Hmmm. I see I've ticked off some readers I respect

Thomas Tucker, for instance, writes:

Now, Mark- it is one thing to delete posts and ban commentors who persistently beat this drum advocating torture, and I can understand your getting tired of it. It is another thing to run this poll as some kind of litmus test so you can then decide who to delete comments from. I have never, that I can remember, commented on this issue before on your blog and have pretty much studiously avoided it. Until you ran this poll. And my comment, since it wasn't "b," has earned the dismissal of my later comments even though I was simply pointing out that no, I disagree with your writing and it is not such a simple black-and-white issue as you would have it. I never, in raising this point, advocated "slaughter of prisoners" and never have.

I have supported your blog, as you are aware. But if this kind of tactic is what you are coming to, then you don't need to delete my posts or ban me at all- I won't returnor contribute. This is fundamentally arbitrary, unfair and uncharitable on your part. It also bans legitimate discussion that you have dogmatically decided is against Church teaching. As has been said, it is your blog and you can do what you want; so can I.

The poll was not intended as a litmus test, though I can see how it came off that way. It was an effort by a rather depressed blogger to remind himself that most of his readers are not morally insane. It was done in the hope that the loonies who have been making excuses for grave evil would, if it was presented in really stark terms, renounce that evil, perhaps by the force of shame. I can't think of starker terms than "Is murder evil, yes or no?" So when (to my astonishment) one of the Torture Excusers actually tried to make the case that murder is not evil sometimes, I used his words in the hope that he and his fellow Torture Excusers would back down.

Perhaps it was ill-advised to put the stark choice in the form of a poll for precisely the reason you point out. Likewise, it may have been ill-advised to delete the chattery posts that threatened to fill up the combox at the poll. It certainly never occurred to me that any but the small group of Torture Apologists would be offended by the poll (and I frankly don't care if I hurt their feelings). I certainly didn't do the poll to discover who they are. I already know. They've been making the same weary excuses for intrinsic evil for months. I suppose I just hoped that I could shame them into shutting up and cheer myself up that theirs is not really the dominant attitude out there.

Anyway, my apologies to those who felt litmus-tested. It was not my intent. I'm just mortally sick of listening to apologetics for instrinsically grave sin and I'm puzzling through what to do about it. Bear with me.

Niall Mor could use our prayers

He writes:

Mark, I'm pleased to hear that your mother is recovering. Sadly for me, my mother Cecilia ("Cele") passed away early yesterday morning (6/29/06) due to cancer. She died at home, and my sister-in-law and a wonderful nurse's aide (Blessings on her!) reported that Mom's passing was very peaceful, without pain or struggle. The whole family was able to keep vigil with her and care for her as death approached. She received The Annointing of the Sick and a general absolution despite the fact that she had been somewhat estranged from the Church for many years. My family and I would appreciate prayers from you and your readers this week.

Thanks.

You can drop him a line at his blog.
May God grant her eternal rest, and may He give peace and consolation to you and yours, Niall, through Christ our Lord.

To my millions of Lithuanian readers:

Rejoice! The Da Vinci Deception, having previously been translated into both Canadian and Spanish, is now available in Lithuanian!

God Bless the Lakota Sioux!

A people who have experienced genocide should be a people who loathe abortion. God bless the Lakota Sioux for connecting dots that so many Jews and African-Americans have yet to connect.

Results of my Quick Poll

As I expected, the overwhelming number of respondents answered "b" to my poll. Some who answered "a" could not resist the temptation to try to make excuses for it. These ranged from claims that I was "mischaracterizing" the perfectly plain English of the passage I was quoting, to attempts to say that I was somehow indicting devil's advocates or literary figures like Uncle Screwtape to complaints that it was "inquisitorial" or the Worst. Poll. Ever. My favorites were the various attempts to claim there is some vague third way between "Murder is evil" and "Murder is okay." There isn't. When it comes to murder, it really is just a or b. Life really is that simple sometimes.

To my complainers, I reply thusly: tough. I mischaracterized nothing. My reader was openly and nakedly advocating the proposition that sometimes it's okay to "slaughter prisoners" (his words).

I try to keep the comboxes open to a legitimate diversity of opinion. I generally shoot to have that range of opinion be within the range of legitimate diversity for Catholics, though I am also cognizant of the need to respect and engage opinions outside the Catholic fold (from atheists, Protestants, believers from other religious traditions, etc.) There's a place for engaging those outside the Catholic communnion who are critical of Catholic thinking, so as to persuade them of the truth of the Faith.

But when it comes to attacks on the Faith from *within* the Catholic communion, I tend to think they should be given no quarter, lest people get the notion that dissent from the Church's teaching is a legitimate expression of Catholic Faith. So, for instance, I don't allow my comboxes to be a forum for Catholics for a Free Choice, or Catholic gay marriage advocates to persistently push their agenda. I don't allow my comboxes to be a forum for dissenters to spew sedevacantism or contempt for the Eucharist, or rejection of the Church's definitive teaching.

Which leads to the troubled conscience I'm having about the forum I've provided my realpolitik Torture Excusers. The simple fact is I'm becoming troubled by the amount of space that apologies for naked evil are coming to occupy in my comboxes. I regard the proposition "It's okay to slaughter prisoners" with exactly the same contempt and disgust as the proposition "It's okay to suck out a baby's brains." I think allowing such ideas to go unchallenged is wrong and I think it's wrong for me to provide a forum for such ideas, lest anyone get the idea that they are, in any way, compatible with Catholic teaching or part of the Church's "rich diversity". They are not. Murder is murder, even if you give it a bullshit name like "reciprocity" or whine that it's inquisitorial to call it by its proper name.

So: to my point. I'm asking my torture excusers (you know who you are) to no longer post excuses for torture and murder. If you do, I will delete them. Gresham's law applies to comboxes and think your evil prattle drives out a lot of good people while attracting more who feel safe to utter more excuses for evil.

If you ignore my request, I will delete your posts and, if you insist on it, ban you. The culture in the comboxes is becoming too toxic. I would not have Catholics here advocating abortion, gay marriage and brothels as a legitimate Catholic lifestyle. So it's silly for me to let advocates of murder, torture, and impalement go on talking as though this is somehow part of the Catholic Church's legitimate menu of moral options. Be silent on these issues or be gone. Your choice.

Stories like this...

...tend to make dust and nonsense of the notion (often espoused in comboxes) that there's nothing wrong with the Church that a return to high Tridentine Palestrina Masses wouldn't fix.

Once again, please understand that I'm not saying "We all need to have charismatic Masses." I'm perfectly happy at our regular Mass and I think there are often problems at charismatic Masses. I think there are reasons to be concerned whenever somebody says, "The reason I'm at Mass is because so and so is Pastor" or "I like this style of worship". The Mass is the Mass is the Mass and we should be there for the Eucharist, not for aesthetics that agree with us or personalities that entertain us.

That said, I also recognize that if the Church is to respond adequately to the people she serves, we have to know what people are seeking and why. Those who snort at the hordes who are leaving the Church in Latin America and say, "Good riddance! Who needs a bunch of Pentecostals!" are, not to put to fine a point on it, betraying the Church's mission of evangelization and seeking to make the Church a sort of Liturgical Club. This Congregationalist mentality is just another form of Protestantism in the long run.

The people described in this article are seeking something and their desire is not simply contemptible and dismissable. Is it partly disordered. Of course. So are your desires. So are everybody's. So the Church must either prudently begin to assess what the need is (warts and all) and respond to it. But for the Church to, as some members of Fortress Combox Utopia Catholica suggest, just sneer and continue to hemhorrage is not an option that her missionary mandate allows her to take. If we *really* believe the Catholic faith is God's answer to the deepest needs of the human heart, then we must live that. If you just think the Church is a club for people who share our taste in high Masses, there's a nice safe little combox for you to hide in, where you can complain to your fellow Congregationalists about people who don't fit your mold.

Fr. Rob Looks Into the Abyss

The Church in Africa is Booming

The gospel continues to spread despite the best efforts of us Catholics. ;)

Whaddaya know? An Actual Vatican Crackdown!

At least, according to this piece, which says that if you kill embryos, you're excommunicated. I'm skeptical about some of this, since if it is taken at face value, it would appear the Church is excommunicating a couple million members, which I find unlikely.

Applying the "Dock 50 IQ points whenever the MSM discusses religion" rule, I think I'll wait and see if there's anything to this story. My bet is that the target is not "women" but Catholics in the scientific community who are killing embryos.

Fascinating Changes Over at the Raving Atheist blog

A number of his readers are panicking and assuming he's become a theist. Why? Because he's trying to become a more virtuous person. He hasn't, so far as I can tell, advocated a single theistic idea. He's simply said that, out of respect for some of the prolifers he knows, he will not malign Jesus or Christianity any more. He's also said he's going to try to swear off mockery and sarcasm.

For this, his atheist readers are reviling him (read the comments, but put on fire retardant clothes first).

The thing that's striking about all this is how thin and reedy the "You can be atheist and still be a moral person" rhetoric sounds in the face of this gust of pure hot, irrational hatred from the comboxers. The guy simply makes a couple of moral resolutions to try to be a better and more considerate human being, and Apostles of Rational Humanism in the comboxes give vent to a volcano of adolescent puerile profanity in response. No, not all atheists are like this. But virtually all atheists (especially these maniacs) love to trot out that trope about "morals without God" in their own defense, yet never seem to note that this undercurrent of corrosive irrational hatred is often just below the surface of "hard" atheism. To the detached observer, it does look very much like RA's audience recognizes a link between an attempt to live a more moral life and theism. That's why they accuse RA of becoming a believer, despite the fact that he has simply been attempting to live out natural virtues that would have been no mystery to Aristotle. If you can be a good person and an atheist, why would they make this connection so automatically? And even more, why would they reflexively *hate* the attempt at virtue (an attempt made, so far as I can see, without any recourse to God)?

This brings us to the next point: which is that hard atheism is *essentially* negative. Some atheists (like A Philosopher in my comboxes) appear to live happy lives and not feel the need to kill God 24/7 with streams of profane blasphemy. They cordially disbelieve, but they are not filled with hatred and paranoid rage that someone somewhere might (horrors!) tend toward belief. Perhaps the apotheosis of this curious hatred of faith, hope and love is found in this comment. It reminds me inexorably of Lewis' ghosts in The Great Divorce who visit Heaven and spend their utmost energies trying to evangelize souls in glory on the superiority of Hell:

This curious wish to describe Hell turned out, however, to be only the mildest form of a desire very common among the Ghosts – the desire to extend Hell, to bring it bodily, if they could, into Heaven. There were tub-thumping Ghosts who in thin, bat-like voices urged the blessed spirits to shake off their fetters, to escape from their imprisonment in happiness, to tear down the mountains with their hands, to seize Heaven ‘for their own good’: Hell offered her co-operation.

This curiously evangelistic and militant denial of life--the very air Hell breathes--is on peculiar display in the reaction to RA's recent turn toward... well, what? Theism? No. Just civility so far as I can tell: a whack at prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude. Yet even these pagan virtues, accessible to any atheist, are too much for RA's readers. Because they have a *whiff* of something that *might* lead to theism about them, they are summarily condemned. And yet these people go on with a straight face insisting that their atheism has no effect on their moral beliefs.

Now there is always the reality of eupocrisy. Atheists who rush to condemn any attempt at the cardinal virtues may (and probably do) live better lives than their own combox rhetoric. But there is also the reality that ideas have consequences. They *may* wind up believing their own rhetoric and deliberately suppressing in themselves any attempts at mere morality, lest it lead too close to He Who Must Not Be.

RA may, for all I know, be wrestling with a turn toward theism. If so, more power to him. But I don't know this and neither do his atheist readers. All they know is that his love of life and his honorable regard for those who seek to protect it has about it the "aroma of Christ", which to them is the fragrance of death. (2 Corinthians 2:16-17). And for that, they've turned on him with shocking speed.

I'm keeping RA in my prayers. I don't know that he himself knows where he's going. But I do know he will need friends and support and prayer for the journey.

Meanwhile, the anti-war Left also ignores Just War teaching

Result: a growing incapacity to tell the difference between criticizing the justice of the war and hating the troops. Wishing troops dead, harassing their families and persecuting their children is just evil. It's got nothing to do with a principled critique of the justice of the war. It's got nothing to do with caring for Iraqis or Americans in harm's way. It's just indulgence of the sins of pride and anger.

For those who were praying for Jim Baen

I thought I should let you know that he passed away. May God grant him rest in peace through our Lord Jesus.

Another way funny piece on the Left's Vapors over Something Called "Blogofascism"

This, like the snark, the boojum, and Imminent Theocracy is one of those things the Left has to evoke in lieu of seriously thinking.

I'm lovin' this Dr. Mabuse

Another fisk of the Victorian Lady Novelist Disguised as an Episcopal Cleric. Way funny.

Quick Poll

A guy writes on my combox (why me, O Lord?):

The slaughtering of prisoners is something that we've mostly grown out of, largely by application of professional charity, solidarity, and reciprocity. This does not mean that the old rules were necessarily evil, nor is a temporary return to sections of older rules due to enemy default of agreements evil under all circumstances.

