Church is siding with the exploited illegal is due to some desire to pack the pews is silly and something only believable to a neanderthal like Michael Savage. From the Church's perspective, the biblical mandate is clear: you shall not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, for the Lord himself is their avenger. This is nothing new and is obviously what drives the Church's thinking here. Whether the exact policies being advocated by Mahony et al are the best way to implement that thinking, I don't know. But that is the theological rationale, not some stupid notion that packing the pew with destitute migrant workers will somehow politically benefit the Church. Beyond those vague thoughts, I'm not much help. We don't have too many illegals pouring over the border from Canada and so the issue simply hasn't been on my mind much. Ancient Romans Took Their Prurient Decadence Straight and Didn't BS Themselves That they were serving some Higher Purpose Apostate Puritans cloak their decadence in Science. Our Swedish Manufacturers of Culture: Chloroforming the last drowsy vestiges of a troubled post-Christian conscience. Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Pro-Lifers and Pro-Aborts Both Driven Crazy by New South Dakota Abortion Law How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity! On the whole, I'll take Bobby Schindler's Love for Terri Schiavo Over Fr. John Paris' Ingenuities Any Day The Hopes of the Secular Post-Christian West Encapsulated Wafa Sultan (an American non-religious woman of Arabic descent) Clashes with Muslim Cleric The hope of the secular post-Christian West is that there will rise up from the Islamosphere a whole lot of Wafa Sultans: people who are culturally and religiously indistinguishable from the editorial board of the NY Times but dressed in Arab skin. These mythic legsions will then, it is hoped, make Bronze Age Fanatics go away by arguing them down on Larry King. The West suffers from a fundamental failure to grasp that a diseased and inflamed spirituality can only be confronted by a healthy spirituality, not another diseased spirituality like Wester post-Christian secularism and New Age drivel. Things I don't need in my comboxes "I mean this - you are a truly evil human being." It appears St. Blog's resident cockeyed optimist, Mr. Sullivan, made somebody mad yesterday. Chris says lots of things I believe to be absurd. He tries to enjoin his private decision to be a pacifist on everybody as a duty of the Faith and use the Catechism to do it. I politely refuse to buy that. He has some sort of theory that Islam and Christianity are really the same thing. I laugh. He appears to believe we can be certain hell is empty and its compulsory heaven for all. Most recently, he was arguing that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (in which the Pope states "in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful") can somehow be used to prove that women should be ordained. Chris, in short, has a genius for torturing texts until they say what he wants them to say. That said though, it is obvious to anybody that Chris would not hurt a fly. Pacifist to a quixotic fault? Yeah. Indifferentist? Yep. Unwilling to part with pet idea even if the Pope dropped a brick on his head saying "You're wrong!"? Granted. But evil? Come on! What ocassioned this little outbreak of hysteria was a confluence of two posts. In one, my other resident eccentric, Pace, remarked (pausing from his periodic theorizing that his favorite films are somehow avatars or incarnations of the Blessed Trinity) to offer this mysterious remark "I'll say it even if no one else will: 9/11 was a gift to America. It gave us the gift of silence and peace. We all felt it. We could have forgiven. We could have even been thankful." Not surprisingly, people were offended by this. The same poster who declared Sullivan "evil" also told Pace to "sleep well in hell". And cyberspace being what it is, nobody paused to reflect on the fact that a) Pace has a lot of views which are, as I said, eccentric and b) what he was saying was weirdly true. So it fell to Chris to point out the biblical facts by noting that Paul (and the logic of the whole Christian tradition does, in fact, bid us to "Giv[e] thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 5:20). It was for this that Chris was declared "truly evil". The problem is: he's right. Paul does say this. And the reason he says this is because he knows that if God's crucifixion can be an occasion of thanksgiving, then there is nothing the devil can devise (including 9/11) that is not also going to ultimately be an occasion of grace. Obviously this is not to say that sin and evil are not sin and evil (though Chris' extreme refusals to acknowledge the reality of evil may put us at odds here). But my point is this: In the midst of our national anguish after 9/11 there *was* a curious sense of silence and peace. It was not the peace of external circumstance. There was tremendous suffering. But there was also the peace of moral clarity, of a people driven to its knees in prayer and