This Goes Out to Luke and Tasha
Just a little Christmas treat to the two best singers in the fambly.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Farewell to Southern Appeal!
Feddie is one of the most decent guys I've had the pleasure getting to know and he will be sorely missed. God bless you in all your future endeavors, Feddie!
Feddie is one of the most decent guys I've had the pleasure getting to know and he will be sorely missed. God bless you in all your future endeavors, Feddie!
Interesting piece...
...on the tension between contempt for "the world" and the intense love of Creation that informs the Christian mystery and, in particular, its celebration of Christmas.
...on the tension between contempt for "the world" and the intense love of Creation that informs the Christian mystery and, in particular, its celebration of Christmas.
Rod Bennett Explains Boxing Day...
...and cracks me up in the process. He's also fun on the subject of ghosts and Christmas. Oh heck! Just read his whole blog.
And he shares with me this delightful bit of intelligence: "I'm going to be sending you a box with a screenplay in it here in a couple weeks. Hope it lives up to the promise of Pittsburgh!"
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers who heard the first draft of this screenplay are salivatin' to see the finished prodoct. I *so* want to see this thing get made. It will rock the house.
...and cracks me up in the process. He's also fun on the subject of ghosts and Christmas. Oh heck! Just read his whole blog.
And he shares with me this delightful bit of intelligence: "I'm going to be sending you a box with a screenplay in it here in a couple weeks. Hope it lives up to the promise of Pittsburgh!"
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers who heard the first draft of this screenplay are salivatin' to see the finished prodoct. I *so* want to see this thing get made. It will rock the house.
Friday, December 22, 2006
And so, Merry Christmas!
Blogging will be spotty till the New Year. Have a well-earned Christmas break and (peace to the White Witch) may it be, for you and yours, always Christmas and never winter (or at least never *just* winter)!
Blessings on all y'all!
Christ is born! Alleluia!
Blogging will be spotty till the New Year. Have a well-earned Christmas break and (peace to the White Witch) may it be, for you and yours, always Christmas and never winter (or at least never *just* winter)!
Blessings on all y'all!
Christ is born! Alleluia!
Saw "The Nativity" Last Night
I liked it for what it was: a pious and definitely modern Protestant take. The film really belongs to St. Joseph and is easily the best film portrayal of his utterly fetching Samwise Gamgee qualities of humble service and devotion. In contrast, Mary mostly frowns and pouts.
The burden of drama is that it requires *conflict*. Lacking conflict, Hollywood is forced to invent it where it didn't exist. Sometimes the invention of conflict is harmless: the squabbling astronauts in "Apollo 13". Sometimes it's irritating: the conflicted Faramir of "The Lord of the Rings". And sometimes it's theologically dicey: the sullen "I was a Teenage Bride" Mary of "The Nativity" who has picked up a little hostility to patriarchy in her Feminism 101 class at high school and doesn't like being betrothed to "a man she hardly knows" (even though they live in a town that is roughly the size of a postage stamp and it would be hard to avoid each other for their whole lives). But the conflict is necessary to the drama (if not the original story) because Joseph needs the hostility in order for his character to have something to overcome and show his true worth. Men should see the film, if only to find a genuine hero in St. Joseph.
On the whole, and given its theological biases, the film is most certainly devout. It takes the Virgin Birth for granted and there are no postmodern winks or nods. It's the work of somebody who has read the NIV translation of Scripture, chosen to take it at face value (and without one drop of Catholic interpretive tradition) and tell us that story. It assumes (as St. Jerome never would have) that Mary is a humble sinner whose misdeeds tend to run toward petulance and a little wilfulness, but that she has a fundamentally good heart. Perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and Mary as the Second Eve are ideas that never enter its head. But on the main thing--that Jesus is God in human flesh born of a Virgin--the film is solidly *there*.
Oh, also, they do a nice job of depicting Herod and, even more, his utterly reptilian son, Herod Antipas. What a lovely family they must have been. Not for nothing did Augustus remark, "Better to be Herod's pig than Herod's son."
Joe Bob sez, "Check it out."
I liked it for what it was: a pious and definitely modern Protestant take. The film really belongs to St. Joseph and is easily the best film portrayal of his utterly fetching Samwise Gamgee qualities of humble service and devotion. In contrast, Mary mostly frowns and pouts.
The burden of drama is that it requires *conflict*. Lacking conflict, Hollywood is forced to invent it where it didn't exist. Sometimes the invention of conflict is harmless: the squabbling astronauts in "Apollo 13". Sometimes it's irritating: the conflicted Faramir of "The Lord of the Rings". And sometimes it's theologically dicey: the sullen "I was a Teenage Bride" Mary of "The Nativity" who has picked up a little hostility to patriarchy in her Feminism 101 class at high school and doesn't like being betrothed to "a man she hardly knows" (even though they live in a town that is roughly the size of a postage stamp and it would be hard to avoid each other for their whole lives). But the conflict is necessary to the drama (if not the original story) because Joseph needs the hostility in order for his character to have something to overcome and show his true worth. Men should see the film, if only to find a genuine hero in St. Joseph.
On the whole, and given its theological biases, the film is most certainly devout. It takes the Virgin Birth for granted and there are no postmodern winks or nods. It's the work of somebody who has read the NIV translation of Scripture, chosen to take it at face value (and without one drop of Catholic interpretive tradition) and tell us that story. It assumes (as St. Jerome never would have) that Mary is a humble sinner whose misdeeds tend to run toward petulance and a little wilfulness, but that she has a fundamentally good heart. Perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and Mary as the Second Eve are ideas that never enter its head. But on the main thing--that Jesus is God in human flesh born of a Virgin--the film is solidly *there*.
Oh, also, they do a nice job of depicting Herod and, even more, his utterly reptilian son, Herod Antipas. What a lovely family they must have been. Not for nothing did Augustus remark, "Better to be Herod's pig than Herod's son."
Joe Bob sez, "Check it out."
A reader writes:
I don't know how useful my experience will be, but here goes:
Yeah, I have tended toward scruples in the past. The first blow against them came in my very first confession, where a sweet old priest who was about a thousand years old listened to my absurdly detailed confession and then gently told me, "That was a very good examination of conscience.... but you don't need to into all that. When an elephant walks in the room, you know it." Moral: Stick to the big issues and don't spend too much time practicing self-examination. In a funny way, it's a form of idolatry, so don't let the devil trick you into it.
Another hugely helpful encounter (again in confession) was when a priest told me to stop agonizing about the question, "Do I really love Jesus?" It is, he said, a question the devil loves to suggest to us, because it is completely unanswerable. The heart is not knowable in that way and attempts to answer such questions are like attempts to turn our eyeballs inside out. The real question is "Is Jesus lovable?" That question actually has an answer and I can answer it at once. Plus, it has the effect of taking our eyes off ourselves and putting them on the actual object of worship.
Ultimately you will not be able to heal yourself of scruples any more than you can get rid of any of your other sins by yourself. The healing will come, not through more introspection, but through setting your focus clearly on Christ where he may be found, in the Eucharist, in the other sacrament, and (I fancy) especially in modeling yourself on other people who maintain a healthy relationship with God, yet without being troubled by scruples. Also, finding a good confessor/spiritual director can help. It sounds like the guy who heard your confession may not be ideal, but if you can find somebody, it might help. Try your chancery and see if they can recommend somebody.
Just came from morning confession where I was, shall we say, strongly reprimanded for offering a "devotional" confession at the expense of receiving the Eucharist (confession extends through the Mass at the cathedral here, which is new to me). Certainly not spoken in gentleness, especially since I thought it was worthwhile for me to be there. But maybe the priest has a point -- that I have a case of the scruples.
You've mentioned on the blog that you've struggled with scruples in the past. Can you offer any suggestions for a rookie Catholic (three years and counting) in a poorly catechized archdiocese?
I don't know how useful my experience will be, but here goes:
Yeah, I have tended toward scruples in the past. The first blow against them came in my very first confession, where a sweet old priest who was about a thousand years old listened to my absurdly detailed confession and then gently told me, "That was a very good examination of conscience.... but you don't need to into all that. When an elephant walks in the room, you know it." Moral: Stick to the big issues and don't spend too much time practicing self-examination. In a funny way, it's a form of idolatry, so don't let the devil trick you into it.
Another hugely helpful encounter (again in confession) was when a priest told me to stop agonizing about the question, "Do I really love Jesus?" It is, he said, a question the devil loves to suggest to us, because it is completely unanswerable. The heart is not knowable in that way and attempts to answer such questions are like attempts to turn our eyeballs inside out. The real question is "Is Jesus lovable?" That question actually has an answer and I can answer it at once. Plus, it has the effect of taking our eyes off ourselves and putting them on the actual object of worship.
Ultimately you will not be able to heal yourself of scruples any more than you can get rid of any of your other sins by yourself. The healing will come, not through more introspection, but through setting your focus clearly on Christ where he may be found, in the Eucharist, in the other sacrament, and (I fancy) especially in modeling yourself on other people who maintain a healthy relationship with God, yet without being troubled by scruples. Also, finding a good confessor/spiritual director can help. It sounds like the guy who heard your confession may not be ideal, but if you can find somebody, it might help. Try your chancery and see if they can recommend somebody.
The German arm of Greenpeace Comes out Against ESCR
Way to go, Deutsche Greenpeace!
Science 15 December 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5806, p. 1669
ScienceScope
BERLIN--German stem cell researchers fear that medical innovation will suffer after a court annulled the first German patent for a human stem cell-related invention. Scientists are allowed to use--but not create--human embryonic stem (ES) cells in Germany for basic research, but the court decided 5 December that patents cannot be granted, citing moral concerns. The court's decision is the culmination of a 7-year legal battle between University of Bonn cell biologist Oliver Brüstle and the German branch of Greenpeace, which argues that it is immoral to use cells created through the destruction of human embryos to turn a profit.
Brüstle was granted a German patent in 1999 for a method of converting ES cells into nerve cells for potential applications in treating neurological trauma and disease. Greenpeace challenged that patent in court soon after. The decision "will further weaken any attempt to develop stem cell-based therapies in Germany," says Hans Schöler, a stem cell biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine in Münster. "Which [foreign] industrial partner will be interested to team up with someone who does not have a patent?" Brüstle plans an appeal soon.
Way to go, Deutsche Greenpeace!
My apologies (but no retraction) to my offended Protestant reader...
I remarked yesterday that atheism generally strikes me as a more extreme version of Protestantism. I hope my entry just before this one explains why. At the end of the day, Protestantism, as its name implies, is a protest, a reaction against something before it. Originally, it was a reaction to the Catholic Church. Then it became reactions to other kinds of Protestants who were insufficiently de-Catholicized. Then it was a reaction to those reactions. It does not seem to me to take much imagination to realize that modern Western atheism is simply one more step in that process, when some Europeans said, "Oh just screw the whole thing!" and abandoned the project of belief altogether.
Modern atheism is, in my experience, a much sadder affair than it's more robust progenitors (say, in the French Revolution). Often, it relies on exactly the same sort of rhetoric that Fundamentalists rely on. Catholics are "cookie worshippers" who don't know that it all comes from Mithra and Isis. Only, the attack then extends where Fundamentalists won't go: to the Bible itself (a perfectly logical thing to do, given the premisses).
What hits me in the face about the atheists I usually encounter (largely on the web) is the rage, combined with an insistence that they are cool, level-headed empiricists in the disinterested pursuit of the Truth (as distinct from self-deluding theists enslaved to the memes of Primitives). I've learned that I can virtually never believe this claim of cool impartiality, and I've learned that atheists genuinely don't seem to recognize just how much anger they exude, nor how it colors their delusional "disinterested pursuit of the truth". They seem to genuinely believe that it is only the theists that is driven by irrational needs, hatreds and fears, never the atheist.
Just as I'm often tempted to ask the Fundamentalist, "What would you do if, assuming the impossible, you discovered that the Catholic faith was, in fact, true?", so I'm sometimes tempted to ask the atheist, "What would you do if you discovered for a fact that God did exist?" I think it's a worthwhile question because it seems to me perfectly obvious that in the case of many atheists, the real issue is not that they don't think God exists, it's that they don't *want* God to exist. For those folk, the issue is the will, not the intellect, and they need to stop kidding themselves that things are otherwise.
As a convert myself (from agnostic paganism) I'm perfectly aware of the "Lord, save me from your followers!" mindset. Yes, there's much in the Church to irritate a sane man. But that bit of lofty arrogance will only get you so far. Sooner or later you discover that they're not all monobrowed losers and you are not such hot stuff. But that's for the Holy Spirit to make clear. Our task as human followers of Christ is to speak the truth in love, and it's all we can do to make that happen since we are such doofuses.
I remarked yesterday that atheism generally strikes me as a more extreme version of Protestantism. I hope my entry just before this one explains why. At the end of the day, Protestantism, as its name implies, is a protest, a reaction against something before it. Originally, it was a reaction to the Catholic Church. Then it became reactions to other kinds of Protestants who were insufficiently de-Catholicized. Then it was a reaction to those reactions. It does not seem to me to take much imagination to realize that modern Western atheism is simply one more step in that process, when some Europeans said, "Oh just screw the whole thing!" and abandoned the project of belief altogether.
Modern atheism is, in my experience, a much sadder affair than it's more robust progenitors (say, in the French Revolution). Often, it relies on exactly the same sort of rhetoric that Fundamentalists rely on. Catholics are "cookie worshippers" who don't know that it all comes from Mithra and Isis. Only, the attack then extends where Fundamentalists won't go: to the Bible itself (a perfectly logical thing to do, given the premisses).
What hits me in the face about the atheists I usually encounter (largely on the web) is the rage, combined with an insistence that they are cool, level-headed empiricists in the disinterested pursuit of the Truth (as distinct from self-deluding theists enslaved to the memes of Primitives). I've learned that I can virtually never believe this claim of cool impartiality, and I've learned that atheists genuinely don't seem to recognize just how much anger they exude, nor how it colors their delusional "disinterested pursuit of the truth". They seem to genuinely believe that it is only the theists that is driven by irrational needs, hatreds and fears, never the atheist.
Just as I'm often tempted to ask the Fundamentalist, "What would you do if, assuming the impossible, you discovered that the Catholic faith was, in fact, true?", so I'm sometimes tempted to ask the atheist, "What would you do if you discovered for a fact that God did exist?" I think it's a worthwhile question because it seems to me perfectly obvious that in the case of many atheists, the real issue is not that they don't think God exists, it's that they don't *want* God to exist. For those folk, the issue is the will, not the intellect, and they need to stop kidding themselves that things are otherwise.
As a convert myself (from agnostic paganism) I'm perfectly aware of the "Lord, save me from your followers!" mindset. Yes, there's much in the Church to irritate a sane man. But that bit of lofty arrogance will only get you so far. Sooner or later you discover that they're not all monobrowed losers and you are not such hot stuff. But that's for the Holy Spirit to make clear. Our task as human followers of Christ is to speak the truth in love, and it's all we can do to make that happen since we are such doofuses.
Interesting Discussion with Adrienne the Polite... um... Non-Theist in the Combox on this Thread
I'm having a little trouble following the taxonomy discussion because I'm not sure that consensus has been reached. Folks are bandying different definitions of agnostic, atheist (hard and soft) and so forth. My own (admittedly fuzzy) definitions have always been
Agnostic: somebody who doesn't know if God exists and thinks the question cannot be resolved
Atheist: Somebody who is certain God does not exist (and who, in my experience, feels an unusual need to evangelize on this point).