The bold text means, for speakers of English, that sometimes it's just fine to slaughter prisoners.

How many of my readers think:

a) Writing justifications for slaughtering prisoners is not evil.

b) Writing justifications for slaughtering prisoners is evil.

I vote b. How do you vote?

Just a or b. No long-winded attempts to explain why you are voting a. Just a or b.

Update: to make the choice clearer and remove all ambiguity for my perpetually puzzled cadre of moral hair-splitters, I have replaced a) with a simpler question suggested by a reader. If you have answered and feel you want to change your answer, go ahead. But just keep it a or b.

I will post after I've seen a larger sample of results on this post.

The Episcopal Information Minister Explains it All For You

Wickedly funny.

Tom Fitzpatrick of Recta Ratio writes

Greetings Fellow St. Bloggers!

I just wanted to let you all know that, after a few months of research and development, a new blog devoted to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts has been rolled out:

The Two Hearts Ablaze

It is a joint blog founded by Ginny (empress of The Inspired Traditionalist) and me (the high panjandrum of Recta Ratio).

We will be bringing our readers excerpts from the many out-of-print devotional books about the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, as well as images relating to the Two Hearts (both individually and collectively). In the coming weeks, I will be transcribing and serializing Saint John Eudes' classic work, The Admirable Heart of Mary. We are maintaining a list of links relating to the Sacred Hearts that we hope will make it the "go to" place at St. Blog's, or even on the whole Net, for information on the Sacred Hearts. We have over 120 links related to the Sacred Hearts right now, and expect that list to grow as time goes on.

What it isn't is a topical blog. Both Ginny and I have our own blogs for that (and they will remain in full swing). The Two Hearts Ablaze blog's sole focus is on the spirituality and devotion to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. We think there is certainly a place at St. Blog's for a blog like this. And if there isn't, we'll build one.

So please, spread the word about The Two Hearts Ablaze, and feel free to use our blog as a resource for information about the Two Sacred Hearts.

So now you know!

Once Again, Disputations is the Soul of Level-Headed, Puckish Common Sense

A nice little charter of freedom for everybody who does not happen to belong to a subculture that thinks its object of interest is The Most Important Thing in the World. The Church loves subcultures, clubs, private associations and people with a mutual interest in hobby horses. It also (Romans 14) encourages the members of those subcultures to remember that it is not their place to judge those who do not share their enthusiasms.

I'm just sayin'.

Postmodern Christianity is Starting to Breed Murderers

Annie Lamott, self-styled Christian of the postmodern variety, murders a man and then praises her own courage in elegant prose. Apparently she doesn't realize that intrinsically evil acts are only justifiable in the interest of the state, not in the interest of individual autonomy and comfort.

Just another foot soldier in the army of future persecutors of the Church and its primitive and backward stand for human life. "Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." (John 16:2)

Piskies Pause to Pay Fealty to Dogmatic Atheistic Materialism

Watching the recent evolution of the ECUSA has given a whole new meaning to the term "hopeful monster".

Howard Dean Trying to Sound Religious is Like Nixon Trying to Disco

Kathy Shaidle does the autopsy on Dean's recent attempts to make the Evil Party look a little less like they hold Christians in obvious and utter contempt.

Clayton Emmer Pans Superman Returns

I might go see it tonight.

Good Things are Happening out There!

Michael Novak Channels Dick McBrien

Can't see a big problem with Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene.

As a theologian, Novak is a good economist.

People are shocked--Shocked!--at the suggestion that Con Bigwigs love "24" because it makes torture look good

As per usual, Sydney hypes my point into something I never said:

So because someone says that conservatives have an insatiable blood lust for torture, that proves you right?

I think the show is popular because it's an action-adventure epic, like almost EVERY summer blockbuster that hollywood puts out. But somehow, hollywood ticket sales aren't used to smear millions of conservatives as having a blood-lust.

Um no. Didn't say nothing about "insatiable blood lust". Also didn't say anything about "millions of conservatives". I was talking about the opinion makers and people at the top.

But seriously, you *don't* think there is a desire among Adminstration supporters to excuse Administration policy and soften the ground for the Administration's stated desire to "go to the dark side" and the CIA use of torture?

Of course there is! Do you seriously think Bush supporters (including Rush "Abu Ghraib was just hazing" Limbaugh) *don't* want to try to put the best face possible on the Bushies' approval of and encouragement of torture? How naive can you get?

So, when Planned Parenthood has a fundraiser and they all watch "Cider House Rules", do you seriously think that this choice of entertainment is purely coincidental?

Come on!

Excommunication for Embryo Destruction?

Canonist Ed Peters discusses.

Voice of the Fuddled Completes Operation Mission Creep by calling for Woman Priests

Started as a confused reaction to the Scandal. Quickly got co-opted by the Usual Suspects with the Usual Agendas. Classic victims of Stockholm Syndrome.

Moral: it's not enough to Protest. You have to know what you are *for* too. VOTF was started by people utterly clueless about what the Church is and what the gospel teaches. They knew what they opposed. They had no idea what they wanted. It's a sure fire way to end in disaster.

A cloud no bigger than a man's hand

But the persecution is coming.

Jeremy Lott on Generation S.L.U.T.

The depravity of our culture shocks even the depraved. Weird currents and eddies of conscience and desire for hipness ensue.

I think again of the genuinely happy and chaste kids I saw swing dancing at my Matthew's homeschool graduation a week or two ago. Thanks be to God!

Defensive Reactions and the Skill of Thinking

Dear Friend

I refer to your website content thus:

By What Authority?

By What Authority? Mark P. Shea (A former Evangelical Protestant discovers Tradition, as expressed by the Catholic Church, is the only guarantee of the revelation of Christ) 0-87973-851-0, paper, $7.95, 192 pp. Our Sunday Visitor Book 1996.

By What Autority? shows that the Bible by itself is not sufficient.

(Satan's great deception)

We need an authority outside the Scriptures. Jesus gave us that when he set up the college of apostles and their successors, the pope and bishops. The most dramatic example of this necessity is the canon, that is, the very list of books which belong in the Bible.

(Another great Error)

Jesus had His followers and to all that were being added to the Church, His command was to "go forth and teach the nations baptising them in the Name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" - no such order of popes, cardinals etc...we are all the take part in this work.

Please note: Jesus did not say anything that was "unbiblical" all Scripture was quoted by Jesus when He walked the earth (The OT) the apostles and prophets and others inspired writers noted all that took place during Jesus' time on earth and after Jesus ascended (NT)....

Please note also: 2Ti 3:16 ALL SCRIPTURE [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Friend, if we begin to start accepting the "doctrines of men" we will be deceived...

Also note: Isa 8:20 To the "law" and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them. (you may be aware the "light" is the Holy Spirit)

What is this testimony? Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the "testimony of Jesus": worship God: for the "testimony of Jesus" is the spirit of prophecy.

Friend, if you think the Bible is not sufficient, you are in great danger.

Those who break the commandments of God and teach others to do so:
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (this does not mean that those who break the commandments will "enter" the kingdom of heaven as we take this next text into account:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work
iniquity.

Dear Friend my advice is to turn back to the Word of God, the Holy Bible as the ONLY guide towards spiritual matters - Review John Chapter 1 Verse 1-14.

God bless

Yours in Jesus

bro Harold

What strikes me about letters like this is the sheer "pre-recorded" quality of them. In their own way it's as unconscious as a knee jerk. It's like a button was punched and the irrelevant Bible verses and catch-phrases just poured out without the slightest movement of the grey matter. It never occurs to this guy that I might have given thought to the scriptural warnings about "doctrines of men". It never dawns on him that he is not the first person to have uttered all this boilerplate. It never occurs to him to wonder "How *do* we know what books go in the Bible?" It's like the letter isn't written to me at all (because he takes zero interest in what I have to say). In fact, it's like the letter is really written to re-assure himself.

Stuff like this really impresses upon me the reality that thinking is a *skill* and not all people have mastered that skill. Some just get as far as parroting comforting catch phrases and bits of wisdom they picked up from here and there. It's like Forrest Gump replying to every difficulty with "Stupid is as stupid does" whether it makes sense or not. It gives him comfort and helps him surmount challenges that threaten to rock his world. I'm skeptical as to whether it's even sinful, because you have to be able to think in order to sin. This letter seems to me to be more in the order of a primal emotional and defensive reaction like you'd get from a child. I mean that seriously and not as an insult.

Very curious.

Adversus Haereses

So the other day Ben Douglass from Sungenis' CAI helpfully jumps into some thread by recommending the highly practical and reality-based suggestion of having the state burn books on behalf of the Church.

I mentioned that I was grateful to see CAI on record as favoring book burning and moved on. Of course, cranks are never capable of seeing that they are cranks, so Ben naturally wrote me back with this long, point-missing screed:

It seems that in your rush to snap off a jab at CAI, you did not realize that by impugning the authority of an early modern Pope you were also impugning the authority of an even weightier author.

"And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of everyone; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver" (Acts 19:19). Now, was St. Luke right to celebrate this great bonfire of Satanic literature as a joyous victory for the Church? Or was he a misguided zealot who was sadly deprived of the wisdom of the second ecumenical council of the Vatican?

You might notice that the topic of Pius VII's encyclical Diu Satis is "A Return to Gospel Principles." And now you see that the his admonition that "books which openly oppose the teaching of Christ are to be burned" (ch. 15) really is a gospel principle. Well, I for one feel no need to be ashamed of this gospel principle, and it is disappointing that you feel the need to deride those who stand behind it.

And your response is that I need to get with the times? "Welcome to the 21st Century"? I'm sorry but I have no desire to imbibe the ethos of a wicked and godless generation whose cultural and spiritual sickness runs so deep that it slaughters millions of its own babies every year. The principles of modern secular society are false. Its theological virtues are mortal sins, and its mortal sins are theological virtues. In this specific instance, it is the theological virtue of charity.

So yes, like the apostles, I would burn books. I would burn a how to book of sorcery, just as I would burn a Sanger, an Allende, a Luther, a Hitler, a LeVay, or a Voltaire. Hell's vomit does not have a right to exist. Moreover, the longer it exists the more chance it has of infecting minds and leading souls to hell where they will spew what they have imbibed in this life for all eternity.

Now, I have a challenge for you. Yes, it is the 21st century. But Catholic truth is eternal, and you need to wake up to the fact that the Church has, through her Popes and Ecumenical Councils, canonized a great number of the kinds of things you sniff at as an anachronism in the modern world. You need to answer the question I asked a few days ago in the thread about Scriptural interpretation. Is the loving mother spotless in her sacred laws (as Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis Christi, and Bl. John XXIII reiterated in Paenitentiam Agere), or does she have spots? Did the medieval, and counter-reformation, and early modern Church enshrine evil in her general discipline (such as book burning), or will you stand behind her?

Please, read St. Thomas More's A Dialogue Concerning Heresies. It is available in the Yale edition of his complete works. The early modern English is a bit tough at first, but once you're used to it it's perfectly intelligible. The great saint offers a thorough apologia for the right of the Church and the civil authorities allied with her to suppress the spread of evil with orce.

Ben, I don't know how to put this delicately so I will just say it: you are a crank who lives in a world of diagrams and Catholic fascist dreams, not people. Your original note said this:

Free speech for those who speak truth, suppression by the civil authority for those who advocate murder. That's the Catholic way.

Cf. Mirari Vos, the Syllabus of Errors, Immortale Dei, Pascendi

Pius VII of happy memory was the most explicit: "Books which openly oppose the teaching of Christ are to be burned" (Diu Satis, 15)

As is typical for people who live in a world of diagrams and Catholic fascist dreams instead of people, you don't seem to notice that "suppression" by civil authorities can and has taken some pretty sinful forms. You refuse to notice that Dignitatis Humanae has been promulgated. You also refuse to notice that the Index of Forbidden books is gone, that there is no state in existence that will carry out your dream of book-burning on behalf of the Church, and that you are essentially living in a dream world that does not exist. Get over it.

Your appeal to Acts is irrelevant. This was a spontaneous pious act, not an act of the state. There are books and records I got rid of when I became a believer. But the notion that the modern secular state should be entrusted with the power to determine what may and may not be thought and spoken is crazy beyond words. Similarly, the notion (implicitly advanced by you) that there are basically two magisteria (and therefore two Churches), pre- and post-Vatican II is, not to put too fine a point on it, heretical.

So: You want harsh? I'll give you harsh: Repent of your lying falsehood which suggests that the wisdom of Vatican II (at which you openly sneer) contradicted the Scriptures. Till I receive a full recanting of this wicked suggestion and an apology for planting these ungodly and impious thoughts in the minds of the faithful I hold you vehemently suspect of heresy and forbid you to post in my comboxes. Just following your advice, dude.

Reader Glenn Cooper writes from Maryland:

I had the pleasure of meeting and socializing this past Saturday evening with a gent named Ron Miller. He's running against Steny Hoyer, the #2 Democrat in the House of Representatives, and staunch pro-abort. Mr. Miller is very well-spoken, staunchly prolife, and he's black -- a huge thing, at least when considering that 45% of the constituency in this district is African American.