finding (for a brief while) that the Permanent Things were the things that still mattered. In that sense, we can truly say Satan meant 9/11 for evil, but God turned it to good. If we deny this, then it seems to me we give Satan the Victor's Laurels in 9/11. I see nothing self-flagellating in that. Nor do I see anything wrong with the proposition that we might have forgiven. We are, after all, commanded to do so by our Lord. Of course, what most people hear in that is, "We should have turned the other cheek and not destroyed the Taliban and launched the war in Afghanistan". I don't believe forgiveness means that. I think just War and forgiveness are reconcilable. I think it is possible to say, "Since you pose a danger to my family and do not intend to cease, I will destroy you" without tagging on to that "and I hope you are damned forever". All of which is to say, I guess, when you meet an eccentric in a combox, try the experiment of reading him charitably before immediately declaring him "truly evil" and damning him to hell". He might have something worthwhile to say now and then. Michael Totten's Tour of a Former Baath Prison A reader asked me to put this up to "complement" linking the Buchanan piece. I quite agree that both realities must be weighed. Real horrors were committed under Sadaam's regime. Similarly (though obviously not quite in the same vein), I have never said the Afghanistan war was unjust. A real evil was confronted and destroyed when we wiped out the Taliban. My point in linking Buchanan was not to say the Afghanistan war was unjust. It wasn't. My point is that we are being extremely naive to think we can patch two products of the Christian tradition (democracy and capitalism) on to a culture that has, for a thousand years, been specifically and carefully organized to repudiate that Tradition, including especially its view of the freedom and dignity of the human person ("Freedom go to hell!"). It is, quite rightly, the best we can do. But that's my point: the best the secular post-Christian West can do is not going to be good enough to deal with the problem. Which means the secular post-Christian West is either going to have to return to its Christian roots or embrace failure and its consequences. In other words, my point is "Repent! And believe the Good News!" That seems to be where Jesus started his preaching and it still seems like a good place for us to begin. Nick Thomm Update Last updated 03/28/06 News of the Weird When I think "Culture of Life" I think "Britney Spears". I think two miniature versions of these would make real conversation starters if used as bookends. Tuesday, March 28, 2006
In my ongoing quest to dominate American media... I will be on the radio twice today. First, I'll do my usual Tuesday gig on Heart Mind and Strength with the mellifluous Greg Popcak and his star-spangled wife, Lisa. Together, we shall recite the entire libretto of the Pirates of Penzance in five minutes. Look for me around 2:45-2:50 PM EST. Then, at 4:00 PM EST, I will be the featured guest on Dave Burns' show on WHON 930 AM in Centerville, IN. We'll be talking about The Da Vinci Deception (a book you badly need to buy from me and read, if you haven't yet). It's a call-in show, so that should be interesting. Both shows stream on the web. Incubus is now available on DVD! The unforgettable all-Esperanto film starring William Shatner. If you don't love this, you don't love the movies (or, at least, you don't love William Shatner.... or maybe just Esperanto)! The Webelves Savor Victory as Abdul Rahman is Released But they also remind us that the Afghanis promptly jailed two more Christians and thousands more fear execution at the hands of the glorious democratic regime. It's like a perfect storm for the Christians in the Islamosphere. Democracy frees Muslims to get in touch with their Inner Bronze Age Fanatic. The vast majority of the world, including our Courageous Press, says nothing because it's just Christians being murdered, after all. It's not like drawing insulting cartoons or something really serious. Meanwhile, the Administration has to act to save Rahman or its nation-building efforts look even more silly than they already do. But at the same time, the Administration also benefits if the Courageous Press ignores the plight of the Christians, because then at least one failure is not being hammered on by reporters. So unless activists are able to maintain a level of excitement for the *next* batch of Christians threatened with death in the Islamosphere (and such moods are very hard to maintain the public mind), the Administration will have much less reason to draw attention to the fact that we have made Afghanistan safe for sharia and Christian persecution and are laboring to do the same for Iraq. This is what I think is meant by "mission creep". But, at any rate, thanks be to God for Abdul Rahman's freedom and (God willing) safe asylum in the US. Reverse Peter Kreeft Syndrome I love Peter Kreeft. He's a great writer, a wise man, a funny guy, and somebody I am honored to have spent a little time with. He was a hugely