Of course, the phenomenon is more complex than this. However, since I don't hang in agnostic/atheist circle I haven't studied the various denominations and schools of anti-theology. For instance, some people are agnostic or atheist because they actively don't believe the question can be answered. Others are agnostic because (to be blunt) things like making money and getting laid occupy their attention (I knew a lot of these guys in college). Still others have agonized about the question and lost their faith due to various life experiences or trains of thought. And, of course, some are just furious at God and/or his people. And that is not an exhaustive catalog of reasons.
My comments about atheism tend to be shaped by my experience of atheists on the web. In real life, atheists seldom buttonhole you on park benches to begin spit-flecked lectures on how much they loathe faithheads. But the Internet tends to bring those people out and give them a place where they can spew. So vocal, evangelical atheists tend to become the face of atheism. Happily, Adrienne does not seem to be of this ilk, which makes for an interesting conversation.
Adrienne assures me there are lots of theories of morality that don't need a God to work. I suppose there are, or at least seem to be. One of the great linguistic mixups of these discussions seems to me to be Christians who say that atheists "can't be moral if there is no God." Obviously, this is false. I think it more accurate to say that atheism cannot account for morality in an intellectually satisfying way (at least to my mind). It seems to me to be constantly smuggling in mystical doctrines from the Judeo-Christian tradition that sometimes flatly contradict its own committments to materialism and empiricism.
So, for instance, we find materialist attempts to account for the human mind stymied by the fact that we are quite obviously free to make moral choices, yet materialists like William Provine are committed (by their a priori materialists dogmas) to the faith that freedom is an illusion since Mind is entirely the product of matter and energy acting in slavish obedience to physical laws. Atheist sneers at the concept of a "rational soul" are part and parcel of the package. In the end, human acts are entirely the result of natural forces, just like the acts of a dog.
And yet, atheism has a long tradition of ignoring its own premisses and speaking as though Reason transcends Nature, even though its whole argument is that *nothing* transcends Nature because Nature is all there is. This is either sleight of hand or, as I suspect, muddled thinking.
And not only does the supposition of the use of Reason as a free, nature-transcending act seem to me to be an exercise in self-contradiction, even more the constant appeals of atheism to morality seem to compound the blunder and borrow even more from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Because atheists are constantly moralizing, not least about the sin of theists. In short, they posit a nature-transending reason that not only can be used, but misused. But what is the sense of saying that a purely natural act is "wrong"?
The normal dodge here is to say "We don't mean 'sinful'. We mean 'unbeneficial to the community'." However, this is just to push the borrowing a little further back. Because you have to still be holding that "the survival of the community" is a Good. But good and evil make no sense in a purely natural world. The arrival of an asteroid 65 million years ago was highly unbeneficial to the dinosaur community. But nobody thinks the extinction of the dinosaurs was a sin in the way the Holocaust was a sin. And yet, in a materialist world, both were ultimately simply the results of matter and energy going through their motions.
Some may press on and say, "Yes, that's right! They were! We attach moral significance to the Holocaust because it helps us survive as a species. But that is ultimately an illusion." However, if they do, they had better contact that atheist community's polemic department, because yer average anti-theist polemics sound very distinctly like they believe theists are genuinely wicked and damnable and not merely like their geno-environment programming makes them prefer margarine while atheists prefer butter.
It is this constant borrowing from the Judeo-Christian tradition which, to me, gives tthe game away. From the presumption of a mystical doctrine of freedom (and, it's corrollary, sin) to the purely mystical belief in human equality (try proving that to pure empiricists like Aristotle) to constant appeals to teleology to its conviction that the Self is a good thing, atheism seems to me to continually borrow from the Judeo-Christian tradition, either consciously or unconsciously.
I'm having a little trouble following the taxonomy discussion because I'm not sure that consensus has been reached. Folks are bandying different definitions of agnostic, atheist (hard and soft) and so forth. My own (admittedly fuzzy) definitions have always been
Agnostic: somebody who doesn't know if God exists and thinks the question cannot be resolved
Atheist: Somebody who is certain God does not exist (and who, in my experience, feels an unusual need to evangelize on this point).
Of course, the phenomenon is more complex than this. However, since I don't hang in agnostic/atheist circle I haven't studied the various denominations and schools of anti-theology. For instance, some people are agnostic or atheist because they actively don't believe the question can be answered. Others are agnostic because (to be blunt) things like making money and getting laid occupy their attention (I knew a lot of these guys in college). Still others have agonized about the question and lost their faith due to various life experiences or trains of thought. And, of course, some are just furious at God and/or his people. And that is not an exhaustive catalog of reasons.
My comments about atheism tend to be shaped by my experience of atheists on the web. In real life, atheists seldom buttonhole you on park benches to begin spit-flecked lectures on how much they loathe faithheads. But the Internet tends to bring those people out and give them a place where they can spew. So vocal, evangelical atheists tend to become the face of atheism. Happily, Adrienne does not seem to be of this ilk, which makes for an interesting conversation.
Adrienne assures me there are lots of theories of morality that don't need a God to work. I suppose there are, or at least seem to be. One of the great linguistic mixups of these discussions seems to me to be Christians who say that atheists "can't be moral if there is no God." Obviously, this is false. I think it more accurate to say that atheism cannot account for morality in an intellectually satisfying way (at least to my mind). It seems to me to be constantly smuggling in mystical doctrines from the Judeo-Christian tradition that sometimes flatly contradict its own committments to materialism and empiricism.
So, for instance, we find materialist attempts to account for the human mind stymied by the fact that we are quite obviously free to make moral choices, yet materialists like William Provine are committed (by their a priori materialists dogmas) to the faith that freedom is an illusion since Mind is entirely the product of matter and energy acting in slavish obedience to physical laws. Atheist sneers at the concept of a "rational soul" are part and parcel of the package. In the end, human acts are entirely the result of natural forces, just like the acts of a dog.
And yet, atheism has a long tradition of ignoring its own premisses and speaking as though Reason transcends Nature, even though its whole argument is that *nothing* transcends Nature because Nature is all there is. This is either sleight of hand or, as I suspect, muddled thinking.
And not only does the supposition of the use of Reason as a free, nature-transcending act seem to me to be an exercise in self-contradiction, even more the constant appeals of atheism to morality seem to compound the blunder and borrow even more from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Because atheists are constantly moralizing, not least about the sin of theists. In short, they posit a nature-transending reason that not only can be used, but misused. But what is the sense of saying that a purely natural act is "wrong"?
The normal dodge here is to say "We don't mean 'sinful'. We mean 'unbeneficial to the community'." However, this is just to push the borrowing a little further back. Because you have to still be holding that "the survival of the community" is a Good. But good and evil make no sense in a purely natural world. The arrival of an asteroid 65 million years ago was highly unbeneficial to the dinosaur community. But nobody thinks the extinction of the dinosaurs was a sin in the way the Holocaust was a sin. And yet, in a materialist world, both were ultimately simply the results of matter and energy going through their motions.
Some may press on and say, "Yes, that's right! They were! We attach moral significance to the Holocaust because it helps us survive as a species. But that is ultimately an illusion." However, if they do, they had better contact that atheist community's polemic department, because yer average anti-theist polemics sound very distinctly like they believe theists are genuinely wicked and damnable and not merely like their geno-environment programming makes them prefer margarine while atheists prefer butter.
It is this constant borrowing from the Judeo-Christian tradition which, to me, gives tthe game away. From the presumption of a mystical doctrine of freedom (and, it's corrollary, sin) to the purely mystical belief in human equality (try proving that to pure empiricists like Aristotle) to constant appeals to teleology to its conviction that the Self is a good thing, atheism seems to me to continually borrow from the Judeo-Christian tradition, either consciously or unconsciously.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
A reader writes:
Discuss, class.
If you're so inclined, would you put the following Oscar Wilde quote out for discussion?Men always want to be a woman's first love. That is their clumsy vanity. We woman have a more subtle instinct about things. What we like is to be a man's last romance.
Upfront, I will say that I don't know where the quote comes from and I don't know what in his background would have caused him to make such a statement.
I've had a discussion with a woman who uses this as an excuse to basically justify having partners in the past and feeling no compulsion to suffer any sort of remorse about the immorality that happened during those relationships. Her husband is greatly bothered about this lack of remorse; his feelings are exacerbated by her putting out the Oscar Wilde comment as justification. I'd like to provide some good counter-arguments to this woman's sentiments and am interested to know what you/CAEI readers have to offer on the subject.
Discuss, class.
Scientists Once Again Prove Newman Right
In his Idea of the University (IIRC), he points out that since supernature abhors a vacuum, when you get rid of Theology as the Queen of the Science, some other discipline will get sucked in and try to fill the void. Result: mechanics making stupid and ignorant pronouncements on moral theology. The careers of guys like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins have, likewise and in varying degrees, been marred by this itch to turn their disciplines into modes of supernatural revelation that reveal Nothing and are therefore thought to "prove" atheism.
There are only two arguments against the existence of God:
1. Everything seems to work fine without Him, so he's not there.
2. Life sucks, so there's no God.
As a general rule, the science guys who invest themselves in the Gospel of Atheism make the first of the two arguments. However, being human, they sometimes cannot resist delving into the second one at times. The problem is, when you introduce morality ("Look at all the evil witch-burning Christians!") you inevitably appeal to the fact that humans have rational souls for which they are responsible. Problem is: the atheist a materialist, trying to reduce free moral choices to an epiphenomenon of matter. And the problem with that is that our greatest brain scientists despair of being able to show that, despite the fact that they are often themselves atheists with a strong a priori committment to the faith (and it most emphatically a faith, not any thing proven by science) that mind is purely a product of matter and energy. So most atheists land themselves in self-contradiction: raging at the moral evils of theists while trying to argue that theism is purely a consequence of the same mindless forces that shaped a pig's snout and gave the alligator a taste for human flesh. Rarely is an explanation attempted for why the atheist moralist is angry at Jeffrey Dahmer but not at the alligator.
AI, I confidently declare, is *never* going to happen. The reason it will never happen is that only God can create rational souls. Belief in the Coming Rosy Dawn of AI is a laboratory specimen of the Atheist's Inability to Resist Eschatological Hope coupled with the pagan tendency to place hope in creatures rather than in the Creator. As with all pagan hope, it leads only to sadness apart from Christ. There's a reason the greatest pagan poets lamented the "tears of things".
PS. John Searle, who has been thinking about this full-time for about 30 years, agrees with me about the extreme difficulties with the possibility of AI.
Interestingly, my pastor informs me that Searle, an atheist, has been talking with Thomists about this stuff because he is coming to realize that materialism isn't going to cut it in explaining the human mind.
For further reading, please check out the work of Br. Christopher Fadok, a Western Province Dominican who is doing his internship at my parish, Blessed Sacrament, and who has written a fascinating paper called "Looking Forward to the Past: A Plea for Thomistic Intervention in the Philosophy of Mind". His basic point: Materialist explanations of mind aren't going to cut it. Mind Science should bite the bullent and take a look at St. Thomas (particularly since many scientists have not the faintest clue what Thomas says).
Don't be terribly surprised if the brightest lights in this field wind up Catholic.
In his Idea of the University (IIRC), he points out that since supernature abhors a vacuum, when you get rid of Theology as the Queen of the Science, some other discipline will get sucked in and try to fill the void. Result: mechanics making stupid and ignorant pronouncements on moral theology. The careers of guys like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins have, likewise and in varying degrees, been marred by this itch to turn their disciplines into modes of supernatural revelation that reveal Nothing and are therefore thought to "prove" atheism.
There are only two arguments against the existence of God:
1. Everything seems to work fine without Him, so he's not there.
2. Life sucks, so there's no God.
As a general rule, the science guys who invest themselves in the Gospel of Atheism make the first of the two arguments. However, being human, they sometimes cannot resist delving into the second one at times. The problem is, when you introduce morality ("Look at all the evil witch-burning Christians!") you inevitably appeal to the fact that humans have rational souls for which they are responsible. Problem is: the atheist a materialist, trying to reduce free moral choices to an epiphenomenon of matter. And the problem with that is that our greatest brain scientists despair of being able to show that, despite the fact that they are often themselves atheists with a strong a priori committment to the faith (and it most emphatically a faith, not any thing proven by science) that mind is purely a product of matter and energy. So most atheists land themselves in self-contradiction: raging at the moral evils of theists while trying to argue that theism is purely a consequence of the same mindless forces that shaped a pig's snout and gave the alligator a taste for human flesh. Rarely is an explanation attempted for why the atheist moralist is angry at Jeffrey Dahmer but not at the alligator.
AI, I confidently declare, is *never* going to happen. The reason it will never happen is that only God can create rational souls. Belief in the Coming Rosy Dawn of AI is a laboratory specimen of the Atheist's Inability to Resist Eschatological Hope coupled with the pagan tendency to place hope in creatures rather than in the Creator. As with all pagan hope, it leads only to sadness apart from Christ. There's a reason the greatest pagan poets lamented the "tears of things".
PS. John Searle, who has been thinking about this full-time for about 30 years, agrees with me about the extreme difficulties with the possibility of AI.
Interestingly, my pastor informs me that Searle, an atheist, has been talking with Thomists about this stuff because he is coming to realize that materialism isn't going to cut it in explaining the human mind.
For further reading, please check out the work of Br. Christopher Fadok, a Western Province Dominican who is doing his internship at my parish, Blessed Sacrament, and who has written a fascinating paper called "Looking Forward to the Past: A Plea for Thomistic Intervention in the Philosophy of Mind". His basic point: Materialist explanations of mind aren't going to cut it. Mind Science should bite the bullent and take a look at St. Thomas (particularly since many scientists have not the faintest clue what Thomas says).
Don't be terribly surprised if the brightest lights in this field wind up Catholic.
Hmmm... This is disturbing.
On the other hand, surely the Administration is capable of learning from mistakes. They would never send troops into harm's way without, say, adequate armor or, say, a clear exit strategy and definition of victory. So they will certain heed the lessons of this exercise.
On the other hand, surely the Administration is capable of learning from mistakes. They would never send troops into harm's way without, say, adequate armor or, say, a clear exit strategy and definition of victory. So they will certain heed the lessons of this exercise.
This
reminds me of this:
reminds me of this:
Now the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it. It is the contention of these pages that while the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard. He does not judge Christianity calmly as a Confucian would; he does not judge it as he would judge Confucianism. He cannot by an effort of fancy set the Catholic Church thousands of miles away in strange skies of morning and judge it as impartially as a Chinese pagoda. It is said that the great St. Francis Xavier, who very nearly succeeded in setting up the Church there as a tower overtopping all pagodas, failed partly because his followers were accused by their fellow missionaries of representing the Twelve Apostles with the garb or attributes of Chinamen. But it would be far better to see them as Chinamen, and judge them fairly as Chinamen, than to see them as featureless idols merely made to be battered by iconoclasts; or rather as cockshies to be pelted by empty-handed cockneys. It would be better to see the whole thing as a remote Asiatic cult; the mitres of its bishops as the towering head dresses of mysterious bonzes; its pastoral staffs as the sticks twisted like serpents carried in some Asiatic procession; to see the prayer book as fantastic as the prayer-wheel and the Cross as crooked as the Swastika. Then at least we should not lose our temper as some of the sceptical critics seem to lose their temper, not to mention their wits. Their anti-clericalism has become an atmosphere, an atmosphere of negation and hostility from which they cannot escape. Compared with that, it would be better to see the whole thing as something belonging to another continent, or to another planet. It would be more philosophical to stare indifferently at bonzes than to be perpetually and pointlessly grumbling at bishops. It would be better to walk past a church as if it were a pagoda than to stand permanently in the porch, impotent either to go inside and help or to go outside and forget. For those in whom a mere reaction has thus become an obsession, I do seriously recommend the imaginative effort of conceiving the Twelve Apostles as Chinamen. In other words, I recommend these critics to try to do as much justice to Christian saints as if they were Pagan sages.