It's real David and Goliath scenario.

Anyhow, as I was chatting with him, he spoke of the "religion of secularism," and I thought of your numerous posts on things like, "we can't not worship," and "supernature abhors a vacuum." Do you have an article or post somewhere that sums up your thinking on these matters? It occurred to me that Mr. Miller might be able to clarify his thoughts and speak hi position more clearly if he had a chance to read some of your writings.

I don't really think I do. Probably your best bet is to Google my archives for "supernature" or "vacuum" or "can't not worship". Sorry I'm not more help!

A reader writes:

Please check out Mommy Life. Urgent adoption need - Chinese baby with Down syndrome. Apparently the funding for the adoption is taken care of by a private donor (i.e. minimal, if any, expenses ...)

Please pass this along. You never know!! This may be the perfect fit for someone .... esp. baby James!

Could be legit, though the "all expenses paid by private donor" thing raises flags. Let the buyer beware.

I hate being right all the time

Con bigwigs get together to enthuse over ticking bomb scenarios and other unlikely hypotheticals that soften the masses up to their growing enthusiasm for intrinsically evil acts.

To explain why the show is so popular among conservatives, actor Greg Itzen -- who plays President Logan -- suggests that the Republican admiration may be because "the show depicts the need for torture".

Meanwhile, a reader writes:

I was reading through Edward Gibbon's "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and I came across the following passages in Chapter 17(at bottom of this email), talking about the increased usage of torture, first on the plebians, later on the citizens of the Empire.

Your focus on torture changed my mind about how I think about it. Don't
stop the fight.

(from Ch 17, Vol2)
The perpetual intercourse between the court and the provinces was facilitated by the construction of roads and the institution of posts. But these beneficial establishments were accidentally connected with a pernicious and intolerable abuse. Two or three hundred agents or messengers were employed, under the jurisdiction of the master of the offices, to announce the names of the annual consuls, and the edicts or victories of the emperors. They insensibly assumed the license of reporting whatever they could observe of the conduct either of magistrates or of private citizens; and were soon considered as the eyes of the monarch, and the scourge of the people. Under the warm influence of a feeble reign, they multiplied to the incredible number of ten thousand, disdained the mild though frequent admonitions of the laws, and exercised in the profitable management of the posts a rapacious and insolent oppression. These official spies, who regularly corresponded with the palace, were encouraged by favor and reward, anxiously to watch the progress of every treasonable design, from the faint and latent symptoms of disaffection, to the actual preparation of an open revolt. Their careless or criminal violation of truth and justice was covered by the consecrated mask of zeal; and they might securely aim their poisoned arrows at the breast either of the guilty or the innocent, who had provoked their resentment, or refused to purchase their silence. A faithful subject, of Syria perhaps, or of Britain, was exposed to the danger, or at least to the dread, of being dragged in chains to the court of Milan or Constantinople, to defend his life and fortune against the malicious charge of these privileged informers. The ordinary administration was conducted by those methods which extreme necessity can alone palliate; and the defects of evidence were diligently supplied by the use of torture.

The deceitful and dangerous experiment of the criminal *quaestion* [interrogation], as it is emphatically styled, was admitted, rather than approved, in the jurisprudence of the Romans. They applied this sanguinary mode of examination only to servile bodies, whose sufferings were seldom weighed by those haughty republicans in the scale of justice or humanity; but they would never consent to violate the sacred person of a citizen, till they possessed the clearest evidence of his guilt. The annals of tyranny, from the reign of Tiberius to that of Domitian, circumstantially relate the executions of many innocent victims; but, as long as the faintest remembrance was kept alive of the national freedom and honor, the last hours of a Roman were secured from the danger of ignominions torture. The conduct of the provincial magistrates was not, however, regulated by the practice of the city, or the strict maxims of the civilians. They found the use of torture established not only among the slaves of oriental despotism, but among the Macedonians, who obeyed a limited monarch; among the Rhodians, who flourished by the liberty of commerce; and even among the sage Athenians, who had asserted and adorned the dignity of human kind. The acquiescence of the provincials encouraged their governors to acquire, or perhaps to usurp, a discretionary power of employing the rack, to extort from vagrants or plebeian criminals the confession of their guilt, till they insensibly proceeded to confound the distinction of rank, and to disregard the privileges of Roman citizens. The apprehensions of the subjects urged them to solicit, and the interest of the sovereign engaged him to grant, a variety of special exemptions, which tacitly allowed, and even authorized, the general use of torture. They protected all persons of illustrious or honorable rank, bishops and their presbyters, professors of the liberal arts, soldiers and their families, municipal officers, and their posterity to the third generation, and all children under the age of puberty. But a fatal maxim was introduced into the new jurisprudence of the empire, that in the case of treason, which included every offence that the subtlety of lawyers could derive from a hostile intention towards the prince or republic, all privileges were suspended, and all conditions were reduced to the same ignominious level. As the safety of the emperor was avowedly preferred to every consideration of justice or humanity, the dignity of age and the tenderness of youth were alike exposed to the most cruel tortures; and the terrors of a malicious information, which might select them as the accomplices, or even as the witnesses, perhaps, of an imaginary crime, perpetually hung over the heads of the principal citizens of the Roman world.

History doesn't repeat itself. But it does rhyme. - Mark Twain

Chris Johnson Continues Chronicling the Piskie Meltdown

TEC is coming apart faster than expected. The "Resolveds" roll on majestically.

Hey Sean Daily!

I'm trying to email you but it keeps bouncing. What's the deal?

"We can't compromise with evil. All we can do is become evil. Or not. The choice is ours."

Bravo!

To quote the Prophet Chesterton: "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils. They differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."

Crabs vs. Humans

My latest on Catholic Exchange

The best description of religion I know is "The ultimate concern of a human person".

For the NY Times editorial board, Politics is more important than life. It's their religion.

A reader writes:

Is Behold Your Mother more theologically oriented or more practically/devotionally oriented?

I love your blog and your writings. You're doing good work. You (and Zippy) were very influential in getting me to step back a bit and make sure I was evaluating foreign policy from an eternal perspective rather than from the perspective of "realpolitik". Thanks.

Last things first, thanks for the word of encouragement. My goal is to try to think with the Church about the war as about everything else, so it's good to hear, particularly since the people who agree that our nation's embrace of torture is wicked tend to not say so while the Torture Apologists work overtime in my comboxes. It's always easier to write in disagreement than in agreement. It feels so boring to say. "Yup."

Regarding the Mary book, the answer is "Yes". That is, I've written what might be called a "one stop shopping book" on Mary that looks at both the theology as well as the devotional aspects of our relationship with her. It's basically the book I wish somebody had written when I was coming into the Church. So it deals with everything from "Where Catholics Get This Stuff about Mary" (since it appears to so many Catholics that Marian doctrine and devotion is spun from thin air) to "What Catholics Must Believe About Mary" (the doctrinal stuff) to "What Catholics May Believe About Mary" (primarily devotional stuff, with a particular focus on the Rosary). The more I studied, the more persuaded I became that the attempt to minimize Mary's place in the Tradition and in the life of the believer is a profoundly mistaken thing.

God willing, I will finally get the book published and you will be able to see what I mean. She's everywhere in the Tradition and in the life of the believer--whether we realize it or not and whether we like it or not. Sooner or later, every Christian is going to have to face the fact that the words "Behold your mother" are addressed to him or her and that this places us in a profound and intimate relationship with her, by the will of Christ himself.

Please pray that my book gets published!

ECUSA Cleric Offers to Sell you the Brooklyn Bridge

That Anglicans (Episcopalians) are able to abide with a spectrum of thought and practice seems to draw the ire of others. For those to whom life must be either/or, up or down, a decision not to choose either of those alternatives as definitive is infuriating. But a decision not to choose for one extreme or the other is not being wishy-washy; it is choosing an alternate stance that concedes we all still have much to learn.

Anglicanism does not seek compromise for the sake of inclusiveness, but rather seeks comprehensiveness for the sake of the truth. We are all aware that the Christian Church has been spectacularly wrong throughout history, often with devastating consequences. The persecutions of Copernicus and Galileo spring to mind, along with the Inquisition, the Crusades, the witch hunts, the justification of slavery and the Holocaust, all of which were rooted in various erroneous interpretations of the Bible.

When will we Christians begin to learn from the mistakes of our past? When will we realize that so many of these mistakes have taken the form of defining whole groups as vile sinners and devising ways to cast them out?

This is printed in the same paper that just a day or two ago had a column by a useful Catholic idiot who had internalized the *real* message of the allegedly inclusive Gen Con:

"After such a long time, you get tired of being blackmailed by a splinter group," the Rev. Jacqueline Means said after another historic and contentious annual convention.

"If we all can't sit at the table," she declared, "then those who have a problem with that need to find another table."

The "splinter group" in question is the rest of the Anglican communion and the of the apostolic churches throughout the world, whom the ECUSA cast out as vile sinners against the good news that homosexuality is the source and summit of all that is noble, good, and beautiful.

I repeat my offer to any Episcopalians in the Seattle area who have had enough. Drop me a line and I will point you to a good RCIA and act as your sponsor into full communion with the Catholic Church. I can't promise you no Dan Carpenters. I can promise you that the Dan Carpenters in the Church will not launch a successful revolution.

The funniest humor is unconscious humor

For instance, meet Elizabeth Kaeton, a Victorian Lady Novelist masquerading as an Episcopal cleric. She returns from the recent General Convention, in which the whole Anglican world (what she thinks of as a "splinter") politely asked her and her band of fellow revolutionaries to exercise restraint and show just a little consideration to the hearts and minds of, like, the rest of the Christian world. Her marvelously clueless response: "What does 'exercise restraint' mean?" She then goes on to a hilarious meditation comparing the ECUSA's recent murder at the hands of her friends to freeing a whale. It's a perfectly uproarious (and deliciously unconscious) farrago of New Age bathos, blissfully inconsiderate arrogance, and soppy self-pity.

By the way, the Victorian Lady Novelist description is not my own. Here's Dr. Mabuse having more fun as this gloriously narcissistic heroine of the penny dreadfuls synchronizes her ovulation with the cast of "The View" and "Steel Magnolias".

As the Pro-Choice Left Puzzles about the Wide Perception that it is Chock-Full of Anti-Christian Bigots Who Will Brook Absolutely No Dissent...

Evangelicals who refuse to carry abortion pills in Olympia, WA take the Usual Sort of Crap from people who can't rest until the abortion regime is forced down the throats of every last human being on earth.

This is not about "freedom of choice". This is about forcing people to act against their consciences so that pro-aborts don't have drive a couple of extra miles to kill their kids.

Jeremy Lott on Hypocrisy as the Compliment that Vice Pays to Virtue

Or, just because you are a hypocrite does not mean that what you assert is false or what you praise is bad.

Barna on the House Church Phenom

A perfectly predictable phenomenon when spiritual community is primarily seen as "like-minded folk getting together to support each other in their similarities". It's shooting fish in a barrel, when writing for conservative Catholics, to point out the dangers inherent in the house church model. The tendency toward little fiefdoms. The danger of half-baked theology. The shallowness. The lack of Eucharist as the center of worship.

And since conservative Catholics are so prone to recite all this to themselves and then congratulate themselves, I think I will not preach to the choir. Instead, I will say that Catholics tempted to pooh-pooh it all too quickly should reflect on the fact that there's nothing particularly apostolic, traditional, or biblical in the average parish's welcome of strangers. The praise of the ancient pagans was not "See how these Christians ignore one another." But not a few Catholics, when confronted with the warmth of Evangelical congregations, try to bluff their way out of the lousy contrast by trying to pretend our chilly and alienating congregations are somehow meritorious and Evangelicals are just a bunch of fluffy feel good happy clappies.

Catholics: take your medicine. Instead of our pretending it's somehow saintly to have congregations where nobody knows your name for years after you arrive, let's try considering the possibility of outdoing Evangelicals in welcoming and finding a place for the stranger in our midst. Love and joy and a sense of apostolic mission are not fluffy or happy clappy. They are integral parts of the gospel.

This does not mean we need house churches to replace parishes. The center of our worship is the Eucharist, not Mutual Affirmation in our Okayness. But that does not mean community is a bad thing. In addition to the Mass, creating small groups devoted to various good and apostolic works is a perfectly lovely way to help build up the body of Christ. Places where people can find what they are looking for in house churches should be Catholic places. Because they will look for them whether we Catholics purse our lips disapprovingly or not. And if they are not Catholic places, they will go anyway and learn junk theology (often from anti-Catholics with a bullying lust to dominate others in their own personal fiefdoms).

Bottom line: despite the insistence of many grumpy Faithful Conservative Catholics to the contrary, joy and truth are not opposites. Being joyful is not a sign of shallowness and stupidity. Being angry and isolated and perpetually wary of "happy clappiness" is not a sign that you are Truly Faithful. It could just mean that you are bitter and closed to joy. So don't be *too* quick to dismiss the good job Evangelicals do at welcoming the stranger. It could be we have something to learn from them.

Reader Glenn Cooper sends along an encouraging link from a buddy in Iraq

The Shape of Things to Come

"Multifaith Coalition Targets O'Malley". The charge: religious discrimination against gays.