important guide for me in coming into the Church, and was very generous with his time in corresponding with both me and Sherry Weddell as we wrestled with the sorts of stuff Evangelicals wrestle with as they struggle with the Church's claims. One of Peter's more endearing qualities is that he adores C.S. Lewis, who was also a huge influence on me. In fact, he adores Lewis so much, that his highest form of praise for a writer is to compare him with C.S. Lewis. This works when the writer is actually like C.S. Lewis, but it can have funny results when the writer is "like Lewis" only in the sense that both are writing in the English language. I mention this because something similar often seems to obtain in our political discourse when we are looking for superlatives for our enemies. Very quickly, we fall for Godwin's Law and start comparing them to Hitler and/or Stalin. Here, for example, is Dennis Prager announcing that the Islamic threat is greater than German and Soviet threats were. I can't help but be reminded of a discussion I recently had over on the Secret Agent Man blog with Joe D'Hippolito, who insisted, despite all reason and evidence, that Islam is "totalitarian". Ultimately it seemed to me to come down to the fact that because Joe hates Islam, he insisted on calling it totalitarian and "religious Nazism" because those were the worst insults he could think of, even if they had nothing to do with actually describing the phenomenon of Islam. In much the same way, it appears to me that many Western thinkers tend strongly to describe this new global-historical conflict in terms which evoke WWII and the Cold War, even though it is highly dubious that there is much in common between them beyond the broad notion of a "clash of civilizations". Is Islam a huge danger? Of course. Does that danger look anything like the great totalitarian systems of the 20th century? Well, not really, so far as I can see. It's radically decentralized nature is, in some way, almost the exact opposite of a totalitarian system. But until we doff our secular glasses, we're going to continue to talk as though this is WWII/Cold War redux--and say a great deal of nonsense in the process. A reader writes: I wonder if you can help me with this question. An evangelical co-worker of mine and I were discussing acts of penance yesterday. He asked, "Why do you punish yourself?" I explained that penance is not punishment. He asked what is it then. I replied that t is an act of atonement for sin. He very firmly said that sin has already been atoned for, etc., what we have to do is accept it, no one can do anything to atone for sin, faith not works, etc. You're both partly right. Jesus has atoned for our sin by his cross and resurrection (which is what your Evangelical friend is keyed into). However, as Paul makes clear, we are *participants* in the work of Christ in the world, by Christ's own grace. And so our sufferings (both voluntary and involuntary) are given both meaning and power to help others. The Evangelical conception of salvation has always had trouble finding a place for suffering. Amalgamated to an American ethos which says that suffering is always to be avoided, comfort is always to be sought, and anyone who disagrees is "sick", Evangelicalism can often become a tradition which not only avoids suffering but condemns those who experience it as "not having enough faith", etc. Typically, when this happens, there will be voices in the Evangelical community who will speak out on behalf of the sufferer, but that's about as far as it will go. Suffering will then be called a "mystery" (which it indeed is) and then simply dropped. The idea that there is some positive good--and emphatically some atoning virtue--in suffering is profoundly opposed by Evangelical theology because it is thought to rob Christ of the glory of his atoning work. Paul sees it differently. That is why he tells the Colossians (in a verse that is weirdly invisible to Evangelical theology: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." (Colossians 1:24). This is a classic example of a passage which, if it had not been in the Bible already when Evangelicalism was invented, would *never* have gotten in. It's point is utterly and thoroughly Catholic. It does not mean "Jesus didn't sufffer enough, so we have to make up the difference. It means that Christ has made us sharers in his work on earth and our sufferings are part of the means by which he is continuing to save the world. When we bear suffering we are, in a profound way, united with Christ crucified. When we do it with mercy and patience and love, we are being made agents, by the power of the Spirit, through which Christ takes away the sins of the world. If that were not the case, then there would be no point whatever in our sufferings (or indeed, in anything we do). For only what we do in God will remain. Schiavo Laws Succumbing to Culture of Death Before kingdoms change, men and women must change. Meanwhile, poor Stephen Hand is faced with a bitter choice and chooses to do the right thing. God bless him and his family! A reader