A reader eager for euthanasia writes:
Actually, that's pretty much what the euthanasia movement is about. The goal is to make it possible for bean counters and hospital administratoes to decide who is and is not profitable enough to keep alive. The fiction that this about control of our destiny is just that: fiction. We already have control of our destiny. Anybody who likes can gas themselves, shoot themselves, jump off a bridge or do away with themselves in any number of ways. The Death Brigade want to make it possible to kill those whom the Elite decides are unworthy of life. It is *sold*, of course, as "choice". But it will be delivered in the form of doctors empowered to kill you.
Wow. The desperation to control people's bodies just gets stronger and stronger...
Now you are adamant that people must not even be allowed to refuse treatment if it could keep them alive?
That's pretty scary stuff. Sounds like we need to cede all control of our bodies to doctors...
Actually, that's pretty much what the euthanasia movement is about. The goal is to make it possible for bean counters and hospital administratoes to decide who is and is not profitable enough to keep alive. The fiction that this about control of our destiny is just that: fiction. We already have control of our destiny. Anybody who likes can gas themselves, shoot themselves, jump off a bridge or do away with themselves in any number of ways. The Death Brigade want to make it possible to kill those whom the Elite decides are unworthy of life. It is *sold*, of course, as "choice". But it will be delivered in the form of doctors empowered to kill you.
Schoolchildren Fight: MSM Treats it Like News
Meanwhile, in Darfur, another few thousand die.
Who says the West is decadent?
Meanwhile, in Darfur, another few thousand die.
Who says the West is decadent?
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
A classic example of the Cultured Despiser Plying His Trade
The Cultured Despiser loathes the Catholic Church. He wants the Church to look as ridiculous as possible. Being a Cultured Despiser, he actually knows very little about the Church: only that it is filled with impossibly stupid and superstitious people ruled by manipulated Italian schemers. To his intense joy, he finds that some Italian locals have a devotion to a supposed relic of Jesus' foreskin.
Only here's the problem: the historical record gives every indication that Rome is as skeptical of all this as he is. That's what all that "infamous and to be avoided" stuff is about. Not a problem! When Rome says "Find something else to talk about, people" it is, of course, "decreeing" and "excommunicating". (I wonder if the writer has the foggiest idea of what a real excommunication is or of how rare they are.) No matter! When the writer expresses skepticism, he is being a bold thinker unshackled by Church dogma. When Rome does it, they are being ruthless dictators.
I hold no brief for the relic itself and, in fact, am highly skeptical. But this is the sort of article that takes what could have been a really interesting study in how the Church's *tolerance* (for the vast diversity of devotions around the world) can sometimes be tested by the outlandishness of the human heart, and instead turns it into another tired rendition of the Church-as-Police-State meme, coupled with a stupid and baseless conspiracy theory.
The Cultured Despiser loathes the Catholic Church. He wants the Church to look as ridiculous as possible. Being a Cultured Despiser, he actually knows very little about the Church: only that it is filled with impossibly stupid and superstitious people ruled by manipulated Italian schemers. To his intense joy, he finds that some Italian locals have a devotion to a supposed relic of Jesus' foreskin.
Only here's the problem: the historical record gives every indication that Rome is as skeptical of all this as he is. That's what all that "infamous and to be avoided" stuff is about. Not a problem! When Rome says "Find something else to talk about, people" it is, of course, "decreeing" and "excommunicating". (I wonder if the writer has the foggiest idea of what a real excommunication is or of how rare they are.) No matter! When the writer expresses skepticism, he is being a bold thinker unshackled by Church dogma. When Rome does it, they are being ruthless dictators.
I hold no brief for the relic itself and, in fact, am highly skeptical. But this is the sort of article that takes what could have been a really interesting study in how the Church's *tolerance* (for the vast diversity of devotions around the world) can sometimes be tested by the outlandishness of the human heart, and instead turns it into another tired rendition of the Church-as-Police-State meme, coupled with a stupid and baseless conspiracy theory.
Gay Blackshorts on the March
Spitting on Christian feasts in the name of inclusiveness. Tolerance of homosexuals is insufficient. You. MUST. Approve. You. MUST. Acknowledge that homosexual acts are the greatest, most noble, and highest acts the human person is capable of. Anything less than joyous celebration of the glories of homosex is insufficient. Homosexuals have every right to commit bald acts of aggression against Christians. Christians have no right to protest. This is wise and just and if you question that, you are a troglodyte and, in a just world, would be subject to the full wrath of Caesar. Let us all work together for the dawn of that just world!
Spitting on Christian feasts in the name of inclusiveness. Tolerance of homosexuals is insufficient. You. MUST. Approve. You. MUST. Acknowledge that homosexual acts are the greatest, most noble, and highest acts the human person is capable of. Anything less than joyous celebration of the glories of homosex is insufficient. Homosexuals have every right to commit bald acts of aggression against Christians. Christians have no right to protest. This is wise and just and if you question that, you are a troglodyte and, in a just world, would be subject to the full wrath of Caesar. Let us all work together for the dawn of that just world!
From Our "Transparent Agitprop" Dept.
Murder Inc. commissions the best propagandists money can buy to prove the startling bombshell "People have been having premarital sex for decades--even Baby Boomers!"
Well. If the sexual revolution extends all the way back to 1967 then clearly premarital sex is, as the article proclaims "normal" and, if normal, then good. Dawn, resistance is futile and chastity is impossible. You will be assimilated! The mandarins of Choice have made clear that freedom is an illusion. All adolescents are the slaves of appetite and *must* do what is "normal" according to the canons of Woodstock culture. Submit to the Dominant Paradigm or be destroyed. That's what Freedom of Choice is all about!
Murder Inc. commissions the best propagandists money can buy to prove the startling bombshell "People have been having premarital sex for decades--even Baby Boomers!"
Well. If the sexual revolution extends all the way back to 1967 then clearly premarital sex is, as the article proclaims "normal" and, if normal, then good. Dawn, resistance is futile and chastity is impossible. You will be assimilated! The mandarins of Choice have made clear that freedom is an illusion. All adolescents are the slaves of appetite and *must* do what is "normal" according to the canons of Woodstock culture. Submit to the Dominant Paradigm or be destroyed. That's what Freedom of Choice is all about!
Good news and bad news from Italy
They are more pro-life than the US...
...for now:
They are more pro-life than the US...
45 percent of Italians would remove Welby's respirator while 54 percent said they couldn't end his life by doing that.
...for now:
62 percent of Italians under the age of 25 would remove Welby's treatment.
Many, many thanks!
Once again the kind and generous readers of CAEI have come through to help keep a blogger of rather modest income on the air and able to feed his kidlets. Our deepest gratitude here at Chez Shea.
Oh, and Michael Bolin, you won the freebie book! Drop me a line and tell me which one you'd like.
Once again the kind and generous readers of CAEI have come through to help keep a blogger of rather modest income on the air and able to feed his kidlets. Our deepest gratitude here at Chez Shea.
Oh, and Michael Bolin, you won the freebie book! Drop me a line and tell me which one you'd like.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Basic Lessons of Combox Etiquette
I try to run a fairly loose ship in my comboxes. Eccentrics and people with Bizarre and Preposterous Theories are free to post, as long as they can take the heat in the kitchen.
But when I don't take their insane ideas seriously and they start issuing what sound like threats...
...it's time they be made to leave--forcibly.
Note to future Rude People: Let this guy's fate serve as a warning to you.
I try to run a fairly loose ship in my comboxes. Eccentrics and people with Bizarre and Preposterous Theories are free to post, as long as they can take the heat in the kitchen.
But when I don't take their insane ideas seriously and they start issuing what sound like threats...
Oh, and Mark- next time you post something like this, it would be a good idea to reconsider. You may not know what "whackos" may be hiding around the corner.
...it's time they be made to leave--forcibly.
Note to future Rude People: Let this guy's fate serve as a warning to you.
Good Day! It's Day 7 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week
Advent is a time of doing good works. 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! The person to donate the largest amount today--Day 7--will get a free signed copy of whichever one of my books you would like.
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.
Advent is a time of doing good works. 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! The person to donate the largest amount today--Day 7--will get a free signed copy of whichever one of my books you would like.
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.
The Lameness of the Ticking Bomb Scenario
This writer (without, as far as I know, being aware of the Church's teaching on intrinsic evil), does raise an interesting point. If the desperation of the situation makes the intrinsic evil of torture "not really torture and therefore not really intrinsically evil" then are we also going to argue that other (admittedly highly hypothetical and unlikely circumstances render other intrinsically immoral acts "not really intrinsically immoral".
The hypothetical this guy concocts adds one more absurdly unlikely ingredient to the normal "24" scenario that people constantly appeal to: the notion that your Terrorist Who Knows Where the Bomb Is turns out to be a gross pervert who will only spill the beans in time if you will rape your own daughter in front of him. Like I say, it's a stupid hypothetical (much like the Ticking Bomb scenarios itself). But it does rather illuminate what the Church is getting at when it is talking about "intrinsic evil". His point:
That's what has driven all this discussion in the Administration-boosting wing of the MSM.
Me: I am now perfectly persuaded that this whole line of inquiry is an utter waste of time and, many times, constitutes an act of sinning by hypotheticals, since we live in a world where prisoner abuse is happening and absurd Ticking Bomb scenarios are not. The real line of inquiry is "How do we ensure that prisoners are treated humanely while still getting the intelligence we need?"
This writer (without, as far as I know, being aware of the Church's teaching on intrinsic evil), does raise an interesting point. If the desperation of the situation makes the intrinsic evil of torture "not really torture and therefore not really intrinsically evil" then are we also going to argue that other (admittedly highly hypothetical and unlikely circumstances render other intrinsically immoral acts "not really intrinsically immoral".
The hypothetical this guy concocts adds one more absurdly unlikely ingredient to the normal "24" scenario that people constantly appeal to: the notion that your Terrorist Who Knows Where the Bomb Is turns out to be a gross pervert who will only spill the beans in time if you will rape your own daughter in front of him. Like I say, it's a stupid hypothetical (much like the Ticking Bomb scenarios itself). But it does rather illuminate what the Church is getting at when it is talking about "intrinsic evil". His point:
So how come we hear so much about the torture quandary and nothing about mine? Why, according to Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay in a November 2005 Knight-Ridder report, has Dick Cheney adverted to the Alan Dershowitz version “several times” and mine never? Why does Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) tell the New York Daily News editorial board that various torture techniques “are very rare, but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that,” at least in “those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent,” but never says anything about creating “some lawful authority” for emergency incest?
The answer is simple: State agents don’t have any ambition to rape their own children.
This is a clue to the real misdirection of the ticking bomb scenario. It’s always presented as a “What would you do?” dilemma, but in truth it has nothing to do with you. The proper question is: “What should we allow officials embedded in the security bureaucracy to do with impunity? What shall we let their bosses order without legal repercussion?”
That's what has driven all this discussion in the Administration-boosting wing of the MSM.
Me: I am now perfectly persuaded that this whole line of inquiry is an utter waste of time and, many times, constitutes an act of sinning by hypotheticals, since we live in a world where prisoner abuse is happening and absurd Ticking Bomb scenarios are not. The real line of inquiry is "How do we ensure that prisoners are treated humanely while still getting the intelligence we need?"
Jeremy Lott Thinks the TIME "You of the Year" thing is Lame too
Not to mention condescending.
On the other hand, given that Jeremy Lott is both a convicted thief as well as a suicide, should we really credit what Jeremy Lott thinks?
Now some of you are going to ask, "If Lott is really a suicide, why is he still blogging?" That just shows how little you know about hypocrisy. Of *course* a hypocritical suicide is still alive! And nobody knows more about hypocrisy than Lott. He literally wrote the book on it:
(And a very good book it is, by the way. Just in case you are still looking for a Christmas present for somebody.)
Not to mention condescending.
On the other hand, given that Jeremy Lott is both a convicted thief as well as a suicide, should we really credit what Jeremy Lott thinks?
Now some of you are going to ask, "If Lott is really a suicide, why is he still blogging?" That just shows how little you know about hypocrisy. Of *course* a hypocritical suicide is still alive! And nobody knows more about hypocrisy than Lott. He literally wrote the book on it:
(And a very good book it is, by the way. Just in case you are still looking for a Christmas present for somebody.)
Uh Huh
TEC Muckety Muck Kate Schori says the Episcopal communion is not splintering over gay issues.
I think what she meant to say was that it is not splintering *just* over gay issues. There's also the fact that she's a heretic quack who thinks that saying "There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved than 'Jesus' is 'putting God in a small box'".
At any rate, while the non-splintering Episcopal communion is being led by ninnies whose Big Ponderings lead them to (I am not making this up) reflect on the joys of defecation ("better than sex!") and speculate on Jesus' flatulence and gymnastic sex life, the last remaining serious and thoughtful Anglicans are engaging in serious discussions with serious and thoughtful Catholics who, despite their crippling fertility rates and endemic stupidity, seem somehow to have more substantial theological chops than the entire leadership of the TEC. As the TEC continues to not-splinter, I look forward to still more bridges of understanding and communion being built between the Catholic Church and serious orthodox Anglicans.
TEC Muckety Muck Kate Schori says the Episcopal communion is not splintering over gay issues.
I think what she meant to say was that it is not splintering *just* over gay issues. There's also the fact that she's a heretic quack who thinks that saying "There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved than 'Jesus' is 'putting God in a small box'".
At any rate, while the non-splintering Episcopal communion is being led by ninnies whose Big Ponderings lead them to (I am not making this up) reflect on the joys of defecation ("better than sex!") and speculate on Jesus' flatulence and gymnastic sex life, the last remaining serious and thoughtful Anglicans are engaging in serious discussions with serious and thoughtful Catholics who, despite their crippling fertility rates and endemic stupidity, seem somehow to have more substantial theological chops than the entire leadership of the TEC. As the TEC continues to not-splinter, I look forward to still more bridges of understanding and communion being built between the Catholic Church and serious orthodox Anglicans.
A reader writes:
Now you know!
My name is Edward Lee, and am the blogger of "To Jesus Through Mary".
I am teaming up with a friend of mine who like myself will be entering the seminary in the fall of 2007. We want to get a feel of how young people, particularly those 16-45 view the Catholic Church and how they would like the church to be in 20 years from now. That is why Mason and myself are creating the "Direction of the Church Survey" or a similar title, we're still working on everything. Right now we are asking bloggers to promote this survey.
A little more about it. There will be 25-50 questions asking them for their opinion on certain topics. The survey was initially was going to be sent by email but will now be contained a secure website with password access. For this reason we ask those interested to send an email to catholicsurvey@gmail.com so they can be added to our address book. The survey will be released sometime in January.