It's not enough to tolerate homosexual behavior. You. MUST. Approve. Or punishment will become ever more severe.

Apostate Protestant mainliners lend a hand to the new Know Nothings and apostles of Americanism.

Does anybody know about RSS?

I put up what I think is an RSS link on the left rail (right above the Alaska cruise graphic). Is that what people are looking for? If not can you tell me how to put up a real RSS feed? People keep asking for one and I'm a techno-moron.

Many thanks!

To all who gave to the CAEI quarterly fund drive! Summer is, in more ways than one, a particularly dry time so we Sheas deeply appreciate it!

Prayers appreciated for my book on Mary

We may finally be seeing some progress in that department. Prayers to Jesus and Our Lady appreciated. More news when I have it!

Good Afternoon! It's Day 7 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week

Supporting yer emphatically lower middle class scribe as he tries to do his apostolic thang is a good work. So make this pledge week go out with a real bang!

Of course, you can still buy my books and tapes too. And if you'd rather not do the PayPal thang, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.

Also, gobs of satisfied customers will happily tell you how much fun they've had and how much they learned when I came to speak at their parish/conference. You can be a satisfied customer too by having me come speak for you!

Many thanks to y'all for your generous hearts. We Sheas deeply appreciate it!

Good Dreams

With the new Superman flick coming out, the fun thing is watching the way in which various folk in our culture, both Christian and non-Christian, approach the obvious Christian parallels in this and other stories.

One thing that strikes me is how often a secular film gets praised for drawing from Jewish and Christian roots, while religious films get damned for drawing from those same roots. If you ransack a religious tradition for its symbolism, you are a masterful, allusive and profound storyteller. If you *believe* the things symbolized in that tradition, you are a flat-footed Neanderthal with an Agenda. This suggests to me that our culture hungers for Reality, but simply cannot handle too much of it. Our eyes can bear to look at images of Christ, but not to stare into the full Radiance of He Himself.

I think Jesus accomodates himself to this pagan weakness. I think this because he did it in my own life when I was a pagan. I learned to love him through things that reminded me of him, long before I knew anything about him.

Rod Bennett has a similar story here.

Myth is a two-way street. Yes, there are some Catholics who are apostatizing and slowly reducing Christ to a "mere" myth, just one evocative human story among many. But there are also many pagans who discover the precious drops of spilled religion that is mythology and follow the trail back to the Eucharistic chalice and the Christ in whom Myth became Fact. Tolkien said as much to a skeptical C.S. Lewis, thereby becoming the human instrument by which the Holy Spirit made a Christian out of Lewis. He summarizes his argument with Lewis in the following poem:

Mythopoeia
[ by J.R.R. Tolkien ]

To one who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver.'

Philomythus to Misomythus

You look at trees and label them just so,
(for trees are 'trees,' and growing is 'to grow');
you walk the earth and tread with solemn pace
one of the many minor globes of Space:
a star's a star, some matter in a ball
compelled to courses mathematical
amid the regimented, cold, Inane,
where destined atoms are each moment slain.

At bidding of a Will, to which we bend
(and must), but only dimly apprehend,
great processes march on, as Time unrolls
from dark beginnings to uncertain goals;
and as on page o'erwritten without clue,
with script and limning packed of various hue,
an endless multitude of forms appear,
some grim, some frail, some beautiful, some queer,
each alien, except as kin from one
remote Origo, gnat, man, stone, and sun.
God made the petrous rocks, the arboreal trees,
tellurian earth, and stellar stars, and these
homuncular men, who walk upon the ground
with nerves that tingle touched by light and sound.
The movements of the sea, the wind in boughs,
green grass, the large slow oddity of cows,
thunder and lightning, birds that wheel and cry,
slime crawling up from mud to live and die,
these each are duly registered and print
the brain's contortions with a separate dint.

Yet trees are not 'trees,' until so named and seen --
and never were so named, till those had been
who speech's involuted breath unfurled,
faint echo and dim picture of the world,
but neither record nor a photograph,
being divination, judgement, and a laugh,
response of those that felt astir within
by deep monition movements that were kin
to life and death of trees, of beasts, of stars:
free captives undermining shadowy bars,
digging the foreknown from experience
and panning the vein of spirit out of sense.
Great powers they slowly brought out of themselves,
and looking backward they beheld the elves
that wrought on cunning forges in the mind,
and light and dark on secret looms entwined.

He sees no stars who does not see them first
of living silver made that sudden burst
to flame like flowers beneath an ancient song,
whose very echo after music long
has since pursued. There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-patterned; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth.

The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact,
man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seeds of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we're made.

Yes! 'wish-fulfilment dreams' we spin to cheat
our timid hearts and ugly Fact defeat!
Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream,
or some things fair and others ugly deem?
All wishes are not idle, nor in vain
fulfilment we devise -- for pain is pain
not for itself to be desired, but ill;
or else to strive or to subdue the will
alike were graceless; and of Evil this
alone is dreadly certain: Evil is.

Blessed are the timid hearts that evil hate,
that quail in its shadow, and yet shut the gate;
that seek no parley, and in guarded room,
though small and bare, upon a clumsy loom
weave tissues gilded by the far-off day
hoped and believed in under Shadow's sway.

Blessed are the men of Noah's race that build
their little arks, though frail and poorly filled,
and steer through winds contrary towards a wraith,
a rumour of a harbour guessed by faith.

Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice seduced).
Such isles they saw afar, and ones more fair,
and those that hear them yet may yet beware.
They have seen Death and ultimate defeat,
and yet they would not in despair retreat,
but oft to victory have turned the lyre
and kindled hearts with legendary fire,
illuminating Now and dark Hath-been
with light of suns as yet by no man seen.

I would that I might with the minstrels sing
and stir the unseen with a throbbing string.
I would be with the mariners of the deep
that cut their slender planks on mountains steep
and voyage upon a vague and wandering quest,
for some have passed beyond the fabled West.
I would with the beleaguered fools be told,
that keep an inner fastness where their gold,
impure and scanty, yet they loyally bring
to mint in image blurred of distant king,
or in fantastic banners weave the sheen
heraldic emblems of a lord unseen.

I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient. Before them gapes
the dark abyss to which their progress tends --
if by God's mercy progress ever ends,
and does not ceaselessly revolve the same
unfruitful course with changing of a name.
I will not treat your dusty path and flat,
denoting this and that by this and that,
your world immutable wherein o part
the little maker has with maker's art.
I bow not yet before the Iron Crown,
nor cast my own small golden scepter down.

*
In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True.
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Evil will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they no more look awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not being dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All.

Now hear this

Somebody calling himself "Suspicious" anonymously commented on the Bai MacFarlane thread and claimed his homepage was Sacred Heart something or other. The people who run that site wrote and said, "We didn't post that. Please remove it". I have done so--as well as banning Suspicious from my site for making it appear that these people shared his views when they emphatically do not. If anybody else wants to try faking their identity and implicating innocent people in their smears of others, please know that I will delete and ban you forever too.

Gotta love her

Montana Mom battle terrorists by computer. Has been involved in catching a number of Bronze Age thugs. God bless her. She stands in the grand tradition of self-motivated American public-spiritedness.

Prayers appreciated for my Mom!

Her blood pressure is really low (80/50) and they're taking her to the hospital. My wife is with her and I'm with the kids. She's 80.

Thanks!

Update: Now she seems to be fine (once they got her to the hospital). We're mystified, but happy. Thanks for your prayers.

Punishment for Nurse Who Defended Schiavo

Free speech for all! (Booo!)
Free speech for nobody (Booooo!)
Free speech for some, tiny American flags for others! (Yay!)

Bishop Robert Carlson, Currently Reconstructing the Diocese of Saginaw after it was Severely Mauled by its Last Bishop, is the Bee's Knees

Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

The Amazing Power of Andrew Sullivan's Childlike Narcissism

My children all hit that age (before five) where failure to comprehend something was always due to the "stupid" object they did not understand, never due to their lack of knowledge or maturity. Happily they outgrew that when they turned five or so.

When it comes to sacramental marriage, Sullivan is still at that age. If he doesn't understand how a marriage can be null due to defect of form, that's because sacramental marriage is stupid and the Catholic Church is full of doodyheads who won't capitulate to his notions about marriage, not because Andrew Sullivan doesn't know WTF he's talking about. And ain't nobody telling Andy any different!

Oh, and Bush is a drunk, too. This, from the man who complains that people hit, er, below the belt when they note that he has one Non-Negotiable in his journalism before which all other considerations must give way. Wonder if he's read Ponnuru's book yet?

This is one of those non-informational stories about Medjugorge

It follows Doonesbury's Roland Hedley-Burton model of storytelling, where they note that "Some people believe it, others don't" and then give you the "remains to be seen. Life goes on" fade out ("Whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary is truly appearing at Medjugorge remains to be seen. Meanwhile, life goes on.") that leaves you knowing no more than before you read it.

I do note Pope Benedict's skepticism, however.

As it Whizzes Past, It Has a Few Words for the Dominican "New Cosmologists":

"Stop talking to rocks! Listen to the Loooooooooooooord!"

The heavens declare the glory of God.

Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome on Full Display

For years and years, the Left has cried "Wolf", screaming about "racism", "sexism" and "oppression" every time some whiner got his or her undies in a twist about something. And people have cringed for most of my life, terrified of violating PC codes. But this sort of guilt manipulation has an expiration date. And when it comes, the pendulum starts to swing the other way, as canny political manipulators begin to play on people's anger over the manipulation and use it for their own agendas (just as the guilt manipulators did).

Result: a column like this, which rightly points out the leftist guilt manipulation and then uses it to argue, in essence, that we are undermining the battle against Radical Islamic Evil By criticizing American torture.

The Administration shills in the media seem to be out in force this week, doing their best to persuade us that if you aren't for torture, you aren't for America. Nope, only moralizing, holier-than-thou prisses oppose healthy, sensible, practical American torture of our enemies. I suppose soon we're going to hear terms like "reciprocity" invoked. That sounds so much cooler and faux-military-technical than "Keeping up with the Radical Islamic Joneses" or "Seizing the One Ring".

Harry Potter Must Die!

... and rise again. The entire logic of the story demands it of this heavily Christological figure.

I mean, the woman has said in interviews that she doesn't discuss her Christian faith publicly much because she doesn't want to give away the end of the story.

This is why Lifesite News is so clueless with their anti-Harry campaigns.

There's something about the Death Penalty...

...that brings out all the cocksure people, the cocksure people who know you are an idiot if you even appear to vary from their cocksure opinions by a hairsbreadth.

Yesterday, I linked to Greg Krehbiel, criticizing the President of the Phillipines for calling the abolition of the death penalty a "divine command". I pointed out that it's not a divine command but a prudential judgement. One commenter, who elsewhere generously calls me an idiot, proceeds to scold me under the impression that I support the death penalty (I don't, and for the reasons JPII gives in Evangelium Vitae). Then another reader comes along armed with his reasons about why JPII was a dunderhead for opposing the death penalty and, when somebody questions him, he summarily dismisses his questioner as a "Protestant" and lectures him on how superior he is because he's Catholic and listens to the Magisterium (at least when it's right and doesn't disagree with him). Still another reader (can you guess who?) helpfully explains that Jesus *does* command the abolition of the death penalty and that no state ever has the right to kill at any time for any reason--ever and all appearances to the contrary in Scripture can be explained away by the same ingenious method by which he makes the Quran into a profoundly Trinitarian document and shows that the Catechism's teaching on Just War means that we are committed by Catholic dogma to absolute pacifism.

Then somebody points out to my second reader that Jesus did not inflict capital punishment on the woman taken in adultery--"in the very act". He artfully throws in some irrelevancies about how this was because the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus (true enough) but ignores the central fact: that she was guilty of a capital crime under Mosaic law and yet Jesus did not share his lust to make certain that the Church was the driving engine of God's merciless vengeance on earth, as so many Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM] appear to desire. He cocksurely declared, "By forgiving the adulterous woman, Jesus was not making a statement against the death penalty."

No. But Jesus was making a statement *about* it: namely, he was demonstrating that there is not an iron *obligation* to inflict it. This is reflected in the Church's tradition throughout the ages. There has never. been. a. time. when the death penalty was inflicted with absolute 100% rigor. There's always been room for mercy. All John Paul asked was that this mercy be exercise as often as possible. He never denied the state the right to the sword. But he did ask that states not use the sword unless absolutely necessary. I don't see why that's a problem. But for a lot of Catholics--who seem to want the Church to primarily be about dealing out punishment, rage and death rather than mercy and grace--it is.

H.G. Wells, drinking deep of 19th Century Imperialist Thought, Loved to Trumpet:

"Man is puny compared to the size of the universe!" (Be sure to scroll down).

The Prophet Chesterton, who was not superstitiously overawed by mere appeals to physical size, replied: "Man is puny compared to the nearest tree."