writes: I teach at a Catholic high school, and a couple of my collegues in the Religion dept. asked me if I was ok with their idea that the summer read for all students 9-12, be Richard Bach's Jonathan Livingston Seagull. I said that my understanding of Richard Bach from reading a few things by him, was that he was a classic New Ager. My memory of Seagull was that it was a none-too-subtle slam on organized religion and authority in general- perhaps the theme of we are our own God as well. Can you and your readers provide me with more info? I suggested that since we only have 1 book to select we should be looking at something more explicitly Catholic or Christian a la CS Lewis. What do you think? Seagull is just drivel. You are right to lobby for something (virtually anything) else. For heaven's sake, when I was in ninth grade, we read Great Expectations. Your fellow faculty are sending a very clear message to the students: "You're too dumb to read a really challenging book. Have some goo instead." Here's a poll for my readers, name some of the books you were reading at that age, whether on your own or as homework. In addition to Great Expectations, I remember The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds, Lord of the Flies, The Great Gatsby, the transcript of the Scopes Trial, and the poetry of Carl Sandburg off the top of my head. If I search my memory I could find plenty more. (I also read crap, but it wasn't assigned by lazy teachers). Since you mention Lewis, I would heartily recommend either his Space Trilogy or Till We Have Faces. Anybody have their high school bibliography at hand? When the nicest person in the California Legislature wants to kill the feebs and geezers, who can argue with that? Another triumph of American Catholic catechesis. Sentiment uber alles. Geocentrism Hits the South Mississippi Press! Evidence in favor of geocentrism includes the fact that nobody could convince Bob Sungenis to part with a thousand dollars by admitting he was wrong. Also, it turns out Einstein's theory of relativity means that everywhere is the center of the universe, so why not earth? This would be a workable argument, except that Bob himself claims to have disproven Einstein, so why trot him out now? Oh, and if you get in a helicopter and hover in one spot, the earth doesn't turn underneath you, so it's not rotating (no mention made of the fact that the atmosphere is moving too). Sigh. Monday, March 27, 2006
From our "Democracy Will Fix Islam" Files  Here the Wisdom of the Voters calls for the trial (and inevitable execution) of Abdul Rahman for converting to Christianity. In other news, members of the Chattering Classes courageously wring their hands over the Imminent Theocracy just about to be imposed on the United States by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. On the bright side, Rahman's plight bears out the truth again that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. A reader writes: I am looking for some resources which will help give a Catholic scripture reference point on how we are to approach "success" in our work. How do you reconcile personal desires for financial success and accomplishment in our work with what is truly the will of God for our lives. I am in sales and the emphasis is always on meeting certain production requirements. I believe there is a science to sales in that the more people you call on the more predictable will be your sales success if you only maintain a certain number of prospect contacts. This results in a certain number of sales and from that you can calculate what your income will be. If the sales are NOT resulting in sufficient income based on MY personal goals, how can I use the words of scripture to gain wisdom that this is what God in fact wants me to do. I hope you understand where I am coming from on this. Worry and often anxiety accompany me daily on this challenge. Any suggestions or advise would be appreciated. I'm about the wrongest guy in the world to ask about stuff like this. I know nohting about "financial success", so I know very little about how to approach it spiritually. "Seek first his kingdom, and everything else will be added as well" seems to me to be sound, as does "Do not worry about tomorrow" and "Your heavenly Father knows what you need". Beyond that, I have nothing intelligent to add. Maybe some of my readers do. Satan Infiltrates Homeschool Movement Harry Potter site run by a homeschool kid! Eek! Rowling is tunnelling under your house! Andrew Sullivan, who is currently reading Bart Ehrman in a desperate attempt to cobble together a New Christianity in his own image and likeness, trashes yet another member of St. Blogs. A reader writes: I'm sure the blogosphere will be talking about this article by Joy Jones: Marriage is for white people. The problem is, most of the discussion will be off the mark. As I read the article, I noticed a distinct materialist point of view, and one that bordered on anti-personalist. The tragic state of affairs in the Black community seems to be exacerbated by the view of marriage that is economic, and