To make sure our statistics are not invalid because according to one statistician those that read Catholic blogs tend me be more conservative and orthodox we are teaming up with several Directors of Religious Education who are asking their Confirmation Students to take part in this survey as well. As of now only one blog has promoted the survey and we already have 35+ people exhibit interest and we feel that with your help we can have over 200 people take part in this survey with the real goal being at least 500.
After launching the campaign for interest a Catholic publisher has offered a deal to a book about the statistics. Though I am not an author we are looking for someone who might be interested in using our statistics and author a book of the views of young people.
In the next few weeks a website will be created and the survey will begin and we ask your support to promote this survey. We hope that you will do so by making a post on your blog. In order to particiapte in the survey people must email us so they can receive the password to take the survey. Please also encourage DRE's or catechists to contact us as well.
If you need more information please check out my blog post.
If you do indeed decide to blog about our survey please provide an email response to let us know so we can make note of it.
Thank you and God Bless!
Now you know!
The Increasingly Surreal and Odd Homestarrunner.com Celebrates Decemberween
Hypersensitive "War On Christmas" people in need of Insensitivity Training need to be cautioned: Homestarrunner does not talk about Christmas. This is not, however, part of their sympathy for the godless forces of Christmas-hatred marching through Elite Media Culture. It's just part and parcel fo the fact that Homestarrunner seems to be an entirely peculiar alternate universe that delights in linguistic perpendicularity and the coining of new and odd words and holidays.
Hypersensitive "War On Christmas" people in need of Insensitivity Training need to be cautioned: Homestarrunner does not talk about Christmas. This is not, however, part of their sympathy for the godless forces of Christmas-hatred marching through Elite Media Culture. It's just part and parcel fo the fact that Homestarrunner seems to be an entirely peculiar alternate universe that delights in linguistic perpendicularity and the coining of new and odd words and holidays.
A reader writes:
Consider it promoted.
I don't know just how many readers are yet familiar with a current movement in Catholic America beyond those of us who have been active. Beyond the recent history of the grassroots movement for this cause of "Our Lady of America", there is the movement's own real history with its documentation, messages and involvement of former bishop. Now we hear of an almost miraculous action - obviously for time is now ripe - involving our current group of bishops who not only need the benefit of carrying out this completion of our Blessed Mother's wishes, but it is up to them to make it happen! This news is wonderful to hear and it comes after much work done not only throughout this country of America, but also after carrying the representative statue all over the world. It is a little sign of some real recognition by at least a few good men.
Consider it promoted.
Ross Douthat notes...
...that the Christian community has not had a very coherent response to Mary Cheney's pregnancy. Fair enough.
Personally, I think this piece is the response. I don't know if the author is a Christian or even a theist, but I know that they feel keenly the consequences of never having had the bond to a father that God intended.
I'm beginning to think that among the rubble from the destruction of the Christian tradition, one of the things we are losing as biotech makes its assent is the distinction between "Begotten, not made". Increasingly, children are being treated as products, rights, and extensions of our egos, not as gifts and persons. The fallout from this is incalculable.
That does not, of course, mean that every single individual conceived by non-natural means will experience what this person did. It does mean that, in the aggregate, a culture that chooses--as we are choosing--to decouple children from the bonds of the natural family of male and female in marriage and thrust them into some vast societal experiment is play the game "What could it hurt?/How was I supposed to know?" with incalculable (and almost certainly disastrous) odds.
...that the Christian community has not had a very coherent response to Mary Cheney's pregnancy. Fair enough.
Personally, I think this piece is the response. I don't know if the author is a Christian or even a theist, but I know that they feel keenly the consequences of never having had the bond to a father that God intended.
I'm beginning to think that among the rubble from the destruction of the Christian tradition, one of the things we are losing as biotech makes its assent is the distinction between "Begotten, not made". Increasingly, children are being treated as products, rights, and extensions of our egos, not as gifts and persons. The fallout from this is incalculable.
That does not, of course, mean that every single individual conceived by non-natural means will experience what this person did. It does mean that, in the aggregate, a culture that chooses--as we are choosing--to decouple children from the bonds of the natural family of male and female in marriage and thrust them into some vast societal experiment is play the game "What could it hurt?/How was I supposed to know?" with incalculable (and almost certainly disastrous) odds.
File under "Democratic Capitalism, Unmoored from the Christian Tradition, is the Gravest Danger the West Faces on a Day to Day Basis"
Rich people struggle to ensure that the maximum number of babies are killed and cannibalized.
Rich people struggle to ensure that the maximum number of babies are killed and cannibalized.
Passive Aggression
Joe Perez writes me out of the blue to tell me he can't get into St. Blog's parish. Truth to tell, I have no idea if I'm in St. Blog's parish. I always thought it was just a joking way to refer to "any Catholic blogger". I somehow missed that there is apparently a real blogroll or something out there that you can actually be on.
Anyway, Perez writes to notify me of the sanctimonious exclusionism of whoever it is that runs St. Blog's parish. Imagine! They won't include a guy who holds both them and their faith in open contempt and subjects them to fatuous and asinine analyses of their level of spiritual development. (It turns out rubes like St. Blog's parish and folks like yours truly are way down on Perez' taxonomy of spiritual development. Perez is, not surprisingly, quite highly developed spiritually.)
Which, of course, begs the question: If St. Blog's is filled with such loathsome troglodytes, why is Perez so eager to be a member? One almost gets the impression that Plato is seeking to amuse himself by teasing the inmates at the asylum. But that would be a most unlovely portrait of narcissism and Perez is far too spiritually developed for such things. He's thinking Higher Thoughts.
Joe Perez writes me out of the blue to tell me he can't get into St. Blog's parish. Truth to tell, I have no idea if I'm in St. Blog's parish. I always thought it was just a joking way to refer to "any Catholic blogger". I somehow missed that there is apparently a real blogroll or something out there that you can actually be on.
Anyway, Perez writes to notify me of the sanctimonious exclusionism of whoever it is that runs St. Blog's parish. Imagine! They won't include a guy who holds both them and their faith in open contempt and subjects them to fatuous and asinine analyses of their level of spiritual development. (It turns out rubes like St. Blog's parish and folks like yours truly are way down on Perez' taxonomy of spiritual development. Perez is, not surprisingly, quite highly developed spiritually.)
Which, of course, begs the question: If St. Blog's is filled with such loathsome troglodytes, why is Perez so eager to be a member? One almost gets the impression that Plato is seeking to amuse himself by teasing the inmates at the asylum. But that would be a most unlovely portrait of narcissism and Perez is far too spiritually developed for such things. He's thinking Higher Thoughts.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Good Day! It's Day 6 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week
We're in the Home Stretch of the Great Winter Drive. You've done a phenomenal job so far and my dentist, gutter replacement guys, 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 sagging gutters get fixed. You can either make a straight donation or, if you like to get something for your money (beyond this blog, I mean), you can buy my books and tapes. And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Today's your day. 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!
We're in the Home Stretch of the Great Winter Drive. You've done a phenomenal job so far and my dentist, gutter replacement guys, 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 sagging gutters get fixed. You can either make a straight donation or, if you like to get something for your money (beyond this blog, I mean), you can buy my books and tapes. And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Today's your day. 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!
9/11 Conspiracy Theorists: Now Available in Crazy, Rude,
...or Both!
Where does Kathy find this stuff?
...or Both!
Where does Kathy find this stuff?
Greenpeace Founder Makes the Case for Nuclear Energy
Interesting piece. I have a feeling he will soon be as welcome as Judas Iscariot in Greenie circles.
Interesting piece. I have a feeling he will soon be as welcome as Judas Iscariot in Greenie circles.
I have a hard time telling the difference between...
this
and
this.
Oh sure, the latter involves some property damage. But since property rights are themselves a bit of mystification rooted in barbaric tribal codes from mythical deities proclaiming "Thou shalt not steal" and since Brights like Daniel Dennett have already advocated totalitarian measures to keep Catholics from teaching their own children, I'm afraid the quibble about property damage is pretty minor. Once you have advocated stealing a man's children by main force, spray painting his lawn statue is a pretty trivial offense. If I really believed that, in religion, we are faced with what guys like Dawkins and Dennett call the Greatest Evil in the World, I think I would rather respect the Church vandals more than the little cowards who only put up You Tube video that are the equivalent of ringing God's doorbell and running away. They, at least, have the courage of Dennett's convictions. Dennett shows himself a coward.
But, of course, I believe no such thing. So I think the sort of adolescence that prompted the Church desecration is just a more ballsy form of what is prompting this oh-so-silly new campaign by Dawkins and Co. I just wish these guys would be honest and say, "By 'religion', we mean "Christianity". Since there seems to be remarkably little blasphemy of Zeus, Odin or Quetzlcoatl happening.
Honestly, don't these people have something useful to do with their time?
this
and
this.
Oh sure, the latter involves some property damage. But since property rights are themselves a bit of mystification rooted in barbaric tribal codes from mythical deities proclaiming "Thou shalt not steal" and since Brights like Daniel Dennett have already advocated totalitarian measures to keep Catholics from teaching their own children, I'm afraid the quibble about property damage is pretty minor. Once you have advocated stealing a man's children by main force, spray painting his lawn statue is a pretty trivial offense. If I really believed that, in religion, we are faced with what guys like Dawkins and Dennett call the Greatest Evil in the World, I think I would rather respect the Church vandals more than the little cowards who only put up You Tube video that are the equivalent of ringing God's doorbell and running away. They, at least, have the courage of Dennett's convictions. Dennett shows himself a coward.
But, of course, I believe no such thing. So I think the sort of adolescence that prompted the Church desecration is just a more ballsy form of what is prompting this oh-so-silly new campaign by Dawkins and Co. I just wish these guys would be honest and say, "By 'religion', we mean "Christianity". Since there seems to be remarkably little blasphemy of Zeus, Odin or Quetzlcoatl happening.
Honestly, don't these people have something useful to do with their time?
Stupid Party Candidate Begins Gearing Up to Pretend He Cares About Human Life
Romney will do everything in his power to appear to be concerned! Vows to feign interest "for as long as it takes"! Pledges his unswerving committment to seeming to care. Unveils long term plan to keep American awareness of abortion at pre-Christian Carthaginian levels.
Another election. Another prolife kabuki from a rich man. And we'll all step and fetch for him or someone like him because the only alternative is the Democratic maniac running around with scissors and looking for a baby's brain to stab as he or she jabbers about deathless devotion to the sacrament of abortion.
What a country.
Romney will do everything in his power to appear to be concerned! Vows to feign interest "for as long as it takes"! Pledges his unswerving committment to seeming to care. Unveils long term plan to keep American awareness of abortion at pre-Christian Carthaginian levels.
Another election. Another prolife kabuki from a rich man. And we'll all step and fetch for him or someone like him because the only alternative is the Democratic maniac running around with scissors and looking for a baby's brain to stab as he or she jabbers about deathless devotion to the sacrament of abortion.
What a country.
I don't get why Weigel still argues this was a Just War
I buy the first conclusion of this article. I don't buy the second. WWII was, after all, a war of regime change. That said, I think the unspoken qualifier is "regime change against a regime that has not made war on us." That, I buy. It's why I have never had a problem with the Afghanistan War.
I buy the first conclusion of this article. I don't buy the second. WWII was, after all, a war of regime change. That said, I think the unspoken qualifier is "regime change against a regime that has not made war on us." That, I buy. It's why I have never had a problem with the Afghanistan War.
Sin Doesn't Just Make You Stupid. In it's extreme forms, it makes you crazy
That's why a culture that murders 1.5 million of its kids each year and struggles to preserve the God-given right to stick scissors in a baby's brain obsesses over how to mercifully kill a lobster.
I think it's displacement: "Oh, but I'm not an inhuman monster! Sure, I approve of sticking scissors in a baby's brain. But look how tenderly I fret about lobsters! I'm really quite a lovely person!"
That's why a culture that murders 1.5 million of its kids each year and struggles to preserve the God-given right to stick scissors in a baby's brain obsesses over how to mercifully kill a lobster.
I think it's displacement: "Oh, but I'm not an inhuman monster! Sure, I approve of sticking scissors in a baby's brain. But look how tenderly I fret about lobsters! I'm really quite a lovely person!"
10 Million Indian Girls Die Due to Glorious Triumph of Western Power-Based Feminism
In Abortion World, girls die at a spectacular rate.
Moral: All sin is its own punishment in the long run. A perverted feminism which seeks power for women more than love for neighbor or God dooms itself to making women a still more powerless minority. Only a Christian feminism that puts the love of God and neighbor first (and therefore seeks to give woman her proper dignity as a corrollary of these loves) can survive.
In Abortion World, girls die at a spectacular rate.
Moral: All sin is its own punishment in the long run. A perverted feminism which seeks power for women more than love for neighbor or God dooms itself to making women a still more powerless minority. Only a Christian feminism that puts the love of God and neighbor first (and therefore seeks to give woman her proper dignity as a corrollary of these loves) can survive.
On an ordinary day by day basis, capitalism unmoored from the Christian tradition presents a far more greater threat to the lives of western Christians than communism
Exhibit A
Exhibit B: Your television
Exhibit C: Ukraine Babies in stem cell probe
Memory verse: I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one. - Luke 12
Counterintuitive as it may sound, Jesus is much more worried about a Church that lives in the midst of temptation than a Church that lives in the midst of persecution. That (obviously) does not mean we don't have to care about those suffering under the Commies, Islam or elsewhere. It does mean that our easy tendency to view the triumph democratic capitalism over the commies as a sort of divine imprimatur on Our Way of Life may be a bit premature.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B: Your television
Exhibit C: Ukraine Babies in stem cell probe
Memory verse: I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one. - Luke 12
Counterintuitive as it may sound, Jesus is much more worried about a Church that lives in the midst of temptation than a Church that lives in the midst of persecution. That (obviously) does not mean we don't have to care about those suffering under the Commies, Islam or elsewhere. It does mean that our easy tendency to view the triumph democratic capitalism over the commies as a sort of divine imprimatur on Our Way of Life may be a bit premature.
Keep Mass in Christmas!
I'm empathetic to the Evangelicals who discern a War on Christmas among our elites. It is disingenuous in the extreme for people who spend all the rest of the year spitting on Christians and their faith (as our Swedish class does) to pretend that they don't hold Christmas in as much contempt as they hold the rest of the Christian faith. But it is also worth it for Evangelicals to note that when Protestantism got rid of the "Mass" part of "Christmas" they more or less guaranteed that the Christ part would come under attack someday too. Once the faith ceases to be the faith of the Body of Christ and becomes simply whatever each individual says it is in the court of private judgement, it's just a matter of time before the court of private judgement decides it sees no particular need for Christ at all. The Evangelical attempt to have just enough cultural consensus to "keep America Christian" while refusing enough cultural consensus to keep the Church Catholic is a balancing act I do not believe they can pull off in the long run.