Dominican enthusiasts for the New Cosmology would do well to remember this. Just because something is big does not mean its more important than man. In fact, according to the Church, man and women are the only things in creation that exist for their own sake. Nature is not our mother. Nature is our sister and even our little sister, for God has given us dominion over nature. That fact is demonstrated as much in the breach as in the observance. But fact it is. The pagan attempt to treat Nature as our Mother or, worse still, our Master and Guide is pure idolatry.

There are days I have a hard time governing my contempt for Roger Cardinal Mahony

This is one of them.

We all remember Roger. "Committed to the safety of our children"?

If there's justice, he will do jail time someday.

Perhaps I can pick up some more speaking gigs in Chicago if I just bill myself as ardently pro-abortion?

Oh sure. Some you will lecture me about gaining the world and losing my own soul. But I'd be doing it for the Greater Good! And since we've already seen that ends justify means, what's the problem?

A reader writes:

Imagine how this article would have been written differently if a Christian cult in the US or Europe with 5 million members was forcing its women to have "hymen-repair" surgery. Gotta love the comments, "Hey, fifty years ago everybody was like this!" Imagine, again, if a doctor, politician, or priest said that about a mob lynching of a black man or a homosexual being dragged behind a car...

Well, for starters, there would be no "See! We're in no position to judge!" graf like this:

Through the ages, virginity has been prized across religions and cultures, and doctors note that only a few generations back European brides also had to furnish documentary "proof" of chastity.

Speaking of thin-skinned Bronze Age fanatics, do check Relapsed Catholic's site for the latest round up on murderous thugs who open fire on co-workers, brutalize women and whine about being persecuted. Guess what their religious background is? If you answered a) Christian, you'd be wrong.

Transvestite Gang "like a marauding army of kleptomaniacal showgirls"

"They’re kind of confused because they think they’re women so they don’t mind hitting women, but they’re dudes. If you get hit by one it’s like getting hit by a dude. ..."

Um, they're not confused. They're wicked and brutal. Funny yes. But wicked and brutal too. The confused person is the one who can't name that out of fear of being "judgmental".

Belgian Homeschooling Criminals!

Tolerant Lefty Euro-State Reminds its Subjects that Nothing Escapes the All-Seeing Eye of Big Brother.

Parents to be punished and harassed for instilling incorrect thoughts in children and for forgetting just who owns them.

Your local Gay Pride Parade is here to remind you:

It's not enough to tolerate vile mockeries of your most sacred beliefs. You. Must. Approve.

Hat tip, Relapsed Catholic.

Good Morning! It's Day 6 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week

We're in the Home Stretch of the Great Summer Drive. My dentist, car mechanic, plumber, IRS collector, kids and mortgage really appreciate it--though not as much as I do. However, we have two more days to go and can use much more oomph as we approach the finish line!

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 boys get a birthday present (Happy Birthday, Peter!). 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 the PayPal thang, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.

And don't forget, I'm always willing to come speak at your parish or conference!

Today's your day. All this week, other people have been 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!"

Remember, if you are interested in my books, don't buy them from Amazon cuz if you do, they get all the money and I get a piddly amount. Get them from me and I'll happily autograph them!

Lovely Slide Show of Pike's Peak Through the Seasons

The music is particularly appropriate because "America the Beautiful" was written after Katharine Lee Bates went on a picnic to Pike's Peak in 1883. Plus, Ray Charles' performance of the song is The Best Ever. The view from the summit is truly awesome (given that there is no oxygen up there to impede your vision).

One of the biggest influences in C.S. Lewis's life was a teacher he called "The Great Knock"

He was an atheist of the Scotch Presbyterian variety. A strict rationalist who could not conceive of any purpose for the human voice other than to speak the truth. A man who rejected belief in God as unsupported by the data, yet who always wore a suit on Sundays. He was, says Lewis, the "man who taught me to think."

The Great Knock shows up in Lewis' fiction in various places. He's there in Trumpkin the Dwarf. He's also there as the tutor in Till We Have Faces. You can see him again as the skeptical Scot in That Hideous Strength. Honest as the daylight, but unable to have faith. Lewis has a great deal of affection for him. I suspect God did too.

I think of him as I watch the Raving Atheist deal with the growing challenge of being a pro-life atheist. It's hard not to be struck by the last sentence of that entry. I cannot help but think his honesty (in the face of the entirely predictable heresy charges of dogmatic atheists ) will be blessed by God, who leads us from truth to truth. Keep him in your prayers.

I like Greg Krehbiel. He's a straight shooter

...even when he's wrong, such as here.

Oh, he's not wrong to criticize the rubbish spoken by the president of the Phillipines about the alleged divine command to abolish the death penalty. But he's quite wrong to say that Protestantism is not prone to confuse the commands of God and the prudential judgments of men. From sola scriptura to the recent appointment of Schori to head the ECUSA, from the Ku Klux Klan to the Swedes who desecrated the icon of the Black Madonna, from Southern Baptists who created biblical arguments for American chattel slavery to Protestant preachers who claimed that Jesus himself would approve of the eugenics movement, Protestantism is *filled* with examples of people elevating some human tradition to the level of a divine command.

Everything depends on taking that little phrase "the Protestants I used to hang out with" and then contrasting it with "Catholics" (all one billion of them). Yes, it's true that in comparing a statistical sample of Greg's handful of Serious Protestants and one billion Catholics, some Catholics will be found saying all sorts of stupid things that Greg's friends would not have said. But so what? One could just as easily say that Greg's friends have been remarkably negligent in founding universities, creating missionary orders, establishing hospitals, writing the Summa, and creating written languages so nascent civilizations can have a Bible and a liturgy. That doesn't mean Greg's friends are dumb. It just means, as Greg's contrast means, that the Catholic Church is really big and diverse.

Good Interview with Bryan Singer about "Superman Returns" in CT

A couple of things strike me. One is Singer's initial reluctance to touch on the religious aspects of the film.... followed by a cascade of statements that make it perfectly clear that he is acutely aware of the religious aspects of the film. It makes me wonder how many other Hollywood types are like this.

Also, I'm struck by the irony of Superman being one of our national mascots in a WWII, which was a war against a nation infected with the idea of being Supermen. The irony is all the stranger in that he was the creation of two Jewish guys.

Anyway, good interview.

Answer: Earth isn't Asking Anything of the Dominican Order

Earth is a big rock. Earth can't talk. Earth is a thing, not a person. Only persons talk. God talks. Human's talk. Angels talk. Earth does not talk. Asking Earth to talk and, worse still, to guide is the exact definition of idolatry: treating a creature like the Creator. Earth does not lead: we do. The reason for that is because we are made in the image and likeness of God and have been given dominion over the earth. If you ask earth to guide you, you will end up red in tooth and claw and filled with despair, because this creation is damaged by sin and subject to futility. If you want guidance, you apply to the Crucified One, not the earth.

But Disputations puts it so much more bluntly.

So! The Vatican Admits it!

Don't say you weren't warned!

Liberal Catholics Have Such an Amazing Ability to Combine Squish-Brained Mush with Iron-Fisted Intolerance

Another vacuous Catholic lib gazes longingly at the ECUSA and says, "I wish we Catholics could commit suicide like they do!" I especially love the description of World Anglicanism as a "splinter" and the command to bend over or get out. So much for the need to "listen".

A reader asks:

I am sure you have heard, seen or read that Nicole Kidman and her most recent Keith Urban were married. It was supposedly a Traditional Roman Catholic Wedding-how can this be? She was married to T.C.(suposedly) for 8 years and divorced. He(T.C.) was married(suposedly) for 3 years and divorced. Now she gets a free ticket in the Catholic Church in Australia when every one else gets booted out?! Was there an annulment we didn't hear about? It seems what's not good for the goose is good for Nicole Kidman. I don't get it. Unless she was never legally married in the first place. My,my a white wedding day. Can you explain?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Beats me. I haven't been following the Archdiocese of Sydney's record of compliance in keeping St. Blog's informed on the annulments of movie stars. They may well have failed to live up to the rigorous standards of many combox dwellers and they might well have failed to have sufficiently reported, not only the annulment, but the circumstances under which it was gained to the satisfaction of St. Blog's canonical overseers. If so, the Archdiocese may yet open themselves to severe criticism for failing to live up to the exacting and rigorous standards of the many liturgical experts who populate St. Blog's. I tremble at the scandal this could create.

Charles Colson tries to make sense of the Emergent Church

The Prophet Chesterton understood that revolutionaries and reformers generally have a good sense of what's wrong. What they don't have is a good sense of what's right. The Emergent Church is, like every generation of Protestants, a reaction against the errors of its parents. It's got some intriguing possibilities: most notably an openness to the doctrines and devotions of Catholics which were formerly verboten in Evangelicalism 25 years ago. Unfortunately, it's also got a great deal of post-modern "What is Truth?" mush at the core that could yet ruin all. We'll see.

The World of Good Keeps Turning

Good Interview with Bai MacFarlane, who was royally screwed by our stupid no-fault divorce laws

I think she's a model of a Christian woman remaining faithful to Christ in very trying circumstances. May God have mercy on her husband.

I thank God for my Janet

There's something so tragic about marriages that begin with such mutual suspicion that they require a pre-nup. A marriage mediated by lawyers rather than love just fills me with sadness.

Merciful Heavens!

A *huge* cache of WMDs is found in Iraq! I take it all back! I was so *so* wrong.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Please, please forgive me!

Upside, He's Giving Away his Vast Pile

Downside, lots of it goes for the usual menu of causes calculated to keep the poor childless and the numbers of the non-Caucasian herd culled. If only the super-rich could get out of the hothouse of like-minded faux eugenicists and think outside the box.

More Stephen Colbert fun!

So many questions

Who wrote this particular insurance agreement?

Why do I keep running into people who think Christ is going to return via a second Virgin Birth?

Who really believes "the Catholic Church is up in arms" about this weird incident?

Can I sell them the Brooklyn Bridge?

A reader writes from Canada:

Look into the dead, reptilian eyes of the Toronto 17 and the Miami 7, and what do you see: I see multicultural mall rats and ghetto slag.

Is this their best, is this all the Enemy can field and deploy in the North America?

Maybe they are decoys and the real sleeper cells are planning and waiting to strike. Don't forget: 9/11 was the second attack on the WTC. The jihadists then went into re-plan and waited 10 years.

Or maybe jihadists are like pro atheletes. Maybe the real pros, the real all-stars, want to play in the Superbowl, and kill Marines in Fallujah, not stockbrokers and firemen in Oshkosh. Maybe those who can't make the cut and don't qualify for the Big Time are cut from the squad, sent back to or left in the Minors and told to free-lance locally and do what they can do, on their own, and try to blow up Wall Marts or whatever, as a second chance to be a shaheed.

The pros get 72 dark-eyed virgins in the next life. Maybe the yahoos in Toronto and Miami get Duke strippers as a booby prize. Unless they get apprehended, in which case each one gets free room and board at Club Fed and a large hairy Jamaican as his showermate.

Bush has elegantly (and, for him, absolutely unintentionally) set Islamo-manichean topology on its head: he has turned their their land into the Dar-Ul-Harb, the Real of Struggle, and, thus far, has kept our Homeland as a Judaeo-Christian-Humanist Dar-Ul-Islam, a Realm of Peace.

So far, so good.

To all good liberal folks, to conflicted Christians like your good self and to gay, humanist democrats like Andrew Sullivan I say: Dear folks - enjoy life in the Realm of Peace - while you can - unless and until there is no more Iraqi flypaper and the Islamo-Pros redeploy and re-swarm and move their jiadist Superbowl and World Cup to North America, like the Dodgers moving to LA and finally succeed in making our Homeland the Dar al Harb.

Your thoughts?

My thought is, "Why am I getting this? It's not like I oppose the War on Terror (more fittingly called the War on Radical Islam). Can it really be that we are now at the point where to criticize the Administration's embrace and encouragement of sinful acts like torture is to oppose the War on Terror? This sort of Manichaean thinking can only end in disaster. I love my country. That's why I don't want to see it attempt to seize the One Ring and become the enemy to defeat the enemy."

Opposing slaughter of civilians is just trying to be "holier than thou"

This moment of cogent moral reasoning brought to you by the Media Arm of Conservatives For Seizing the One Ring.

Catch Older Lemon Knower

You will be shocked!

FOX Distorts. You Decipher.

Embarrassing to watch O'Reilly go so far as to smear WWII troops, just to launch a pre-emptive defense. Gotta especially love the doctored transcript. Like a cherry on top. Worthy of Dan Rather.

Good Morning! It's Day 5 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week

You've grown accustomed to my blog
It always makes your day begin
You've grown accustomed to the links
the comments and hijinx

My smiles, my frowns
My ups, my downs
Are second nature to you now
Like breathing out and breathing in

You were serenely independent
And content, before we met
Surely you could always be that way again, and yet
You've grown accustomed to my blog
Accustomed to my voice
Accustomed to my blog.