not spiritual. The tone seems to be "what do I get from marrying you?" instead of "what do I give?" A reader writes: I wonder if you can direct me to any documents on the Church's teaching on managing the mentally handicapped who are incapable of employment, marriage, or even most self-control, but quite capable of producing offspring who will probably be just as damaged as themselves. I am writing because of our son -- twenty-two, burdened with pervasive developmental delay, some form of autism, functional retardation, and emotional problems, but physically more or less normal. Sooner or later (probably sooner, as he is becoming unmanageable) he will have to go into a group home, and what then? I don't know. My *guess* is that She would, for such a detailed and specific situation as yours, refer you to experts in care for the mentally and emotionally disabled. In short, She would invoke the principle of subsidiarty, whereby the people closest to the problem are like the people who know best what to do. At the same time, of course, she would also point to the elementary virtues of prudence and justice. But I doubt you will find a detailed program from some bishop on how to handle your particular situation. Perhaps one of my readers can point you to some resources. I will also check with my wife, who has some expertise in this area. Evil Party Members Hope to Exploit Fears of Aging Members of Generation Narcissus in Order to Acquire Power through the Sacrifice of Children to Moloch Britain's first IVF "designer baby" clinic is to charge about £6,000 for a made-to-order infant. The obvious question nobody is asking here is: if baby can be manufactured, bought, and sold, then why cannot human beings be reduced to property again and the slave markets start up their lucrative trade once more? E.M. Vidal is excited about the new film on Marie Antoinette She also hopes she will be canonized someday. Don't know enough about Marie to say one way or another, but my inclination is to think that the victims of the French Revelution probably got the shaft from historians general sympathetic to Revolutionary polemics. Maybe one of my readers can comment from a more informed perspective. From our "Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that despises children" file The tortured conscience of our sex-obsessed culture tries to figure out a way to reconcile its deep belief that Consent is the sole arbiter of morality with the knowledge that there is something wrong with statutory rape. As ever, when denizens of the culture of hedonism wrestle with their conscience, the conscience loses. Fr. Pavone Scorches the Insufferable Michael Schiavo Meanwhile reader July Loesch Wiley send this along: REMEMBRANCE of EASTER 2005 The Webelves Continue to Track the Abdul Rahman Story The next hurdle, after the state relents, is protecting him from freelance justice from family and neighbors in the Religion of Peace. A reader writes: My husband had decided to go to confession after 45 years--and it's this coming Wednesday. I was much like your husband when I made my first confession. I thought God would play "Simon says" with me and if I inadvertantly overlooked something God would not forgive it. However, the understanding of the Church is that *all* sin is forgiven in the sacrament so long as we have a sincere intention to confess our sins and repent. So if you accidently forget something, it's covered. Obviously, if you *deliberately* withhold something that's a different matter, but I doubt your husband aims to do that. The point is that the sacraments are not reducing valves intended to keep out the weak and forgetful. They are instead meant to be the *sure* place where we meet the grace of God, the God who is for us, not against us. God will not be standing over your husband with a stick, ready to hit him if he accidently forgets something. He's the father of the prodigal, running to welcome him home. Joseph Pearce and Pavel Chichikov will be presenting a recital of our poetry at Ave Maria University, in Naples, Florida, on Thursday, March 30, at 8 pm. You can get Pavel's Mysteries and Stations in the Manner of Ignatius here. Interesting and Beautiful Reflection from then-Cdl. Ratzinger A reader writes: In the book Journey towards Easter, a collection of retreat talks then-Cardinal Ratzinger gave in the Vatican in the presence of Pope John Paul II during the Lenten season of 1983, there is a chapter well worth reading and especially so during this time of the liturgical year. "Chapter 4: The Paschal Mystery." It is divided into four sections: Dem Ex-Gov of WA Wants a Culture of Death A Neat, Clean Culture of Death: "I could go out in the garage and blow my brains out, but that's not what I'm talking about," says Gardner, who describes his body and spirit as progressively weakened by Parkinson's disease, with which he was diagnosed 13 years ago. "That's not dignity." Some people wodner why JPII slogged on for years and made a spectacle of himself, drooling, his face mask-like, his speech slurred. Booth Gardner is why. He was a living testament to the fact that people are not things to throw away. We can't even throw ourselves away. Gardner is a pathetic testament to how much the imperial automonous self of the West has forgotten this fundamental human fact. Friday, March 24, 2006