I'm empathetic to the Evangelicals who discern a War on Christmas among our elites. It is disingenuous in the extreme for people who spend all the rest of the year spitting on Christians and their faith (as our Swedish class does) to pretend that they don't hold Christmas in as much contempt as they hold the rest of the Christian faith. But it is also worth it for Evangelicals to note that when Protestantism got rid of the "Mass" part of "Christmas" they more or less guaranteed that the Christ part would come under attack someday too. Once the faith ceases to be the faith of the Body of Christ and becomes simply whatever each individual says it is in the court of private judgement, it's just a matter of time before the court of private judgement decides it sees no particular need for Christ at all. The Evangelical attempt to have just enough cultural consensus to "keep America Christian" while refusing enough cultural consensus to keep the Church Catholic is a balancing act I do not believe they can pull off in the long run.
Everybody Knows that Medievals Believed in a Flat Earth
Guess what?
Everybody is wrong.
One of the most marvelous things about Modernity is it's simultaneous ability to laugh at the small-mindedness of our ignorant medieval forbears combined with its utter inability to conceive of the possibility that it is almost preternaturally small-minded and ignorant about medievals.
Dante Alighieri was a medieval Italian poet who lived 1265-1321. Here's a map of the earth as portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy:
Quick quiz: Is the shape of the earth
1. Flat?
2. Round?
Moral: A huge amount of what moderns "know" about medieval Catholicism is what various Enlightenment era types tell them and they believe with perfect, childlike faith. That's the only explanation for why an allegedly educated modern population could think of the period that gave us the hospital, the university, the foundations of Western democratic rule, the nation-state, the birth of the scientific era, and an unprecedented outburst of theological and artistic creativity the "Dark Ages".
Guess what?
Everybody is wrong.
One of the most marvelous things about Modernity is it's simultaneous ability to laugh at the small-mindedness of our ignorant medieval forbears combined with its utter inability to conceive of the possibility that it is almost preternaturally small-minded and ignorant about medievals.
Dante Alighieri was a medieval Italian poet who lived 1265-1321. Here's a map of the earth as portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy:
Quick quiz: Is the shape of the earth
1. Flat?
2. Round?
Moral: A huge amount of what moderns "know" about medieval Catholicism is what various Enlightenment era types tell them and they believe with perfect, childlike faith. That's the only explanation for why an allegedly educated modern population could think of the period that gave us the hospital, the university, the foundations of Western democratic rule, the nation-state, the birth of the scientific era, and an unprecedented outburst of theological and artistic creativity the "Dark Ages".
TIME's "Person of the Year" Editorial Team Decides to Take Vacation
Sorry, but this is just lame.
Way to go, Everybody! You're *all* special!
Sorry, but this is just lame.
Way to go, Everybody! You're *all* special!
Fr. Rob love Gaudete Sunday!
Gaudete Sunday falls near the end of the Birthday Season here at Chez Shea. My wife Janet is an Irish Twin (meaning she was born less than a year after Hary Ann, her older sister). So from November 30 till December 18 is the Birthday Season when they are the same age. Yesterday we had Mary Ann and her husband over for cake and ice cream, a fittingly Gaudete thing to do, methinks.
Gaudete Sunday falls near the end of the Birthday Season here at Chez Shea. My wife Janet is an Irish Twin (meaning she was born less than a year after Hary Ann, her older sister). So from November 30 till December 18 is the Birthday Season when they are the same age. Yesterday we had Mary Ann and her husband over for cake and ice cream, a fittingly Gaudete thing to do, methinks.
Making the Perfect the Enemy of the Good
Some friends got an earnest email from the local Very Earnest Catholic Homeschool group: "Don't Go See the Nativity!"
Why? Mary is depicted as suffering *labor pains*. The email was a passionate exhortation to protect our children from this naked all-out assault on the Faith.
Now, I'm aware of the arguments in my comboxes about the consensus of the Fathers on this issue. The consensus of the Fathers weighs heavily with me. And so, I'm inclined to buy the argument that Mary did not suffer labor. But, on the whole, I'm not going to regard a film made by devout Protestants as an attack on the Faith if it overlooks this point.
In an industry that routinely cranks out enough toxins to kill an elephant, I think it's crazy to start an email campaign against a film like "The Nativity", which gets the main lines of the story straight, which affirms the miraculous birth of our Lord, and which exposes a large audience to the story. There may be aesthetic reasons to say, "This is not a good film" (Dunno. Haven't seen it.) But there's something just a little left of plumb about starting a passionate email campaign against it while, by our silence, saying, "...so take the kids to see something healthy and good like Casino Royale or whatever new collection of fart joke Adam Sandler is peddling."
Some friends got an earnest email from the local Very Earnest Catholic Homeschool group: "Don't Go See the Nativity!"
Why? Mary is depicted as suffering *labor pains*. The email was a passionate exhortation to protect our children from this naked all-out assault on the Faith.
Now, I'm aware of the arguments in my comboxes about the consensus of the Fathers on this issue. The consensus of the Fathers weighs heavily with me. And so, I'm inclined to buy the argument that Mary did not suffer labor. But, on the whole, I'm not going to regard a film made by devout Protestants as an attack on the Faith if it overlooks this point.
In an industry that routinely cranks out enough toxins to kill an elephant, I think it's crazy to start an email campaign against a film like "The Nativity", which gets the main lines of the story straight, which affirms the miraculous birth of our Lord, and which exposes a large audience to the story. There may be aesthetic reasons to say, "This is not a good film" (Dunno. Haven't seen it.) But there's something just a little left of plumb about starting a passionate email campaign against it while, by our silence, saying, "...so take the kids to see something healthy and good like Casino Royale or whatever new collection of fart joke Adam Sandler is peddling."
Friday, December 15, 2006
Good Morning! It's Day 5 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week
To all who have given and/or bought my wares: THANKS! From the bottom of my heart! To those who have not yet contributed to the Pledge Drive: Don't think somebody else will do it. Lots of people thought that yesterday. Consequently there were seven donations (out of the roughly 16,000 page views). So please help out. I promise, no more mention of money stuff for three months after Pledge Drive ends.
Has this blog been a source of good for you that you can't find anywhere else? Then please consider a gift to and click on the PayPal button to the left so that C&EI can stay on the air and our kids get fed, dentalficated, and so forth. 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 PayPal, 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!
And don't forget: I'm available to come speak to your parish or other Catholic gathering. Need a referral on whether hiring me is a good bet? Ask Fr. Phil Bloom!
To all who have given and/or bought my wares: THANKS! From the bottom of my heart! To those who have not yet contributed to the Pledge Drive: Don't think somebody else will do it. Lots of people thought that yesterday. Consequently there were seven donations (out of the roughly 16,000 page views). So please help out. I promise, no more mention of money stuff for three months after Pledge Drive ends.
Has this blog been a source of good for you that you can't find anywhere else? Then please consider a gift to and click on the PayPal button to the left so that C&EI can stay on the air and our kids get fed, dentalficated, and so forth. 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 PayPal, 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!
And don't forget: I'm available to come speak to your parish or other Catholic gathering. Need a referral on whether hiring me is a good bet? Ask Fr. Phil Bloom!
The Church in Bethlehem is Disappearing
Caught in the crossfire between Israelis and PLO types. Who wouldn't leave if they could?
Caught in the crossfire between Israelis and PLO types. Who wouldn't leave if they could?
My Pal Kris Franklin has a cool website
If you are looking for some good fiction for the young teen in need of a Christmas present, she's your gal. Plus, if you check out her site you will get to see her, resplendent in her Writing Hat of Power.
If you are looking for some good fiction for the young teen in need of a Christmas present, she's your gal. Plus, if you check out her site you will get to see her, resplendent in her Writing Hat of Power.
Is this simony?
A reader offers a fund drive donation and writes:
Here at CAEI, we does our best to articulate eternal truths.
Here is today's eternal truth: God exists. Details can be found in Scripture.
A reader offers a fund drive donation and writes:
I am paying for one eternal truth. No need to send it to me personally: you can just post one of your favorites on your blog if you wish.
MY own favorite: MEEK TO INHERIT EARTH. Details at 11.
Here at CAEI, we does our best to articulate eternal truths.
Here is today's eternal truth: God exists. Details can be found in Scripture.
Bureaucratic Dunderhead Upholds Constitutional Wall of Separation Between Religion and Ice-Skating
A pluperfect confluence of cowardice, stupidity and bullying.
The good thing is that the tone of the story is very much on the side of the choir. The mayor is quoted as coming out strongly against this sort of PC idiocy. And Cohen, God bless her, makes it clear that this was a moronic act by an over-eager clown. Most of the War on Christmas coverage in the MSM has been of this type this year. I think the elites have overreached and are backing off on the recent attempts to crush Christmas.
A city staff member, accompanied by a police officer, approached the Rubidoux High School Madrigals at the Riverside Outdoor Ice Skating Rink just as they launched into "God Rest Ye Merry Gentleman" and requested that the troupe stop singing, the Riverside Press-Enterprise reported Thursday.
A pluperfect confluence of cowardice, stupidity and bullying.
The good thing is that the tone of the story is very much on the side of the choir. The mayor is quoted as coming out strongly against this sort of PC idiocy. And Cohen, God bless her, makes it clear that this was a moronic act by an over-eager clown. Most of the War on Christmas coverage in the MSM has been of this type this year. I think the elites have overreached and are backing off on the recent attempts to crush Christmas.
Speaking of Radio...
I will also be on "The Catholic Guy", Lino Rulli's show on the Sirius network, today around 4:40pm EST. You can stream it here.
I will also be on "The Catholic Guy", Lino Rulli's show on the Sirius network, today around 4:40pm EST. You can stream it here.
The busiest day in the history of my blog
Yesterday, for the entire day, my blog was utterly swamped in page views courtesy of Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner. Apparently, a lot of people have a passionate interest in the origins of Christmas. And, of course, when they come and read the piece, some of them then go back an blog on it or link to it at their own sites, so the force of the blog blast is multiplied.
A friend of mine (a historian, not coincidentally) is fond of saying, "There is no such thing as an unanswerable argument." He's perfectly right, of course. To the most tightly argued point in the world, people can always reply by just bullheadedly insisting on what they've always said. Or they can reply with a total irrelevancy. Or they can have so little interest in the question that they dismiss it and re-assert what "everybody knows". One of the links to my piece on the non-pagan origins of Christmas has a conversation where one guy manages to achieve all three of these strategies:
One can hardly blame him. It is, for somebody who quotes Diderot saying, "Man will be truly free only when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" a discussion that is not amenable to his prejudices or interests.
Another thing that happens (understandably since this piece was linked through a political journal) is that people take me to be saying something I'm not. I'm not, for instance, making any comments about the War on Christmas. (I think there is an obvious hostility to Christianity among our cultural elites. I also think there is a zeal to exploit that fact among some rightwingers. But that's not what this piece was about.)
Nor was it about defending December 25 as the actual date of Christ's birth. It was simply about showing what Christians were interested in when they were seeking the sources of revelation. Contra Dan Brown and all the rest of the "Christianity is just warmed over paganism" crowd, the fact is they had zero interest in pagan religious idea as sources of revelation. Their focus was on Jewish and Christian scripture and tradition. Pagan forms they would occassionally fill with Christian content (the monument to the Unknown god, Christmas trees, wedding rings, easter eggs, etc). But they never filled Christian forms with pagan content.
By the way, for those in the Northern Alabama area, I will be doing an interview at around 11:05 AM on 101.1 FM on this. I'm amazed at the response!
Yesterday, for the entire day, my blog was utterly swamped in page views courtesy of Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner. Apparently, a lot of people have a passionate interest in the origins of Christmas. And, of course, when they come and read the piece, some of them then go back an blog on it or link to it at their own sites, so the force of the blog blast is multiplied.
A friend of mine (a historian, not coincidentally) is fond of saying, "There is no such thing as an unanswerable argument." He's perfectly right, of course. To the most tightly argued point in the world, people can always reply by just bullheadedly insisting on what they've always said. Or they can reply with a total irrelevancy. Or they can have so little interest in the question that they dismiss it and re-assert what "everybody knows". One of the links to my piece on the non-pagan origins of Christmas has a conversation where one guy manages to achieve all three of these strategies:
I don't have time to read the whole thing now, but it will be interesting to see how he skirts documented, multi-cultural, multi-geographical (is that a term?) history to make his case. He wouldn't by chance be a creationist, too, would he?
One can hardly blame him. It is, for somebody who quotes Diderot saying, "Man will be truly free only when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" a discussion that is not amenable to his prejudices or interests.
Another thing that happens (understandably since this piece was linked through a political journal) is that people take me to be saying something I'm not. I'm not, for instance, making any comments about the War on Christmas. (I think there is an obvious hostility to Christianity among our cultural elites. I also think there is a zeal to exploit that fact among some rightwingers. But that's not what this piece was about.)
Nor was it about defending December 25 as the actual date of Christ's birth. It was simply about showing what Christians were interested in when they were seeking the sources of revelation. Contra Dan Brown and all the rest of the "Christianity is just warmed over paganism" crowd, the fact is they had zero interest in pagan religious idea as sources of revelation. Their focus was on Jewish and Christian scripture and tradition. Pagan forms they would occassionally fill with Christian content (the monument to the Unknown god, Christmas trees, wedding rings, easter eggs, etc). But they never filled Christian forms with pagan content.
By the way, for those in the Northern Alabama area, I will be doing an interview at around 11:05 AM on 101.1 FM on this. I'm amazed at the response!
Whew! That Was a Lulu!
Huge storm bashes Pacific Northwest! Our power was out most of last night, which was a joy because we just lit candles and wrapped Christmas presents!
Everything is calm this morning. I'll go out and inspect for damage in a while, but I think we were basically snug as badgers and will remain so.
Huge storm bashes Pacific Northwest! Our power was out most of last night, which was a joy because we just lit candles and wrapped Christmas presents!
Everything is calm this morning. I'll go out and inspect for damage in a while, but I think we were basically snug as badgers and will remain so.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Good Day! It's Day 4 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week
Where else do you get to discover that Christmas is actually a Christian feast, talk about the Evangelical thaw toward Mary, experience Brian Regan, check out cool virtual music, ponder the great Vatican UFO coverup and learn about the new heresy of Reign of God theology?
To recap, we Sheas are currently eking out our existence on a $500/month steady income, combined with what I make via freelance work and speaking. Writing being a zero sum game, blogging can only go on if my readers think it worthwhile. If not, my energies have to go to writing elsewhere because my children keep insisting I feed them and keep a roof over their heads. I'm extremely grateful to the folks who have pitched into the fund drive so far, but we're still not out of the woods.
So, if you enjoy the convivial atmosphere of the comments boxes and the fruits of my scriptoriariaristic labor, please consider helping us out with a donation. It isn't everywhere you can promulgate your theories, discuss first century Jewish theories of integral age, and hear learn about retro encabulators!
Wouldn't you gasp with hideous sucking sobs of grief 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 our dental bill get paid. You can actually, literally, help a Catholic father keep a roof over his kids heads in the dead of winter. Positively Dickensian!
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!). Imagine the happy face on Christmas morning: "Here dear, it's autographed by the author! Merry Christmas!" And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Where else do you get to discover that Christmas is actually a Christian feast, talk about the Evangelical thaw toward Mary, experience Brian Regan, check out cool virtual music, ponder the great Vatican UFO coverup and learn about the new heresy of Reign of God theology?
To recap, we Sheas are currently eking out our existence on a $500/month steady income, combined with what I make via freelance work and speaking. Writing being a zero sum game, blogging can only go on if my readers think it worthwhile. If not, my energies have to go to writing elsewhere because my children keep insisting I feed them and keep a roof over their heads. I'm extremely grateful to the folks who have pitched into the fund drive so far, but we're still not out of the woods.