Are you a Lerner who profits from my Loewe-down? Then please consider a gift to this blog and click on the PayPal button to the left so that C&EI can stay on the air and our kids get fed. You can either make a straight donation or, if you like to get something for your money (something beyond this blog that you've come to love and depend on, I mean), you can buy my books and tapes . And if you'd rather not do the PayPal thang, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead. (By the way, if you are interested in my books, don't buy them from Amazon cuz if you do, they get all the money and I get about a nickel. Get them from me and I'll happily autograph them!) Also, don't forget that I'm able to earn my keep by coming and speaking for your parish or conference, too! Ask the satisfied customers such as Fr. Rob. My next gig will be in Chicago on July 15. If you'd like to have me come to your parish while I'm there, lemme know. You won't even have to cover my airfare!

A final word about donating to the blog: Don't think somebody else will do it. Most people have thought that this week, with the consequence that donations have been about a quarter of what they usually are. Econ 101 therefore dictates that I will have to make up the difference with less blogging and more scribbling for paying publishers this next quarter. To those who have donated, many thanks! To those who haven't yet, many thanks in advance!

News from the Loony Christian Harry-Haters Front

Some kook in Georgia is trying to ban the books from the local schools.

Some of my readers may be old enough to remember the 16th Century

It was that glorious time when Protestant Reformers shook free of the Romish apostasy that made us all slaves to "works of the Law" and proclaimed again the glorious gospel of freedom in the grace of Christ.

Fast forward to the 21st century, where Episcopal bishops are now telling us that it doesn't much matter what you believe about Jesus so long as you do good works and various Christian apocalypse hounds in the Middle east are laboring to restore the Temple and the Levitical sacrifices in order to hurry the Messiah along.

It's like some Protestants have never even *heard* of the epistles to the Romans and the Hebrews, much less the Reformation.

Check out Jeff Tan's New Blog!

Be sure to leave comments and feedback. He wants to hear from you!

Once More With Feeling!

In the confrontation between an inflamed, half-crazed and fiery spirituality and a watery decadent, comfort-seeking one, who do you think will win?

Answer: nobody. Because what is needed is a *healthy* spirituality. Ultimately only the gospel of Christ can provide that. And that gospel subsists, in its fullness, in the Catholic Church. But if we Catholics won't live that, then a study of the prophets might be in order. God has punished his wayward people in the past. There's precedent.

Good for Greeley!

Makes hash of the politicized cant that followed Benedict's trip to Auschwitz.

It frankly amazes me that Jewish critics of Benedict, after enduring hundreds of years of charges of collective guilt for the Crucifixion, would now turn around and demand that the Pope charge the entire German nation with collective guilt.

Amy posts a story on the installation of Abp. Wuerl...

...and *immediately* the Doomsayers rush in to combat the mortal sins of faith, hope, and charity with prophecies of ruin and despair. Tom at Disputations offers a worthy reply.

My memories of Wuerl are all positive ones. He was sent to Seattle as co-adjutor during the woeful tenure of Abp. Hunthausen and did his best to restore sanity. For his efforts he was reviled by liberal Seattle, but he stuck to it till they took pity on him and sent him to Picksboig.

God bless Abp. Wuerl.

Vatican Warns Amnesty Not to Become Abortion Whores

Well, not in so many words, but it's basically what they said.

Womb Transplants in Five Years

Two things come to mind as I read this. The first is: I'd be very interested to know what the mind of the Church is on this because I've never heard it discussed even in theory.

The second is: the people who are rushing forward to do this have, of course, no interest in knowing the ethics. They've got funding! And besides! What could it hurt?

Much of our technological change has that curious lemming-like quality. It seems to matter far more that we rush forward than that we know where we are rushing.

Pro-Abortion Brownshirts on the March!

Freedom of choice for everybody but store owners who don't want to stock morning after pill!

It's like this: Olympia is an urban area very close to Tacoma. There's lots of places you can get a morning after pill. But a couple of stores in Oly don't want to stock it. So they must be punished. *Everyone* must be *forced* to approve the abortion ethos. And the Times, naturally, portrays this as a Triumph of the Human Spirit.

To be Faithful is to Suffer

So am I ready to eat crow, now that Santorum's found the WMDs?

I *may* cheerfully do so, as soon as this is disproven and as soon as we have some hard evidence that these alleged WMDs weren't already junk at the time we launched the war. Till then, I'm inclined to believe this very convenient "discovery" is just the GOP ginning up the vote for this fall via FOX.

Pat Buchanan on what may have been the Ft. Sumter of the Culture Wars

Believing and articulating Catholic teaching on your own time is now punishable by firing. Ponder the implications of that.

Funniest Stephen Colbert Snippet Ever

Disputations on the Catholic habit of holding apparent contraries in tension

Bravo!

Good Afternoon! It's Day 4 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week

Yesterday, you got to learn why Catholics don't know what they are talking about, watch Ben Douglass and Tom Haessler go at it hammer and tongs while I pepper them both with skeptical questions, watch Henrietta Hippo address the ECUSA convention, meet gutsy Olympia grocers, chortle over lefties who wet themselves at the bogeyman of American Theocracy, contemplate the implosion of the ECUSA and pray for various folk. Today, you get to ponder Christian vs. Catholic art, feel old or young (depending on your ears), read helpful Rad Trad suggestions for making the Church more murderous, figure out if the Order of the Phoenix is based on the Fabians, be creeped out by coffee commercials, and try to understand the relationship of God, creation, and time. And, of course, there's the convivial atmosphere of the comments boxes where you can promulgate your theories, fiddle while Rome burns, join me as find nothing/everything wrong with the Church, America, the war, and the far-flung Islets of Langerhans (depending on the critic) and (who knows?) have a life-changing encounter with the Holy Spirit!

Wouldn't your eyes stream with tears if you lost that? Dry your eyes and click on the PayPal button to the left and help C&EI stay on the air and Sean's teeth get fixed. You can either make a straight donation or, if you like to get something for your money (something beyond this blog that you've come to love and depend on, I mean), you can buy my books and tapes (autographed even!). And if you'd rather not do the PayPal thang, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.

Hey Western Washingtonians! Come hear me speak tonight!

I'll be at Blessed Sacrament parish in Seattle on the Da Vinci Deception. The talk, which is a lot of fun, starts at 7:00 PM in the Parish Hall. The address is available on the Blessed Sacrament website. It's the cool looking Gothic Church with the green spire, just northeast of the 50th St. exit off I-5 in Seattle.

In the words of Samuel Goldwyn: Don't miss it if you can!

Because Focus on the Family Does not Issue Fatwas

Another gutsy member of the Chattering Classes bravely faces the Menace of Cheery Evangelicals.

Hat tip, Relapsed Catholic.

Some readers have asked what I meant when I said the ECUSA is now manifestly an enemy of the gospel

Particularly since it's the PCUSA, not the ECUSA, that is monkeying with the creed in it's attempts to rename the Trinity "Me, Myself, and I", "Patty, Maxine, and Laverne" or whatever it is the Improvers want.

I tend to look a theological error and ask "Does this proceed from mere intellectual error or a from a hardened will?" Most theological error comes from the former. Somebody misreads a text. Somebody hears an idea that seems nice to them ("Women will find "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" offensive! We must be nice!") and they sign off on it. Without more information, I charitably assume that the ignorant functionaries staffing the PCUSA are probably bureaucrats who think only in terms of PR and demographics and have no clue of the theology they are ignorantly trashing. I suspect they mean well and may even have a desire to sincerely make Jesus "accessible" to more people.

I can't take good will seriously when it comes to the ECUSA, however. The actions taken this week were deliberate, defiant, draconian, and damnable. After ramming the approval of Robinson down the throats of the Anglican communion a couple of years ago, a communion that claims to take Scripture, Tradition and Reason seriously sat back while Robinson declared that, just because something is not supported by Scripture or Tradition doesn't mean it's wrong. When the Anglican communion pleaded for the ECUSA to respect the rest of Anglicanism, the ECUSA responded by *wilfully* electing as their head a crank and a quack who thinks John Shelby Spong's apostate musings are the last word in Sophisticate Theology. Her first act: a proud proclamation that Mother Jesus was making her and her arrogant little clique the Vanguard of History. Oh, and then they told the rest of the world that if you believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, you are basically a Nazi.

In short, while the PCUSA is being stupid, the ECUSA is, with immense pride, flipping off the whole of Christianity and declaring themselves it enemy. It's a difference between a defective intellect (a comparatively minor problem) and an openly rebellious will (a much graver issue). As far as I'm concerned, the best thing serious Piskies can do now is jump out and swim the Tiber before the ship sucks them under.

Very depressing to watch the communion that gave us Lewis and Sayers succumb to such pagan pride and folly.

Meanwhile, I hope the dolts in the PCUSA bureaucracy get their scalps handed to them by sane Presbys. Presby polity makes this more possible than Piskie polity. We'll see.

My head hurts

A reader writes:

Don't bother yourself if you're too busy, but I was wondering if you knew how to set me straight on a philosophical question I have. I'm not even sure if I can articulate it clearly enough, because it's not clear in my mind. I'm not sure if the question is moronic or profound. You can find my question on my blog, but I'm pasting it to the bottom of this email for your convenience.

Finally, I haven't heard any more about your book Behold Your Mother (I think that's the title). Think it will ever be published?

Thanks.

--

I wish I could de-mystify this mystery. It bugs me, but I just have to let
it go. Follow my logic and let me know if you can explain things in a way I
can understand:

My two presuppositions are these:

1. All time and matter -- the whole physical universe -- must have had a beginning. It did not always exist.
2. God, who is not a part of Creation but is outside of it and thus timeless, does not have successive thoughts or acts. If He had one thought followed by another, then that means He is in time and not in eternity, for time is merely a measurement of the motion of matter, which He created out of nothing.

It seems, then, that God must have been thinking about this Creation in eternity. Since He is timeless, then that means there wasn't a "time" when He decided to begin acting on His thoughts and start creating. Yet this universe was born, was begun.

So just as one can rightly say "God IS," can one say "God DOES"? How would that square with the physical universe having a definite starting point?

Am I missing something? Is there a better way to look at this apparent conundrum?

er, in answer to your question, I'm still hopeful the Behold Your Mother will be published. Little elves are at work on it, but I have nothing to report yet.

As to the rest of your post... ummmmmm..... This sounds like a job for Boethius or St. Thomas.

A reader asks:

My wife and I are expecting our third child in mid-August. Our parish does infant baptisms on the second Sunday of September. We were hoping to have the baby baptised then. Unfortunately, my sister-in-law (the godmother) cannot make it that day. My wife and I are having a hard time determining if it would be contrary to our parental obligation to baptize our child if we wait an additional month to do the baptism so that the godmother can be present. Thank you!

If your baby is not in danger of death, I don't see what the problem is. You fully intend to have your baby baptized. You are simply trying to accomodate somebody who loves you. No sin in that that I can see. FWIW, our second son was born October 1. We didn't get him baptized till late November, for similar logistical reasons.

Very Disturbing Folgers Commercial

Dems for Life Continue to Fight the Good Fight

Rad Trads Continue to Demonstrate Their Charity and Firm Grip on Reality

Just another little reason to be glad for a Magisterium.

Reader John Farrell is famous!

Here's a story on him podcasting his novel! You can even see what he looks like!

Is J.K. Rowling a Fabian Socialist?

John Granger, author of Looking for God in Harry Potter (a good read, by the by) replies to this question, recently raised by Travis Prinzi.

Travis Prinzi is a big fan of my books so, of course, I think the guy is a genius! His website, www.SwordofGryffindor.com
, was started as a place on the web to discuss the Christian and esoteric elements in the Potter books and it's the only place other than my private boards where literary alchemy gets a decent discussion, that is, no New Age crap (ahem). Travis has an MA in Theological Studies from Northeastern Seminary, blogs Christian apologetics at Restless Reformer, and brings a pretty open mind to the books as well as not a few tools for interpretation I don't have. I never would have come up with this Fabian Society find, that's for sure.

That being said, is he lacking a "supernatural outlook"? I guess that's a possibility (would that I had this kind of discernment to know - or a "supernatural outlook" myself!) but I'm lost as to where you see its absence in this post. Rowling is a liberal and postmodern Christian; I'm afraid Travis' spotting the parallels between the Fabian Society membership names and those in Rowling's Order of the Phoenix is, besides being excellent literary detective work, a confirmation of her political sympathies.

She is an Inkling in the sense that she is using traditional symbols, themes, and lit techniques to eviscerate modern superstitions and self-importance; Rowling differs from the Inklings, though, in her faith (only loosely sacramental or hierarchical) and her sensibilities. Lewis, Tolkien, Sayers, Williams, the whole gang, as Lazo has written, are modern writers attacking modernity from within and with their traditional sensibilities intact. Rowling is a postmodern for whom, I think, traditional sensibilities are anachronisms and to be held at arm's length as suspicious relics of a dangerous and exclusive "Grand Narrative."

She still delivers real blows to modern targets (LV is, oddly enough, an enemy that Lewis and Tolkien would recognize, no?) and with Christian weapons. I'm wondering, though, if this isn't less a function of her Christian faith than of how much she has just avoided the excesses of academic postmodernism by morphing its teaching with liberal Christian sensibilities and morality.

Again, would that I was spiritually accomplished enough to discern this kind of thing. As it is, I struggle to remember to say morning and evening prayers and to keep the fasts mechanically. I only offer these reflections, Sean, because, and forgive the evident projection on my part from my experience, I have to suspect you're exaggerating Rowling's Christian faith or, at least, the part it plays in her fiction. She's no apologist or evangelist, though I have been told that she was once a member of London's Chesterton Society (true?).