Prayer Requests Reader Rosemarie writes: Please pray for my sister-in-law; she was hospitalized today with a very low blood oxygen count. It could be due to a recent head injury. We would really appreciate your prayers. They have helped us in the past with many crises. Thank you and God bless all. And Stephen Hand's family has suffered a terrible tragedy. Lord Jesus, hear the cry of your servants and send them help and healing by your powerful Holy Spirit. St. Luke, pray for them! In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. A reader writes: I'm currently a junior at a Protestant College. I finally came to my senses and came back to the Catholic Church after many years of being a Protestant. This happened while I have been a student here and the conversion has definitely taken over my life. Reading your blogs and buying the books I have seen recommended on your blogs have really helped me understand the faith. My library is growing somewhat slightly out of control. Like other converts I am really enthusiastic about the Church and take Church teaching very seriously. I make no apologies for what the church teaches. It seems to me that you've actually got a very good situation if you can learn to see the gifts God has given you in the people around you. One of the big temptations for young bucks who have a deep conversion experience is that they very naturally get in touch with their inner warrior and want to go out and contend for the Faith. Nothing wrong with that. But we have to always bear in mind Paul's counsel: you wrestle not with flesh and blood. Too many young guys forget that and essentially start buying into a sort Adversarial Posture Evangelism thing. They forget that the first duty of the evangelist is to proclaim, not defend, the truth in love. Therefore, we are not to view people with incorrect opinions and ideas as adversaries to be defeated but to presume good will until it's obvious that we are wrong. Apologetics is the handmaid, not the master, of Evangelism. If you assume a posture of defensiveness, you will likely alienate and create enemies before you even start. This would be a pity because your are surrounded by people who agree with you on 99 things out of a hundred. You don't need to compromise your faith in the slightest. But you also don't need to think and speak of the folks at your school as though you are an "alien" and as though they are consciously "undermining" anything. Never ascribe to malice what can be sufficiently explained by ignorance. A reading of the Decree on Ecumenism is in order here. For instance, it is (you will be surprised to hear) not in keeping with the teaching of the Church to say "REAL unity can only be under the Pope while sharing the same Eucharist." Why? Because the choice is not between "real" and "fake". It is between "partial" and "full". The Church declares (dogmatically, even) that a baptized Protestant is in real, albeit imperfect union with the Church. That's one of the implications of "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". And of course, with your average Evangelical, that unity extends to a common belief in virtually everythign the creed has to say. Yes, there are real differences (Eucharist, sacraments, Mary, Pope) and those mustn't be whitewashed. But neither must they dominate so much as to block out the real unity that exists. Nor can they become excuses for uncharity and a sort of testosterone-driven need to do somebody down in an argument. My point: it was a saint of the Church, Francis de Sales, who said he would "shake the walls of Geneva with love". He also said you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Truth and love are not opposites. You are not compromising the truth if you love your neighbor and speak gently rather than presuming that he is out to attack the Church if his tradition has never introduced him to (or has mischaracterized) some aspects of Catholic teaching. I'm going on too long so let me simply recommend a piece I wrote sometime ago which aims to address this very matter. Hope it helps! Oh, by the way, I don't know nuthin' bout the National Workshop for Christian Unity. Sorry! Cardinal George Defended by a Surprising Voice Andrew Greeley, whose assessment of the situation seems reasonable to me. Interesting Argument between me and my friend Greg Krehbiel Greg was responding to this. I still don't see how Greg's "If a Pope is not an economist, then we can pretty much ignore what he says about economic justice" position couldn't be used by anybody, anywhere, at anytime to dismiss any Catholic moral teaching that inconveniences them. What exactly is to stop anybody from adopting Greg's logic and saying, "What does the Magisterium know about the technical details of cloning, abortion, military strategy, police work, or democratic governance? So we don't have to bother when the Church teaches about these things. They are just interfering ninnies who need to stick to their abstract little world of Transubstantion and similar abstruse subjects. Let the experts call the shots and the Church mind its own business." I think Greg's last post basically compounds the problem by adopting an "all or nothing" approach to Catholic teaching that both neglects our freedom and posits an absurd relationship between the Church as Teacher and us as disciples. The Church has never functioned on the basis of "that which is not compulsory is forbidden". It does not follow from this that any Church guidance that is not laid down as dogma with threats of anathema is therefore basically dismissible if it irritates us. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. - George W. Bush, 2nd Inaugural These are noble sentiments and true ones. I'm fond of Bush's second inaugural because it really does seem to capture something of the essence of this nation with the soul of a Church. At the same time, the tension inherent in these words must be acknowledged. If we are going to insist that minorities be protected (as we should in, for instance, the case of Christians being murdered by Afghans for the crime of being Christian) then it seems to me we *must* impose our own style of government on the unwilling. And, indeed, to Bush's great credit, that is what he is trying to do as he pressures Karzai into sparing Abdul Rahman. At the same time, we can't nanny the whole world. Sooner or later we have to take our hands off and really let people determine their own destinies. But when we do "help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way" we have to face the fact that, in a devout Islamic culture, that probably means they will freely and democratically vote in sharia and the execution of "apostates". That's the problem we've set ourselves in the quest to remake the Islamosphere in the image and likeness of American democratic capitalism. A Thomist Philosopher Friend writes: A couple of things: (1) It struck me yesterday that if the ID people do figure out and admit that they are making philosophical claims rather than positive-scientific claims, everybody will stop paying attention to them. It's only because the ID people say they are being scientific that people are up in arms about them (pro and con). I think there's a lot to this. Perhaps the confusion has arisen partly because the guys who were leading the charge here are primarily scientists, not philosophers, by training. I get the strong impression that much of ID still consists of people talking until they figure out what it is they are saying. I don't object to this as strongly as some, because it's often the way I work through things too. But it's also fraught with danger because when you think out loud, people are inclined to take what you say as your final opinion. ID's big argument seems to me to be the basic notion, used every day by everybody from Mom's to forensic pathologists, that specified complexity *always* denotes Mind at work. The cow drawn on the wall in crayon was not a fortuitous deposit of hydrocarbons caused by candle smoke: Billy did it. The hole in the victim's head was not caused by a nickel iron meteor that happened to be shaped like a bullet. He was shot. When we look at the extreme complexity of living systems, we intuit, as St. Paul says, that "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." (Rom 1:20). I've never seen anything wrong with this reasoning and it seems to me, at the end of the day, to be what the ID guys are saying. This seems to me to be a philosophical statement, but it seems to me to be a philosophical statement that it is legitimate to back up with illustrations from science (and art, ethics, and many other disciplines). I suspect the problem comes in when we try to say that science "proves" this statement as distinct from "supports" it. If we are not careful, we wind up asking science to do things it's not built to do. We can also wind up giving the impression that *only* living systems are the subject of Providence, when in fact, everything is. I suspect the ID guys know thiis and would argue that they point to living systems because there the hand of God seems to be particularly obvious, not that the hand of God is not involved in the rest of Creation as well. Anyway, as I've said before, I think there are two sets of big obvious dots being connected and I don't see why I have to choose. One set is common descent. It appears obvious to me that the fossil record (and genetics) shows a slow development over time of creatures who bear a remarkable resemblance to their immediate ancestors. It also appears obvious to me that when you look at the universe, you are looking at an artifact of something more like a Mind than anything else we know. ID seems to be trying to make that common sense case and,f or the life of me, I don't seek what's the matter with that. The Invaluable Tom Kreitzberg Puzzles Over the Torture Polling Data He also identifies the weak spot in the nonetheless interesting Crunchy Con debate. |