So, if you enjoy the convivial atmosphere of the comments boxes and the fruits of my scriptoriariaristic labor, please consider helping us out with a donation. It isn't everywhere you can promulgate your theories, discuss first century Jewish theories of integral age, and hear learn about retro encabulators!
Wouldn't you gasp with hideous sucking sobs of grief 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 our dental bill get paid. You can actually, literally, help a Catholic father keep a roof over his kids heads in the dead of winter. Positively Dickensian!
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!). Imagine the happy face on Christmas morning: "Here dear, it's autographed by the author! Merry Christmas!" And if you'd rather not do PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Dale Price, Master of the Fisk, Stumbles onto One of the Hottest Trends in Progressive Dissent Theology
It's called "Reign of God" theology and one of its hallmarks is the denial that Jesus' death on the cross was an atonement for our sins. That would introduce "violence" into the work of God and would mean that God is a Cosmic Child Abuser, etc. Jesus simply came to model for us, not to die for our sins.
It is, like all heresy, well-meaning. But it overlooks, like, the whole New Testament in favor of a particular theory about pacifism and some regurgitated Pelagianism. Keep your eyes peeled because you will be seeing more of this stuff from the Terminally Trendy.
It's called "Reign of God" theology and one of its hallmarks is the denial that Jesus' death on the cross was an atonement for our sins. That would introduce "violence" into the work of God and would mean that God is a Cosmic Child Abuser, etc. Jesus simply came to model for us, not to die for our sins.
It is, like all heresy, well-meaning. But it overlooks, like, the whole New Testament in favor of a particular theory about pacifism and some regurgitated Pelagianism. Keep your eyes peeled because you will be seeing more of this stuff from the Terminally Trendy.
Why is the Vatican So Silent on UFOs? What are They Hiding and Why?
A delightful find by Amy Welborn.
Don't forget to check out "Planet X and the JESUIT FOOTAGE".
Your world is about to change forever. No word yet on when Fox Mulder and Dana Scully will be canonized.
A delightful find by Amy Welborn.
Don't forget to check out "Planet X and the JESUIT FOOTAGE".
Your world is about to change forever. No word yet on when Fox Mulder and Dana Scully will be canonized.
Speaking of Funny...
Brian Regan is waaay funny, and he's even clean! Here he is, contemplating Food Labels and Pop Tarts:
Brian Regan is waaay funny, and he's even clean! Here he is, contemplating Food Labels and Pop Tarts:
I'm not sure why, but I think this is absolutely hilarious
Right up there with Trekker techno-bafflegab.
Right up there with Trekker techno-bafflegab.
Generation Narcissus to it's Grandchildren: "It is we who will eat *you*!"
Our right to eternal youth and earthly happiness is All.
Our right to eternal youth and earthly happiness is All.
RMS Titanic Broadcasts a Promise of Rescue to the Doomed Passengers of the Carpathia
The diocese that gave us John Shelby Spong is reconciling the world unto itself.
Thanks to Chris Johnson for sending me this nominee for Most Unconsciously Funny Link of the Month.
The diocese that gave us John Shelby Spong is reconciling the world unto itself.
Thanks to Chris Johnson for sending me this nominee for Most Unconsciously Funny Link of the Month.
David Hartline has a Pretty Sunny View of the Prospects for the Church
Some Catholics may have to resign themselves to Hope. :)
Some Catholics may have to resign themselves to Hope. :)
Kathy Shaidle Uses Short Words So That Even the Most Historically and Theologically Illiterate Can Understand
All adherents of Abrahamic religion are not the same. This elementary lesson has yet to be grasped by our chattering classes.
All adherents of Abrahamic religion are not the same. This elementary lesson has yet to be grasped by our chattering classes.
Everybody knows that Christmas is really just a warmed-over Celebration of the Feast of the Sol Invictus
Guess what? Everybody's wrong!
Another little excerpt from my book(s?) on Mary, Behold Your Mother (sans footnotes, but trust me, the citations are all in order):
Why do these Evangelicals enthusiastically endorse the testimony of Babylonian Mystery religionists? I can't give away everything! When the book(s?) come out
all will be revealed! Keep praying and I hope in Christ to see some action on this soon!
Guess what? Everybody's wrong!
Another little excerpt from my book(s?) on Mary, Behold Your Mother (sans footnotes, but trust me, the citations are all in order):
Pseudo-Knowledge and "Pagan Christmas"
Time was when I, like most people, took it for granted the winter solstice and, in particular, the Roman Feast of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun were simply pagan celebrations that hung around into Christian times. In fact, when I set out to write this book I still thought this. But I discovered the reality is far more complicated and interesting. Indeed, it turns out this widely assumed "fact" that "everybody knows" is probably another sample of pseudo-knowledge. For according to William Tighe, a church history specialist at Pennsylvania's Muhlenberg College, "the pagan festival of the 'Birth of the Unconquered Sun' instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the 'pagan origins of Christmas' is a myth without historical substance."
For the fact is, our records of a tradition associating Jesus' birth with December 25 are decades older than any records concerning a pagan feast on that day.[T]he definitive "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" by professor Jack Finegan (Hendrickson, 1998 revised edition) cites an important reference in the "Chronicle" written by Hippolytus of Rome three decades before Aurelian launched his festival. Hippolytus said Jesus' birth "took place eight days before the kalends of January," that is, Dec. 25.
Tighe said there's evidence that as early as the second and third centuries, Christians sought to fix the birth date to help determine the time of Jesus' death and resurrection for the liturgical calendar—long before Christmas also became a festival.
To make a long and complicated story short, there was agitation in the early Church concerning, not Jesus' birthday, but the day upon which the historical Good Friday and Easter fell. It finally ended up that, in the Eastern Church, the tradition focused on April 6 as the date for the original Good Friday, while in the Western Church it was widely held that the date was March 25. Why does this matter? Tighe continues:At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the "integral age" of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.
This notion is a key factor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25th is the date of Christ's birth. The early Christians applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ's death, but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first- and second-century Christians thought of March 25th or April 6th as the date of Christ's birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25th as the date of Christ's conception prevailed.
It is to this day commemorated almost universally among Christians as the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel brought the good tidings of a savior to the Virgin Mary, upon whose acquiescence the Eternal Word of God ("Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten of the Father before all ages") forthwith became incarnate in her womb. What is the length of pregnancy? Nine months. Add nine months to March 25th and you get December 25th; add it to April 6th and you get January 6th. December 25th is Christmas, and January 6th is Epiphany.
And because these traditional, albeit competing, birth dates were already being revered in the rapidly growing Church, the emperor of a failing pagan empire instituted the Feast of the Unconquered Sun not only as an "effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, but also almost certainly [as] an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians."
In addition to this there's another small, but telling, point. We also find St. John Chrysostom (a patriarch of Constantinople who died in 407 A.D.) noted that Christians had celebrated December 25 from the Church's early days. Chrysostom reinforced his point with an argument that used Scripture, not pagan mythology, for corroboration:Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth "with haste."
The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward.
So how did it become "common knowledge" that Christmas is really just a warmed-over pagan festival? It happened through a series of ironies capped by yet another example of pseudo-knowledge.
The first irony is the reaction of the Christians of the late Roman Empire to Aurelian's attempt to co-opt Christmas and make it a pagan day of celebration. Instead of fighting with Sun-worshipers who were trying to rip off their feast, early Christians simply "re-appropriate[d] the pagan 'Birth of the Unconquered Sun' to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the 'Sun of Salvation' or the 'Sun of Justice.'" Mark that, because we shall return to it.
The next irony happens in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the myth of "pagan Christmas" really took hold.Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ's birth on December 25th was one of the many "paganizations" of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many "degenerations" that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the Gospel.
In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one.
Note that: Jablonski began, not with evidence, but with an assumption that the winter solstice must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. In other words, Jablonski simply noticed a correspondence between the Julian calendar's solstice and Christmas and assumed the pagan feast must have been the prior one even though he had no proof for his theory. Meanwhile, Hardouin, rather than challenge that assumption, simply went along with it. And it's upon these two authors that the entire myth about Christmas being a warmed-over pagan Sun-worshiping feast is based.But in fact, the date [December 25] had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian's time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.
There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.
What Can We Learn From This?
It is vital we not get bogged down in minutiae and miss the blazingly obvious. So, for instance, we must not get distracted by the irrelevant question of whether Roman Christians were right to place Jesus' birthday on December 25. Nor should we waste time saying, "Ah ha! Some early Christians relied on the unbiblical Jewish tradition of 'integral age' or Chrysostom's 'rabbinic tradition'!" Again, granted: the date of Christmas isn't found in Scripture. But that isn't what matters.
The crucial thing is not, "Did the early Christians get the date of Christmas right?" It is, rather, "What mattered to them as they determined the date of Christmas?" And when you look at that, you again immediately realize that what dominates their minds is not Diana, Isis, sun worship, or anything else in the pagan religious world. What interests them is, from our modern multicultural perspective, stunningly insular. Their debates are consumed, not by longing for goddess worship, or pagan mythology, or a desire to import Isis and Diana into the Faith, but the exact details of the New Testament record of Jesus' death, alloyed with a Jewish—-not pagan—-theory about when Jewish—-not pagan—-prophets die. They don't care a bit how pagan priests ordered their worship in the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. They care intensely about how Levitical priests ordered their worship in the Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem. These Christians are completely riveted on Scripture and details of Jewish and Christian history and tradition. They don't give a hoot what sun worshipers, Osiris devotees, or Isis fans might think.
A Common Objection
At this point some people object, "But you yourself acknowledge the early Christians 're-appropriated the pagan "Birth of the Unconquered Sun"' to refer to the birth of Christ". True. That is, I'm willing to grant that when Aurelian tried to co-opt a Christian holy day by designating it as the date for a pagan festival, Christians checkmated Aurelius by refusing to allow him to claim a sort of copyright on the Sun for paganism. Instead, they insisted on returning the Sun to the service of God its Creator—Whom Scripture calls the True Light of the World and a Sun and a Shield—and did not make the blunder of worshiping the creature. They behaved rather like modern Christians who offer punning riffs on current cultural phenomena ("Jesus: He's the Real Thing" "Christ: Don't Leave Earth Without Him," etc.). Exactly what they did not do is take passages of Scripture which referred to Jesus and apply them to Apollo or some other pagan deity. Nor did they look to Apollo or some other pagan deity to tell them about Jesus; they knew perfectly well Jesus could be represented as the Sun of Justice and Light of the World long before Aurelius invented his pagan festival. That's because early Christians were behaving in a way perfectly consistent with Scripture, becoming "all things to all men" (1 Corinthians 9:22), not "holding the form of religion while denying the power of it" (2 Timothy 3:5).
This matters immensely because it bears directly on the first moment when the early Catholic Church really did borrow something from pagans. And not just any pagans, mind you, but actual adherents of Babylonian Mystery Religion. And most amazingly, the early Catholics' decision to do so receives the complete approval of, and even hearty defense by... Evangelicals.
Why do these Evangelicals enthusiastically endorse the testimony of Babylonian Mystery religionists? I can't give away everything! When the book(s?) come out
all will be revealed! Keep praying and I hope in Christ to see some action on this soon!
Bai MacFarlane Continues to Fight the Good Fight
No fault divorce is a creation straight from the pit of hell and the heart of Satan.
"I hate divorce," says the Lord (Malachi 2:16).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – DEC. 13, 2006
Clinical psychologist risking fines and jail from civil disobedience to protect Florida child
A Florida woman was fined by a judge for her civil disobedience in a family court lawsuit. Judge Jeffrey Colbath ordered Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson, a well-respected clinical psychologist, to pay a “family” lawyer $15,000 within 24 hours as a penalty in a Palm Beach County case. The reason for the big fine? Dr. Lawson refused to produce “settlement” paperwork the lawyer said was needed to finalize a divorce. As a mental-health professional with a Ph.D. and three Master’s degrees, Dr. Lawson wonders why she is being punished for shielding her child from harm.
In 2005 Mrs. Lawson’s husband filed for a “No-Fault” divorce – the only kind there is in Florida – and she soon learned that Florida’s “forced divorce” system guarantees a divorce in every case, even when there is a child involved. Social science studies have conclusively shown that an intact marriage is the best “child protection agency,” and that divorce is incredibly harmful to children of all ages. After hundreds of hours of research, Dr. Lawson thinks that in divorce cases with minor children, Florida should offer help to the struggling couple before terminating the marriage, because divorce is so destructive to children.
Mr. Lawson did agree for a period of 15 months to halt the process. Now he has decided to move forward, and Dr. Lawson is standing up against the forced divorce system to protect their twelve-year-old daughter. Florida lawmakers have outlawed her right to defend her marriage and intact family, so there is only one way for her to defend her child – civil disobedience. Instead of paying the $15,000 fine, she hand-delivered a four-page letter to the Court, in which she told what was in her heart.
Dr. Lawson just wants to see the process in her case do what Florida public policy says – uphold the State’s “compelling interest in marriage.” To her, that means that Florida family court judges’ first duty is to help each family, not callously dis-member it. And to minimize the devastating effects of divorce on children, Florida couples with children should move toward divorce only as a last resort, after other remedies have been diligently tried. The approach is called “therapeutic jurisprudence.” It is not a new concept, but the local court does not embrace it. Where courts have used the therapeutic jurisprudence model, there has been an astonishing conciliation rate. So Dr. Lawson believes before a Florida court decrees a quick divorce involving a minor child, the best interest of the child requires the court to use therapeutic jurisprudence.
In the very first court hearing, Judge Colbath announced he would make the process as “quick and painless as possible.” Mr. Lawson’s attorney, in fact, told Mrs. Lawson over the phone early in the case: “I can get him divorced in two weeks!” That was 20 months ago. Using “standard operating procedures,” her husband’s attorneys have generated a six-inch stack of documents on “important financial matters” as well as huge legal fees, but nothing has been done to help the Lawson Family.
Now that Dr. Lawson has decided to use civil disobedience to oppose a rush to judgment without any effort to help the Lawson Family or protect their child, it will be interesting to see how the system responds.
No fault divorce is a creation straight from the pit of hell and the heart of Satan.
"I hate divorce," says the Lord (Malachi 2:16).
Nice to See New Bloggers Demonstrating Christian Hope
"I am a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a 'long defeat'." - J.R.R. Tolkien
We won't ultimately win in this world. But we will Ultimately Win.
"I am a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a 'long defeat'." - J.R.R. Tolkien
We won't ultimately win in this world. But we will Ultimately Win.
He's a a high school teacher and a reserve officer in the Army who just returned from
Iraq. He converted to Catholicism about 10 years ago...
and he has a new blog: Meet Nelson Guirado.
By the way, he's right: could there be more naked hypocrisy than for a White Supremacist to suck up to a bunch of Iranian Kook Holocaust Deniers?
Iraq. He converted to Catholicism about 10 years ago...
and he has a new blog: Meet Nelson Guirado.
By the way, he's right: could there be more naked hypocrisy than for a White Supremacist to suck up to a bunch of Iranian Kook Holocaust Deniers?
Seattle is battening down the hatches for a huge windstorm today
But we've got it easy.