Dave Hartline on Mother Jesus and Other Moments in the Recent Suicide of the ECUSA

An Orthodox reader writes:

Dear Fellow Islamophobes : ),

A few months ago I forwarded a very insightful and much blogged about
article Close by Mark Steyn called "It's the Demography, Stupid"). Recently a friend
sent me a link which blogs about an article entitled "Political Correctness: The Revenge of Marxism". I read this last night and it is fantastic; it's on a par with Steyn's piece. I hope you will read his trenchant analysis of our failure truly to win the Cold War, of the transition from economic Marxism to cultural Marxism (multiculturalism and PC), and how this is being used to further the Islamicization of Europe.

Other stuff I may or may not have mentioned: Islamicization is essentially the result of European and Middle Eastern governments conspiring to wage a form of "cultural jihad": Oriana Fallaci , who drew heavily from Islamic scholar Bat Ye'or.

See also a link to
which is also found in the article I hope you'll read.

When it comes to implementing death wishes, Marxism seems to be the best system we've ever invented. It combines an apparently deathless utopian promise with an indefatigably murderous practice that can look up from beating the latest victim with it bloody truncheon, bat its blue eyes, and say, "But I *mean* well."

And we believe it *every* time. Amazing.

Uh Oh. I'm really bad at this sort of thing. Anybody?

A reader writes:

I have a question that you might address as a former evangelical converted to Catholicism: how does "Christian" art (i.e., Protestant) differ from "Catholic" art?

This came up at a stock photo site, where someone posted a request for stock photos or artwork based on Christian symbols and specifically requested "not Catholic." He mentioned Jesus, doves and angels, and suggested goodsalt.com as an example of a site offering Christian art.

I would be interested in your take on the topic, if you have the time or inclination.

Beyond the fact that Catholic *is* Christian, I'm, like, zero help in identifying "good Catholic art". Cookie Monster more or less summed up my entire grasp of art in the words "Me not know art. But me know what me like" (words spoken after devouring a painting of chocolate chip cookies).

If I have any actual artists in the crowd, perhaps you could be so good as to help my reader. I presume by "not Catholic" her reader means "not having stuff about Mary and saints in it". But beyond that I have no idea what might fill the bill for "good Protestant art". Durer? Bach? Garrison Keillor?

Nice feature on Communion and Liberation in the American West

Features a little profile of our Seattle group (albeit written before my time there).

By the way, it's always weird to hear my home spoken of as "the American West". It inevitably conjures images of sagebrush and vast vista of open sky, painted sandstone carved out by wind and water, and guys with ten gallon hats and six shooters.

If you can hear this, you are young, vibrant and have your whole life before you

If you can't, you're a geezer like me.

Well, that didn't take long

A reader writes:

The Fresno Bee reported today that Fresno's oldest and largest Presbyterian church has voted to "temporarily" suspend its involvement in the PCUSA because of the General Council's adoption of policies that would permit sexually active homosexuals to have positions of authority in the denomination.

This comes on the heesl of the Fresno Episcopalian diocese potentially asking Canterbury to exercise direct supervision over it.

I don't know if you have picked this up, but my partner and I represent dissident Protestant churches that want to leave their denominations because of all of the "inclusivist" stuff that runs counter to Christian tradition. We also have a published decision from the local Court of Appeals that provides a roadmap to these churches on how to split from their denominations and keep their property, so my interest is professional and not based on schadenfreude.

It seems that the drive to "inclusivism" has simply increased the membership of "nondenominational Protestants who once were Methodist, Presbyterian or Episcopalian", which is kind of sad because these denominations have played an important role in defining American political and social culture.

Yesterday, a guy at our CL meeting was remarking that Pope Benedict had gotten in all kinds of trouble for remarking that the Church doesn't tend to grow and grow and grow, but rather than times or renewal tended to come from a Church that periodically gets "smaller and purer". Andrew Sullivan wet his pants predicting the Coming Pogrom in which Benedict was going to kick out most of the Church's membership in favor of the Remnant. Of course, Benedict didn't mean any such thing. He was merely observing what John observed in the sixth chapter of his gospel: that there comes a time when the bulk of alleged followers of Jesus say, "This is a hard saying! Who can hear it?" and leave.

Yet when the ECUSA reduces itself to a small, self-satisfied clique of a few gay guys and upper middle income women with hyphenated names who doubt the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but not the sanctity of golf, scotch and tax-free municipal bonds, nobody (least of all Andrew) notes the smug arrogance of this self-appointed Prophetic Remnant.

Oh. So. True.

My normal custom is not to comment much on the internal affairs of other communions

As you might have noticed, this week I've been tempted away from that policy by the extremist shenanigans of the ECUSA (which have all the grim fascination of a bloody car wreck in slow motion before your very eyes) and the craziness emerging from the more-insane-than-I-realized PCUSA.

For news on the Car Wreck, the Webelves are your guys, tracking the movement of every single flying body part and scrap of metal in nano-time.

For the single best quip re: the Presby lunacy, I vote for Rod Dreher, who remarked:

Ten years from now, they'll be proposing "Groucho, Chico and Harpo" with a straight face, so as not to marginalize the Slapstick-American community.

All I can add, as a Catholic, is "Yikes!" and reiterate my offer to anybody from either communion (or to members of communions in ecclesial union with them) that I will be happy to point you to a good RCIA here in Seattle and act as your sponsor.

I say this, partly in self-defense. The ECUSA is manifestly an enemy of the gospel now. Similarly, if the PCUSA decides to scrap baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it will likewise render invalid all its future baptisms in the name of the god of trendiness (as well as constituting a direct assault on the sacrament of baptism, just as the ECUSA is assaulting practically everything in the Catholic tradition). Frankly, nobody needs that, especially other Protestants. So please feel free to help euthanize these two dying Liberal Theology Clubs by removing yourself from them and joining your energies to the preservation of orthodoxy in union with Rome. You'll be glad you did!

Prayer Request

Sandra Miesel writes:

Editor-Publisher James Baen of Baen Books, who "discovered" me 30 years ago, has been felled by a stroke and is in grave condition. Jim is a lapsed Catholic but he did publish some novels with pro-life themes in defiance of general opinion in the sf field. Prayers would be appreciated.

May God grant him recovery of health and faith through Jesus Christ and through the prayers of the Blessed Mother.

Amen.

Good Morning! It's Day 3 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week

Yesterday, you got to celebrate a Seder for Space Nerds, help the PCUSA find kooky new improvements on the Divine Name, meditate with me on source criticism and its limitations, wrangle over the OT concept of "herem" and ponder Killjoy SF. Today, you get to watch me and Tom Haessler argue with each other and everybody else, as well as peruse other fun stuff that washed up in my mail box or made the headlines. And, of course, there's the convivial atmosphere of the comments boxes where you can argue about liturgical changes, quibble over Latin, compare notes on the history of science fiction with Sandra Miesel and (who knows?) meet the man or woman of your dreams!

I ask you: Where else can you get quite what you get here? So if you want more of it, click on the PayPal button to the right and help C&EI stay on the air and our taxes stay paid (Uncle Sam hates the self-employed). You can either make a straight donation or, if you like to get something for your money, you can buy my books and tapes (autographed even!). And if you'd rather not do the PayPal thang, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.

Thanks to my five donors yesterday. Everybody else: it's really simple: if you want the blog to continue, it has be to financially feasible for me to do so. If you think it's time for the blog to retire, then I'll go find other stuff to do to keep dinner on the table. Econ 101. 'Sup to you.

Depressing but not unexpected, for the reasons given

Jewish theology has never been as developed here as Catholic teaching. Start with fuzzy premises, arrive at wrong conclusions.

Check out Matthew Fish's interesting blog!

For some reason, I got cc'd on this

It's a reply from John Granger to some guy who had sent him a hand-wringing piece about Imminent American Theocracy (perhaps the silliest bogeyman the Left ever got its undies in a twist about). John replies in part:

(1) Why did you send it to me? Because I spend a good deal of my time
fighting with the Harry Haters and Culture Warriors on the Harry Potter front (most of whom I'm learning are Catholic fundamentalists not Evangelicals) or because you think I am a religious right kind of guy? As an Orthodox Christian whose politics are Platonic and Patristic rather than partisan in the conventional sense, I'm left scratching my head.

(2) The guy who wrote the article is something of a nutter if he seriously thinks there is some real danger of an American theocracy in the future. Naturalism, the panheresy of postmodernity, so dominates the academies, courts, media, and government that even the theism of the Fathers would be a stretch - and the de facto symbiosis of School and secular State precludes any possible effective union of Church and State.

(3) I agree with him (well, maybe "sort of") when he writes:

The lesson was clear. Religion functions best outside the political order, and often as a challenge to the political order. When it identifies too closely with the state, it becomes complacent and ossified, and efforts to coerce piety or to proscribe certain behavior in the interests of moral conformity are unavailing.

Thankfully, the founding fathers recognized that wisdom and codified it into the First Amendment, the best friend that religion has ever had. The First Amendment was a concession to pluralism, and its guarantee of a "free market" of religion has ensured a salubrious religious marketplace unmatched anywhere else in the world.

The federalists included the Bill of Rights to protect against a Big Brother government and made the first amendment the guarantee of two independent checks on government power, namely a free press and an equally unchecked church. This "historian" makes the common mistake in believing that the non-establishment clause was to guarantee church and state would not be joined. It's in the same amendment with the press because an independent church and press were the only checks the fathers felt would be effective in restraining the tilt of every republic to empire. The effectiveness of the church in attacking slavery and big business in the 19th century (as compared with the press's compliance in both these disasters) and in the civil rights movement and pro-life witness of the 20th speaks to their prescience.

The fear-monger is right then in noting the importance of the free church but he is way off in thinking this was intended to protect the church from establishmentarianism. The first amendment was meant to protect the state from becoming an empire.

The tragedy of evangelical identification with rightist politics is that the state has not been effectively checked by the church or the press - and we are certainly throwing off any pretense of being a Republic (however ironic that we are led by "Republicans") in our rush to Empire. If that was the writer's point, I guess we are in agreement. If, as I think is evident, he is really worried about the ferocious religious right becoming a theocracy, he's a risible chicken little. He needs to note the secular state is triumphant, unchecked by the pulpits that brought us abolition and the fair workplace (and, yes, prohibition...), and careening toward empire because of a compliant church, not an over active one.

Newly Elected Bishop Jefferts Schori Addresses the ECUSA General Convention

Unless things change in ways now quite unforeseeable, it will not be very long before the principle of traditional Western morality that homosexual conduct is immoral will be contrary to the public policy of the United States.

That means that if you say or think that homosexual practice is morally disordered, you will be subject to punishment by civil authorities, as well as economic persecution. In other words, if you are a serious Catholic, you will soon be an enemy of the State--here in America.

It's not enough to tolerate. You. Must. Approve. Or punishment is coming.

Just so we're clear.

Remember: -50 IQ points whenever the MSM Talks Religion

More Muslims Like This Guy, Please

Problem is, he's now persona non grata at that mosque, which tells you something.

That said, I have questions for Tom Haessler and his opponents

CCC 107 tells us, "The inspired books teach the truth. 'Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.'"

One of the things the sacred writers affirm is this:

But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded

This looks like a pretty clear affirmation to me. What do you do with it, Tom?

On the other hand, O Opponents of Tom, the command of Jesus is "Love your enemies".

You will quickly answer that God, being God, can do whatever he likes. So if he wants to command mass murder of innocent children, he can.

My question is, "How is this different from the Calvinist view, which basically ignores the goodness of God in favor of his omnipotence by redefining "Whatever the whim of Omnipotence wants" as "good" and then hurls invective at anybody who questions that proposition. If "good" = "whatever omnipotent Power wants to do at the moment" then it seems to me that "good" is emptied of all meaning. If Omnipotent Power commands us to murder babies, cheat on our wives, rob little old ladies, and kick people in wheelchairs, are you seriously suggesting that this makes it good?

I'm asking because I'm asking, not because I have answers. It's just that I think the facile answers I've heard so far, in answer to Tom, sound like they come from people for whom diagrams and schemas are much more real than actual life as it is lived by real people.

Much bustle and acrimony over Scriptural Interpretation!

In the "Love Tom Haessler" thread a couple of guys are ripping mad because Tom seems to them to be saying you can make Scripture say whatever it wants. He's not, of course, but the course of the discussion is displaying a number of curious currents of thought that puzzle and intrigue me. I will try to spell out what I mean:
1. The first thing that I notice is, again, a curious disinterest in *persons*. So, for example, some readers give not the vaguest hint that it disturbs them at all that God should command genocide in the Pentateuch. Hey! He's God! If he says the cold-blooded murder of a Canaanite baby is okay, then it's okay! Yes, I'm aware that no sparrow falls without the permission of our Father and that *all* things die because he, at some level, wills it. Still and all, to be *utterly* untroubled by it is... disturbing. It reminds me of the scene in Maritain where Jesus says you must hate your father and mother and the disciples are all upset by this--all except one. Judas laps it up.