Best Windstorm Ever: Inaugural Day 1993. Knocked out power for three day in our neighborhood and a week in some parts of the State. Cookouts. Fires in the fireplace. Candles. What's not to love?
Of course, blogging may be rather light without electricity, but whaddaya gonna do?
But we've got it easy.
Best Windstorm Ever: Inaugural Day 1993. Knocked out power for three day in our neighborhood and a week in some parts of the State. Cookouts. Fires in the fireplace. Candles. What's not to love?
Of course, blogging may be rather light without electricity, but whaddaya gonna do?
Interesting comments on the "Evangelical Marian Thaw" Thread
Yesterday, on that thread, some folk noted that there is a curious political vibe to McKnight's take on Mary. One reader remarks:
This seems about right to me. On the one hand, it's good to see the Mariaphobic Response Syndrome get challenged by a serious Evangelical. It's good that Mary's virtues are being recognized and appreciated.
On the other hand, the problem with trying to reinvent the Wheel without taking extremely seriously the way in which Wheel Making has been done for 2000 years is that you can miss an awful lot. The Emergent Church is, in many ways, a revolt against mainstream Evangelicalism. But, as Chesterton notes, revolutionaries tend to see what's wrong clearly, it is only the solution they propose makes what is wrong worse. The masculine culture of Evangelicalism has long had a visceral terror of Mary. It has also been bound up with right wing shibboleths that often have little to do with the actual gospel. The Emergent Church knows there's something wrong with that. Solution: Masculinize Mary and bind the Church to trendy leftwing shibboleths.
I'm not saying all of this is wrong. Darfur is a worthy cause. Third World debt matters. Mary is recognized in our Tradition as, among other things "Exterminatrix of Heresies". She is formidable and not to be trifled with, as McKnight ably makes clear. But this sea change in *mood*, this Bonofication of the Blessed Virgin also has serious weaknesses that will tend to become more apparent as time wears on. They will be the weaknesses of the Emergent Church movement as a whole. For the fact is, the Tradition delivers us a picture of Mary that is still far richer and deeper than the Emergent church is able to stand (yet). If the Emergent Church becomes able to embrace those riches, then it will soon be called "the next wave of Catholic and Orthodox converts". If not, then this new interest in Mary will either wither or metastasize in a sort of "That's *Ms.* Blessed Virgin Mary to you, buster!" makeover that will tell us far more about the cultural prejudices of early Third Millennium Emergent Christians than it does about the Mother of God.
Yesterday, on that thread, some folk noted that there is a curious political vibe to McKnight's take on Mary. One reader remarks:
Well, now I don't feel so bad about getting annoyed with this guy's interpretation of Mary. Sounds like it felt a little askew to some other folks out there too. I have grown to love the “first” Mary McKnight describes. Dressed in Carolina blue, exuding piety with a somber face, a baby in her arms, making eye contact with her Lord, (if not with us), leading us to quiet reflection. What’s wrong with that? Yes, Mary is a real person but please don’t try to make her all hip and contemporary. My Mother doesn’t need that sort of gimmickry.
It's all a bit too post-Modern for me. McKnight is part of the Post-Modern Emergent movement within Evangelicalism so that makes sense. Brian MacClaren is sort of their main spokesperson if any one is familiar with him. I have a few friends that are in to the Emergent thing and they have a lingo you can spot a mile away. In some ways the Emergents seem to come very close to Catholicism, (use words like Incarnation a lot). They emphasize the need to be rooted in a historic faith but they never really get into the fact that a faith rooted in history is relevant because it is handed down by the apostles and before them, the prophets and patriarchs, establishing a Tradition emerging from the Covenant. In fact, the Emergents are very suspicious of any knowledge or idea that his handed down, (they are very good disciples of the Enlightenment but if you point it out they will deny it usually). They love to say words like “deconstruct” and as this article shows, being subversive and dangerous are two of their most prized virtues. The Emergents are pretty political. They love Bono, the One Movement and Darfur is their main cause. To all of that, I say “right on.” Still, they are way to quick to dress up Biblical figures in political terms in an either-or fashion to suit their fancy and in doing some times diminish the real weight of the Gospel. There also love to tweak other Evangelicals. I’ve watched Emergents and read articles like this one for a couple of years now wondering if this was going to result in some folks from their fold moving towards Catholicism. Maybe so, but frankly I don’t see it happening that way, but really what do I know - I’m not the Holy Spirit. All that said, I agree with Mark, we need to cut these folks some slack and appreciate that they’re a work in progress like the rest of us, (Lord knows I need some slack while I work out my salvation). Personally, I’ve decided to just shut up around the Emergents and only give my opinion when asked because I am to easily provoked by some of their gimmicks. My take is that it's a trend that will pass. Hopefully, I'm wrong. We'll just have to see where they end up. Meanwhile, I’ll take a hard-line fundamentalist who just loves the Lord and wants to just be in the Capital "T" Truth over these provocative provokers any day. You can actually engage in a real serious discussion with an honest fundamentalist whereas sometimes with the Emergents, they can’t be bothered to discern the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.
Loud, boisterous and “listen to me while I shake my fist” is all too common today. But humility and meekness that overcomes the world is a little more difficult to find. Anyway, I agree with McKnight, Mary is pretty radical. But she is also gentle and mild, (and that's pretty radical these days), and I really don’t need my Mother to be fashioned after Bono.
This seems about right to me. On the one hand, it's good to see the Mariaphobic Response Syndrome get challenged by a serious Evangelical. It's good that Mary's virtues are being recognized and appreciated.
On the other hand, the problem with trying to reinvent the Wheel without taking extremely seriously the way in which Wheel Making has been done for 2000 years is that you can miss an awful lot. The Emergent Church is, in many ways, a revolt against mainstream Evangelicalism. But, as Chesterton notes, revolutionaries tend to see what's wrong clearly, it is only the solution they propose makes what is wrong worse. The masculine culture of Evangelicalism has long had a visceral terror of Mary. It has also been bound up with right wing shibboleths that often have little to do with the actual gospel. The Emergent Church knows there's something wrong with that. Solution: Masculinize Mary and bind the Church to trendy leftwing shibboleths.
I'm not saying all of this is wrong. Darfur is a worthy cause. Third World debt matters. Mary is recognized in our Tradition as, among other things "Exterminatrix of Heresies". She is formidable and not to be trifled with, as McKnight ably makes clear. But this sea change in *mood*, this Bonofication of the Blessed Virgin also has serious weaknesses that will tend to become more apparent as time wears on. They will be the weaknesses of the Emergent Church movement as a whole. For the fact is, the Tradition delivers us a picture of Mary that is still far richer and deeper than the Emergent church is able to stand (yet). If the Emergent Church becomes able to embrace those riches, then it will soon be called "the next wave of Catholic and Orthodox converts". If not, then this new interest in Mary will either wither or metastasize in a sort of "That's *Ms.* Blessed Virgin Mary to you, buster!" makeover that will tell us far more about the cultural prejudices of early Third Millennium Emergent Christians than it does about the Mother of God.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Good Morning! It's Day 3 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week
Recently, you got to hear about atheist inconsistencies, discuss the meaning of Apocalypto, experience the awe and splendor of Bob Newhart, find some Christmas presents, discuss Sea-Tac Festivus Poles, learn about decoding Christmas cards, get a taste of Evangelicals rediscovering Mary, and discuss stuff you can't hardly discuss anywhere else, cuz there aren't too many blogs with this mix of Catholic theology and daffy pop culture cogitations. And, of course, there's the convivial atmosphere of the comments boxes where you can argue about Mary's labor pains, savor Christmas trees, 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 left and help C&EI stay on the air and us to keep food on the table. 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 PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Oh, and if you are an editor dying to have me write a column for you or (better yet) to syndicate me: Take me: I'm yours. Dittos to people who want to hire me to speak.
Recently, you got to hear about atheist inconsistencies, discuss the meaning of Apocalypto, experience the awe and splendor of Bob Newhart, find some Christmas presents, discuss Sea-Tac Festivus Poles, learn about decoding Christmas cards, get a taste of Evangelicals rediscovering Mary, and discuss stuff you can't hardly discuss anywhere else, cuz there aren't too many blogs with this mix of Catholic theology and daffy pop culture cogitations. And, of course, there's the convivial atmosphere of the comments boxes where you can argue about Mary's labor pains, savor Christmas trees, 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 left and help C&EI stay on the air and us to keep food on the table. 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 PayPal, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Oh, and if you are an editor dying to have me write a column for you or (better yet) to syndicate me: Take me: I'm yours. Dittos to people who want to hire me to speak.
Failure to grasp the concept
An agnostic writes concerning this post:
Yes. I understand that one can dislike something and want it to go away. We dislike weeds. We prune them. We do not call them wicked or sinful or criminal.
The problem for the atheist is that he doesn't treat human moral problems like weeds. He uses categories like "morally good" and "morally evil" to describe human actions. Just read Dawkins railing against the moral evils of theists. The racist is not spoken of like a smallpox virus: an organism that just does what it does. The racist is spoken of as evil. Rape is spoken of as a crime for humans in a way it is not spoken of as a crime for ducks.
In short, atheist materialists don't have a problem being moral or speaking of morals. However, they have a huge problem *accounting* for morals in a purely naturalistic world. And, as this comment demonstrates, many of them aren't even aware of the problem.
An agnostic writes concerning this post:
Some evolutionary biologists believe that racism and rape are naturalistically evolved phenomenon, but they still oppose racism and rape. I don't see any problem with saying that something is a result of evolution and also saying that we should get over it.
Yes. I understand that one can dislike something and want it to go away. We dislike weeds. We prune them. We do not call them wicked or sinful or criminal.
The problem for the atheist is that he doesn't treat human moral problems like weeds. He uses categories like "morally good" and "morally evil" to describe human actions. Just read Dawkins railing against the moral evils of theists. The racist is not spoken of like a smallpox virus: an organism that just does what it does. The racist is spoken of as evil. Rape is spoken of as a crime for humans in a way it is not spoken of as a crime for ducks.
In short, atheist materialists don't have a problem being moral or speaking of morals. However, they have a huge problem *accounting* for morals in a purely naturalistic world. And, as this comment demonstrates, many of them aren't even aware of the problem.
And speaking of a culture that is inventing new sins that cry out to heaven for judgment...
UK Government Proposals Approve Human/Animal Embryo Hybrids
Screening embryos for genetic conditions allowed; sex selection not permitted
Sex selection, you see, would be sexist. But creating chimeras and murding the unfit: that's okay.
UK Government Proposals Approve Human/Animal Embryo Hybrids
Screening embryos for genetic conditions allowed; sex selection not permitted
Sex selection, you see, would be sexist. But creating chimeras and murding the unfit: that's okay.
The Tortured Conscience of the Right-Wing Patriot
Ben Shapiro, with a straight face, tries to blast Mel Gibson for daring to suggest that our culture is profoundly decadent. He does not succeed very well. Living in a culture that ritually slaughters 1.4 million of its children every year kinda makes it a little difficult to maintain the case that we bear absolutely no resemblence to the Maya.
I believe in patriotism. Which is to say, I believe in the commandment to love your neighbor. The trick with patriotism is to remember that nationalism is to a people what pride is to an individual. Shapiro appears to me to be suffering from nationalism, which prevents him from bringing his country before the judgement seat of Almighty God and asking whether natural virtues of equality, liberty, and opportunity are sufficient to save. Gibson's whole point is that they are not. Only the gospel can do so. He hammers this point home rather bluntly at the end of the film.
Gibson, for all his faults and inner demons, seems to me to reaping the wage of the prophet Jeremiah with this film. Jeremiah, too, was accused of being unpatriotic, predicting defeat by Babylon, counseling submission to Nebuchadnezzar rather than revolt, and always ultimately saying that the only way out of the dilemma in whihc Judah found itself was to return to God, not to keep pressing on in the attempt to ignore him and still eat its cake. Our culture seems to be in much the same dilemma: it has not (yet) acknowledged its need for God. Yes, like Judah in Jeremiah's time, it is the bearer of some extraordinary gifts from God: gifts it was graciously given and did not earn. Liberty, equality and opportunity are glorious things. But they will not save us if we trust in them and refuse to repent our increasingly grave rebellion against Him. To shut one's eyes to the extraordinary decadence of our culture and rail at Gibson for pointing it out is to make oneself stone blind to the only way of escape from the calamity we are preparing for ourselves.
The cure for uncritical nationalism is real patriotism, never better described than by Chesterton:
I love America because it is mine: the country God gave to me and to whom I have been given by a thousand ties of blood and birth. I don't love her because of what she can do for me, but because she is my country, full of my neighbors, who are in the image and likeness of God. Because I love America, I most certainly will not pretend that when she is in mortal sin that those who criticize her sin should be muzzled. I will not say, "My country, right or wrong" for the same reason I do not say, "My mother, drunk or sober." I will love my country so that the virtues she has will shine brighter and the sins in which she wallows will be washed away. The only only way to do that is to love God more than country. For only He has the power to take away sin.
Ben Shapiro, with a straight face, tries to blast Mel Gibson for daring to suggest that our culture is profoundly decadent. He does not succeed very well. Living in a culture that ritually slaughters 1.4 million of its children every year kinda makes it a little difficult to maintain the case that we bear absolutely no resemblence to the Maya.
I believe in patriotism. Which is to say, I believe in the commandment to love your neighbor. The trick with patriotism is to remember that nationalism is to a people what pride is to an individual. Shapiro appears to me to be suffering from nationalism, which prevents him from bringing his country before the judgement seat of Almighty God and asking whether natural virtues of equality, liberty, and opportunity are sufficient to save. Gibson's whole point is that they are not. Only the gospel can do so. He hammers this point home rather bluntly at the end of the film.
Gibson, for all his faults and inner demons, seems to me to reaping the wage of the prophet Jeremiah with this film. Jeremiah, too, was accused of being unpatriotic, predicting defeat by Babylon, counseling submission to Nebuchadnezzar rather than revolt, and always ultimately saying that the only way out of the dilemma in whihc Judah found itself was to return to God, not to keep pressing on in the attempt to ignore him and still eat its cake. Our culture seems to be in much the same dilemma: it has not (yet) acknowledged its need for God. Yes, like Judah in Jeremiah's time, it is the bearer of some extraordinary gifts from God: gifts it was graciously given and did not earn. Liberty, equality and opportunity are glorious things. But they will not save us if we trust in them and refuse to repent our increasingly grave rebellion against Him. To shut one's eyes to the extraordinary decadence of our culture and rail at Gibson for pointing it out is to make oneself stone blind to the only way of escape from the calamity we are preparing for ourselves.
The cure for uncritical nationalism is real patriotism, never better described than by Chesterton:
Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing—say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is THEIRS, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.
I love America because it is mine: the country God gave to me and to whom I have been given by a thousand ties of blood and birth. I don't love her because of what she can do for me, but because she is my country, full of my neighbors, who are in the image and likeness of God. Because I love America, I most certainly will not pretend that when she is in mortal sin that those who criticize her sin should be muzzled. I will not say, "My country, right or wrong" for the same reason I do not say, "My mother, drunk or sober." I will love my country so that the virtues she has will shine brighter and the sins in which she wallows will be washed away. The only only way to do that is to love God more than country. For only He has the power to take away sin.
But what about Festivus?