I can't help but think there are some things in Scripture that are *supposed* to bother us and that a too-easy acquiesence is not necessarily a sign of sanctity, but of a need for diagrams to matter more than persons.

2. The weird notion that if something in Scripture is mysterious, that's a bad thing. As one of my readers put it, Jesus came to give us eternal life, not to give us all the answers.

3. The correllative notion that anybody who wrestles with these mysteries and comes up with different answers is, not just mistaken, but an "imbecile", an enemy, and a heretic.

4. The extremely strange notion that the Magisterium is out to "twist" and "explain away" the biblical text. This goes with the really weird notion that there are essentially two Magisteria: pre- and post-conciliar. The pre-conciliar Magisterium is the one to trust. The post-conciliar Magisterum is, at best, full of deluded ninnies or, at worst, out to deceive us all.

5. The peculiar notion that someplace else, there's a happy land without ambiguity and mystery where diagrams rule and persons can be safely dismissed. For some folks, this appears to be Orthodoxy (which has reversed itself on the liceity of contraception).

6. The *supremely* strange notion that a reversal about contraception is not only less serious than a reversal about torture, but that the Church's reversal about torture is actually a *terrible* thing. How it can be that a practice which affects the life of every family in the world for ill can be no big deal, while the rejection of a relatively rare (and horrible) practice is a disaster that undermines the Church to its very foundations is never explained.

Anyhow, here is the gracious Tom Haessler (with whom, by the way, I have my own questions and disagreements) trying to bring sanity and a civil tongue to the discussion:

1. The thread, as Mark pointed out, seems to be focused on Catholic Scriptural interpretation, the interpretation of pertinent papal and conciliar statements, how to understand John Paul II's understanding of capital punishment, and how to understand various statements and teachings about torture.

2. In everything I say about any subject, I hope it's understood that it's my intention to understand Catholic teaching (whether doctrine or dogma) and never to contest anything that the Church proposes to be held or to be believed. If anything I say is CONTRARY to Catholic teaching, I repudiate it. I acknowledge the authority of the Church to insist on assent to both dogmatic and doctrinal propositions whether the intention is to teach infallibly or not. But I must also insist that Catholics are not bound to accept the authority of theologians whether their reputation is liberal or conservative, "progressive" or "orthodox". I have learned much not touching on faith from theologians who are quite heterodox and more from theologians who've never rejected Catholic teaching; but my responsibility as a Catholic is to submit my judgment to the authority of the Church in controverted matters.

3. Ben Douglass clarifies the sort of religious world he inhabits when he insists that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI not only tolerated, but praised and promoted purveyors of "biblical heresy" like Fr. Raymond Brown. While there are many currents of thought which tempt the faithful to abandon their assent to Catholic truth, the view that the last two popes are conspicuous sources of danger to the faithful is somewhat bizarre indeed! Somewhat less bizarre, but also troubling is the notion that exegetes connected with Opus Dei (Navarre University) are misleading the faithful on biblical matters. The insistence that Fr. Harrelson is a credible guide in these matters locates Ben on a theological map - the nervous next door neighbors of sede vacantists.

4. The views of ultra-conservative Catholics on these matters are very close to Protestantism. The notion that one should decide that the decrees of the Biblical Commission on historical-critical matters are binding on Catholics today, despite the statements of authorities in the doctrinal congregation and the pope that they are NOT, is an instance of a penchant for "private" interpretation. The idea that the popes or the doctrinal congregation lead the faithful astray is bizarre. The error of John XXII about the beatific vision given in a couple of sermons and repudiated in the pope's own lifetime is not the same as focused attention on a matter of dispute between the ultra-conservative exegetes and the moderate mainstreamers by Cardinal Ratzinger who not only had the authority, but also the learning, to adjudicate this very minor dispute among Catholics.

5. I confess that I do not regard the consensus of loyal Catholic exegetes who have a reputation for competent scholarship AND a submissive attitude to magisterial authority (never the same as timidity about exploring difficult issues and exploring new avenues) as dangers to the faith of educated Catholics.

6. The disturbing phenomenon of heterodox theology dominating the scene in a substantial number of large American "Catholic" universities despite the efforts of the pope to restore orthodoxy is not the issue we're dealing with here. There are hundreds of Catholic exegetes working in seminaries, pontifical universities, and even many in universities who deservedly have lost their "Catholic" reputation, who combine scrupulous adherance to Catholic teaching with solid biblical scholarship.

Some Little Tales of the Unexplained Pertaining to Fatima

Hooray for Gutsy Olympian Grocers!

A reader writes from the capitol of Our Fair State:

Thought you might appreciate the local nature of the following story in the Daily Olympian.

Don't know if the grocery owners are Catholic or not. I DO get to see Gov Gregoire once or twice a year at our parish (St. Michael), and she has no compunction about presenting herself for Eucharist.

You may or may not know that Ralph's and Bayview groceries are pretty big here in Olympia; in fact, the only large-scale grocery stores, aside from Safeway, in the downtown area. At any rate, this is a pretty courageous stand, given the overweening liberal nature of Olympia.

Harry Forbes Needs to Be Replaced...

...by Steve Greydanus

A reader writes:

I looked to see if you would condemn the Iraquis for their torture of son's soldier buddies but I guess you think Abu Graib is worse. You are on the right track for getting invited by the National Catholic Reporter to cover the Iraqui war for them. Good work--you are crossing boundaries! If you add a post blaming Bush for what happened to those boys, you'd be on their payroll for sure. Be sure and leave out anything positive the soldiers have done over there but, hey, I know you'll do that!

I will assume that the guy who wrote this has friends or family in Iraq and that his passions are therefore involved.

My apologies for not remarking on this horrible event yesterday. I also did not remark on the election of the new Head Flake at the ECUSA, as well as most of the rest of the news yesterday. My failure to do so is not evidence that I approve of the torture of American troops, that I secretly want a job with the NCR (brrrrr!), that I somehow blame Bush (?) for what these thugs did, or that I have some vendetta against our troops. It just means that I plowed through my mail, responded to it (like I'm doing now) and wrote up a couple of things that were of interest to me yesterday before settling down to other tasks. I didn't pay much attention to the news.

I lament the murder of our troops by these thugs. May their souls and all the souls of the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

As the ECUSA Continues to Implode...

Pontifications continues to try to pick up the pieces and invite whoever will come to swim the Tiber.

Anglican sites are hopping this AM what with the latest round of extended middle fingers the ECUSA has offered the rest of Christendom. You may not get through to Pontifications for a while cuz their server is overloaded.

I wonder what the ELCA (which recognizes ECUSA orders) is going to do?

At any rate, if there are any Seattleites reading this who have had enough, drop me a line and I'll be happy to point you to a good RCIA at Blessed Sacrament. Any other Catholics who want to offer the same service in their area should feel free to stick a note and contact information in my combox.

A bit more on the liturgical excitements

When I say I don't care about the upcoming changes in the liturgy (actually restorations rather than alterations) I mean just that: I don't care. That doesn't mean, "I disapprove." I'm fine with whatever they decide to do. I just... don't care. I'm not now, nor have I ever been sitting on the edge of my seat, fretting over the liturgy. I think fretting over the liturgy defeats the purpose. Liturgy is the window through which we see the saving action of the Blessed Trinity. I think that to work oneself into a sweat of agitation over the spots on the window, the ripples in the glass and the tiny little imperfection is a waste of time. I would be looking *through* it and I have always approached it that way. Still less do I think it fruitful to come to Mass week after week filled with rage and indignation at the incompetence or perfidy of the glassmakers. It achieves nothing but what the devil wants: my mind off God and on something else.

I'm happy they made the changes. I'll be happy whatever they do, because I think it's my business to be happy and to worship God, not to be a fine-tuned liturgical fretter. If others feel called to that, that's between them and God. But they need to be aware that theirs is and always will be an emphatically minority occupation and that their interest in such matters (and the disinterest of others) is absolutely no measure of how good a Catholic one is.

Prayers Answered. Good Job, Troops!

Dave Pawlak writes:

I got the job.

I'm positively giddy with happiness.

Thank you and all your many readers for your prayers.

Boola Boola!

Why Catholics Don't Know What They are Talking About

And why it's okay.

Love Tom Haessler

The guy's really done his homework. Here he is weighing in on the thread (which begins here) concerning developments in doctrine which allegedly "contradict" previous doctrine (which is, by definition, not possible):

The explanations of infallibility and its extension to disciplinary decrees (such as the teaching found in Hermann and other authors sometimes conveniently classified as belonging to the "Roman school") are theological explanations, not magisterial teachings. They have no authority other than the learning and argumentation of their authors. The spin on infallibility of these authors is very characteristic of the teaching on infallibility of those authors allied with Pius IX and his understanding of infallibility during the deliberations at Vatican I. It is important to remember that Vatican I was deciding whether to define either (1) that the pope was infallible in teaching in matters of faith and morals, or (2) that the pope was infallible in DEFINING matters of faith and morals. The first position was rejected, the second one was accepted. Denzinger is a collection of DEFINITIONS (which are infallible) and DECLARATIONS (which are not infallible but are authentic and binding on the faithful until such a declaration would be trumped by a later declaration or a definition).

Many theologians (especially those outside of Italy and Spain) after Vatican I rejected the "creeping infallibility" aspect of authors like Hermann. It is important to distinguish between explanations by theologians of infallibility and the defining document itself. So, for example, many theologians teach that the pope is infallible in canonizing a saint (meaning that one MUST hold - not believe - that the saint in question is enjoying the beatific vision now). But the Church itself has never made this explanation of theologians part of its teaching in either a declaration or definition on the subject. Excellent arguments can be made that canonizations are exercises of the (secondary) object of infallibility. But this is theological, not (yet) Church teaching.

The notion that the Church is infallible in the exercise of its disciplinary function is widespread among many more conservative theologians. But very often these are authors whose grasp of church history is not as extensive and as in depth as the theologians denying that infallibility extends to this area - which is why they speak of "non-historical orthodoxy".

Some of the examples given by "progressive" theologians about alleged mistakes made by the magisterium in its non-infallible but authentic teaching are not plausible (on historical grounds). However, imagining that the Church has NEVER made a mistake in a declaration or authentic exercise of the teaching authority short of infallibility can create more problems than it solves. Each issue must be discussed and assessed separately.

Some exaggerate the degree to which the teaching of John Paul the Great "developed" the teaching on capital punishment. Austin Fagothy's RIGHT AND REASON, the most commonly used textbook on scholastic ethics before Vatican II, taught that IF capital punishment were unnecessary, THEN its use would be WRONG. Necessary for what? The defense of "society" or the "common good", NOT the defense of some hypothetical incarcerated convict who might be killed in the future in a prison setting. Many Catholic authors, especially in Europe, had argued strongly for the abolition of capital punishment BEFORE Vatican II. John Paul the Great did not issue his teaching as a lone wolf unaquainted with discussions among important Catholic voices before the Council.

As for disciplinary decrees on the Jews at Lateran IV they are DISCIPLINARY decrees and don't need to be assessed as if they were TEACHING. The same thing must be said, mutatis mutandis, of the decrees explaining torture (taken from Roman law). They are obsolete today, and are difficult to reconcile with the TEACHING of Pope Nicholas the Great that torture violates both natural and divine positive law.

Finally, the explanation of inerrancy that speaks of inerrant "propositions" were developed at a time when theologians and even exegetes erroneously imagined that the Bible was a collection of proof texts. It is impossible to reconcile this facile imposition of a vocabulary and conceptuality derived from scholastic philosophy and logic with what is known about how the Scriptures came to be written by their human authors. Yes, the Scriptures contain infallible truth, and yes, anything really asserted by the human author (in the sense that the author was explicitly attending to the truth factor in writing) is true, but only as interpreted in the light of the entire Scriptures as a hermeneutical principle. The classical understanding of inspiration depending on the incorrect notion that the Bible is a collection of books each written down by a human author (Pentateuch by Moses, Psalms by David, Proverbs by Solomon, etc., etc.). But who is inspired? The individual or group that collected Northern Israelite epic traditions, the individual or group that collected Southern Israelite epic traditions, the priests that collected various law codes, the final post-exilic redactor who laid them all out side by side with a few redactional seams here and there?

The definitions of biblical inspiration given by the popes in their biblical encyclicals show progressive refinement (the term of this development being the teaching in DEI VERBUM of Vatican II. These refinements were all due to the status of Catholic biblical studies at the time of writing. DV could not have been written without the major impact of DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITUS on biblical studies (which was, in part, a result of a more generous use of the historical critical method pioneered by Protestant scholars).

So the older explanation - that the imposition of the ban (herem) on conquered peoples as an offering to Yahweh was the result of a divine decree - is no longer defended by even very orthodox Catholic biblical critics. These stories are found in the Deuteronomistic history and are categorized as HISTORY, not as PROPHECY, in Catholic and Protestant canonical groupings. Jews continue to speak of the Former Prophets. But these texts are a witness to what Israelites believed about Holy War at a certain juncture in its history, not a revelation about God's will about the conduct of war. This explanation is found in many