One of the things that perennially comes up when I suggest that there's no big harm in the state accomodating the celebration of big, culturally signficant events like Christmas or Hannukah, is the invariable appeal to the notion that this somehow commits the State to giving "equal time" to every crackpot little sect in the universe. Won't have to put up Festivus poles in Sea-Tac, next to the Wiccan Pentagrams and the shrines to Kali?
I wrote about something similar long ago in a piece about whether the Bible should be taught in Public Schools (by the way, I say, "No."). The germane passage is this:
I don't think the State is obliged to treat unequals equally. Jainism and African animism has had as little impact on our cultural institutions as Sumerian theocracy has had on our political institutions. Just as I don't feel an American political science class at a state-run institution is "establishing religion" by giving a disproportionate amount of space to discussion of Western Catholic conceptions of law, while cruelly ignoring the Code of Hammurabi or the Samurai in discussions of American political institutions, so I think that it is not "establishing religion" to acknowledge the cultural practices of the vast majority of Americans while not feeling obligated to cater to some crank in an elven cloak. Should Wicca or Jainism someday become major cultural forces and not the province of human toothaches with lawyers, then I can see a case for Festivus poles and pentagrams. Indeed, I can easily see a case for, say, Hindu artwork at the Calcutta airport or Shinto artwork in Japan. But here, such cultural forces are as negligible in their impact as Ra worship.
One of the things that perennially comes up when I suggest that there's no big harm in the state accomodating the celebration of big, culturally signficant events like Christmas or Hannukah, is the invariable appeal to the notion that this somehow commits the State to giving "equal time" to every crackpot little sect in the universe. Won't have to put up Festivus poles in Sea-Tac, next to the Wiccan Pentagrams and the shrines to Kali?
I wrote about something similar long ago in a piece about whether the Bible should be taught in Public Schools (by the way, I say, "No."). The germane passage is this:
"Wall" advocates tend to regard any mention of the Bible in the schoolroom as an act of "establishment of religion" by the State. Therefore, courses on the Bible are synonymous with attempting to "convert" children. When confronted with well-meaning people who mumble something about the need to understand the Bible, Wall advocates often employ an "all or nothing" strategy to stop discussion. "Why just the Bible?" they say. "Why not study the Q'uran too? Why not also the various holy books of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Scientology, Deism, Pantheism, Wicca, and all the other pagan religions of European origin, as well as all of the hundreds of African, Australian and American tribal religions? Or, why not just keep all religious material out of the school system of a pluralistic society?"
On the surface, this "drinking from a fire hose" method of pluralistic intimidation seems cogent. But it only works by assuming that the real purpose of studying the Bible in the classroom is to proselytize. This is not so. The normal reason an "Introduction to the Bible" class is proposed is because, whether Wall advocates like it or not, it is the Bible, not Jainism or African animism, which undergirds both American and Western Civilization. If you do not understand the Bible, you cannot possibly understand most of what has been thought about and done (for good or ill) in Western culture for the past 2000 years. And notably, the Pluralistic Intimidation card is not played anywhere but here. Nobody says, for instance, that we must either study every single political theory, writer, trend and notion (as well as every obscure tribal arrangement, tin horn dictator and obscure national government from every time and place in human history) or else concede that classes which concentrate on major Western political theories are hopelessly biased and have no place in a pluralistic society. Only the mention of the Bible provokes such absurd arguments.
I don't think the State is obliged to treat unequals equally. Jainism and African animism has had as little impact on our cultural institutions as Sumerian theocracy has had on our political institutions. Just as I don't feel an American political science class at a state-run institution is "establishing religion" by giving a disproportionate amount of space to discussion of Western Catholic conceptions of law, while cruelly ignoring the Code of Hammurabi or the Samurai in discussions of American political institutions, so I think that it is not "establishing religion" to acknowledge the cultural practices of the vast majority of Americans while not feeling obligated to cater to some crank in an elven cloak. Should Wicca or Jainism someday become major cultural forces and not the province of human toothaches with lawyers, then I can see a case for Festivus poles and pentagrams. Indeed, I can easily see a case for, say, Hindu artwork at the Calcutta airport or Shinto artwork in Japan. But here, such cultural forces are as negligible in their impact as Ra worship.
We go get our Christmas tree today!
I love doing this! I love the children's excitement. I love the smells. I love the feel of the wet branches against my arms. I love the family working together to get it in the stand. I love the lights. I love having friends over to decorate with the family. I love turning off the lights and admiring our work when it's done. I love candles on a cold winter's night that is so deep. I love everything about it.
Love it, love it, love it! Plus, our anniversary is on the 16th, so we always have our celebration of that illuminated by Christmas tree light--which is a glorious thing!
What do you love about Advent/Christmas? Sometimes it's good to just roll it around in your mouth and savor it aloud. Use the comboxes to discuss, class.
I love doing this! I love the children's excitement. I love the smells. I love the feel of the wet branches against my arms. I love the family working together to get it in the stand. I love the lights. I love having friends over to decorate with the family. I love turning off the lights and admiring our work when it's done. I love candles on a cold winter's night that is so deep. I love everything about it.
Love it, love it, love it! Plus, our anniversary is on the 16th, so we always have our celebration of that illuminated by Christmas tree light--which is a glorious thing!
What do you love about Advent/Christmas? Sometimes it's good to just roll it around in your mouth and savor it aloud. Use the comboxes to discuss, class.
More Evidence of a Marian Thaw Among Evangelicals
Interesting piece in appreciation of Mary over at CT. I will be interested to see the response. McKnight has his work cut out for him in trying to overcome the common Evangelical malady of Mariophobic Response Syndrome. But it's still a good sign that this most dreaded of Catholic saints is finally starting to get her due among Evangelicals. That can only be good news for Catholics engaged in ecumenical work with Evangelicals.
Interesting piece in appreciation of Mary over at CT. I will be interested to see the response. McKnight has his work cut out for him in trying to overcome the common Evangelical malady of Mariophobic Response Syndrome. But it's still a good sign that this most dreaded of Catholic saints is finally starting to get her due among Evangelicals. That can only be good news for Catholics engaged in ecumenical work with Evangelicals.
Homo Sapiens: Incapable of Learning?
You'd think, after the spectacle of the Sea-Tac Holiday Tree Fooferah that somebody would get a clue. But no: some human toothaches in Chappaqua find themselves in need of Insensitivity Training as they wig out over some snowflake banners which have a color-scheme that is dangerously Israeli-looking to them.
Life is too short. If a community with a large Jewish population wants to put up a few banners around Hannukah, I just don't see what the problem is.
Hat tip, the inimitable Kathy Shaidle.
You'd think, after the spectacle of the Sea-Tac Holiday Tree Fooferah that somebody would get a clue. But no: some human toothaches in Chappaqua find themselves in need of Insensitivity Training as they wig out over some snowflake banners which have a color-scheme that is dangerously Israeli-looking to them.
Life is too short. If a community with a large Jewish population wants to put up a few banners around Hannukah, I just don't see what the problem is.
Hat tip, the inimitable Kathy Shaidle.
Speaking of Christmas books...
If you have not checked out Zacchaeus Press, please do. They've got some great titles and the owner tells me that "Our Lady and the Church" by Hugo Rahner, in particular, really is a small masterpiece of accessible but deeply enlightening theology.
If you have not checked out Zacchaeus Press, please do. They've got some great titles and the owner tells me that "Our Lady and the Church" by Hugo Rahner, in particular, really is a small masterpiece of accessible but deeply enlightening theology.
The Vivacious and Talented Dawn Eden...
is a great force for good in the world. Her new book...
...The Thrill of the Chaste is out and she will soon be moving so fast making appearances to discuss it that she will achieve the paradox of infinite speed that is the same thing as perfect rest since she will be every once and therefore will not need to go anywhere to get someplace.
If you are looking for a good Christmas present for anybody past puberty who is trying to navigate our sexually deranged culture, I highly recommend the hard-won and very Catholic wisdom of Dawn Eden.
is a great force for good in the world. Her new book...
...The Thrill of the Chaste is out and she will soon be moving so fast making appearances to discuss it that she will achieve the paradox of infinite speed that is the same thing as perfect rest since she will be every once and therefore will not need to go anywhere to get someplace.
If you are looking for a good Christmas present for anybody past puberty who is trying to navigate our sexually deranged culture, I highly recommend the hard-won and very Catholic wisdom of Dawn Eden.
My favorite blog headline so far today
God love them Whapsters.
It does always crack me up when moderns find themselves amazed that the entire cultural memory of a people might actually remember something. In the words of Chesterton:
St. Paul's Tomb found in basilica named for St. Paul, where the Church has always said the tomb of St. Paul was, since, like, forever.
God love them Whapsters.
It does always crack me up when moderns find themselves amazed that the entire cultural memory of a people might actually remember something. In the words of Chesterton:
The modern world will accept no dogmas upon any authority; but it will accept any dogmas on no authority. Say that a thing is so, according to the Pope or the Bible, and it will be dismissed as a superstition without examination. But preface your remark merely with "they say" or "don't you know that?" or try (and fail) to remember the name of some professor mentioned in some newspaper; and the keen rationalism of the modern mind will accept every word you say.
Show Me a Culture That Despises Virginity, and I'll Show you a Culture that Despises Children
We need a Theology of the Body literature for children that is better done and more attractive than Murder Inc's slime.
We need a Theology of the Body literature for children that is better done and more attractive than Murder Inc's slime.
Why I've Spent So Much Time on Bush's (and Defenders) Atrocious Attempts to Justify Prisoner Abuse
As an American Catholic who loves his country, I want the next papal commentary on the War to focus *entirely* on the sins and evils of the enemy, and not have Benedict's spanking of our president be the Big Headline.
It will be interesting to see how this spanking is treated by the right wing punditocracy. Will there just be sullen silence? A patronizing pat on the head for the foolish little abstract theologian who doesn't understand the cold hard facts of realpolitik? A gruff rebuke telling the meddling Euroweenie to butt out of America's sovereign affairs? Hard to say. But for me, it saddens me that our country should earn such a slap from our Church. I want the slaps to all be directed at the Bad Guys. But when the shoe fits...
As an American Catholic who loves his country, I want the next papal commentary on the War to focus *entirely* on the sins and evils of the enemy, and not have Benedict's spanking of our president be the Big Headline.
It will be interesting to see how this spanking is treated by the right wing punditocracy. Will there just be sullen silence? A patronizing pat on the head for the foolish little abstract theologian who doesn't understand the cold hard facts of realpolitik? A gruff rebuke telling the meddling Euroweenie to butt out of America's sovereign affairs? Hard to say. But for me, it saddens me that our country should earn such a slap from our Church. I want the slaps to all be directed at the Bad Guys. But when the shoe fits...
Very Cool Piece on How to De-Code Your Christmas Card
You thought those Renaissance paintings were just pretty art? Nope! They are tightly condensed little catechisms. Very interesting piece.
You thought those Renaissance paintings were just pretty art? Nope! They are tightly condensed little catechisms. Very interesting piece.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Good Morning! It's Day 2 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Pledge Week
This is the one week each quarter where I ask for some small remuneration for my efforts to provide you with the sort of Catholic content, newsiness, fun, and so forth that is this blog.
Dunno how many new readers I've got, so I'll explain the situation for newcomers (bear with me, old timers). We (that is, the Sheas, nobody else is running this blog) live in narrow financial straits. I am a writer (and sole breadwinner) trying to keep two small and growing boys and two huge and adolescent boys fed on a steady income of $500 a month, plus what I can make from donations here and freelance work. My wife is the chief homeschooler, as well as a human dynamo in a dozen other tasks. This month our adventure in trusting Providence includes a new round of dental bills (roughly $4000), figuring out how to do Christmas, and meeting the year end draconian self-employment tax.
So, I'm here to say that I hope you'll not muzzle the ox treading out the ASCII. I appreciate very much the generosity of the two folks who responded with gifts so far (you know who you are and you know how deeply grateful I am!), but I also hope that more of you will find time to do so this week and I'm askin' ya, if everybody who has gotten something good from this blog will kick in some bucks on the PayPal button (I'm not shy, be as generous as you can) you'd be supporting what I think is an eminently worthy cause and keeping our fiscal fat out of the fire as we struggle through another month. I don't rattle the tin cup between quarterly fund drives and shall cease doing so after this week is over. But this week I'm taking time to say, "If you like what you get here, then please be as generous as you can and help out with the care and feeding of a unique news, opinion, and informations source that you just can't find anyplace else."
Thanks!
Oh, and remember, you can buy my books and tapes!. And if you'd don't trust PayPal (though they are extremely reliable), feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
This is the one week each quarter where I ask for some small remuneration for my efforts to provide you with the sort of Catholic content, newsiness, fun, and so forth that is this blog.
Dunno how many new readers I've got, so I'll explain the situation for newcomers (bear with me, old timers). We (that is, the Sheas, nobody else is running this blog) live in narrow financial straits. I am a writer (and sole breadwinner) trying to keep two small and growing boys and two huge and adolescent boys fed on a steady income of $500 a month, plus what I can make from donations here and freelance work. My wife is the chief homeschooler, as well as a human dynamo in a dozen other tasks. This month our adventure in trusting Providence includes a new round of dental bills (roughly $4000), figuring out how to do Christmas, and meeting the year end draconian self-employment tax.
So, I'm here to say that I hope you'll not muzzle the ox treading out the ASCII. I appreciate very much the generosity of the two folks who responded with gifts so far (you know who you are and you know how deeply grateful I am!), but I also hope that more of you will find time to do so this week and I'm askin' ya, if everybody who has gotten something good from this blog will kick in some bucks on the PayPal button (I'm not shy, be as generous as you can) you'd be supporting what I think is an eminently worthy cause and keeping our fiscal fat out of the fire as we struggle through another month. I don't rattle the tin cup between quarterly fund drives and shall cease doing so after this week is over. But this week I'm taking time to say, "If you like what you get here, then please be as generous as you can and help out with the care and feeding of a unique news, opinion, and informations source that you just can't find anyplace else."
Thanks!
Oh, and remember, you can buy my books and tapes!. And if you'd don't trust PayPal (though they are extremely reliable), feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
The State: Keeping You Safe From Heisman Trophies
National Security from the People Who Brought You the Susan B. Anthony Dollar and the $700 Toilet Seat
I am tempted to wonder more and more whether the reflexive trust we place in the State in times of national emergency like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 is some sort of displaced impulse to cling to Daddy. It makes you want to speculate about whether that impulse evolved on some obscure gene back when it was safest to just grab at Daddy's furry chest if you felt like you were falling out of the tree.
In any case, the disparity between the awesome omnicompetence that we expect from the State in times of emergency and what the State actually delivers is a sight to behold. The fact that we never seem to tire of expecting it, no matter how often the State delivers boobalicious behavior like this, makes me think that the big weakness is in our expectations, not in the State's indigenous tendency toward bureaucratic mediocrity.
National Security from the People Who Brought You the Susan B. Anthony Dollar and the $700 Toilet Seat
I am tempted to wonder more and more whether the reflexive trust we place in the State in times of national emergency like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 is some sort of displaced impulse to cling to Daddy. It makes you want to speculate about whether that impulse evolved on some obscure gene back when it was safest to just grab at Daddy's furry chest if you felt like you were falling out of the tree.
In any case, the disparity between the awesome omnicompetence that we expect from the State in times of emergency and what the State actually delivers is a sight to behold. The fact that we never seem to tire of expecting it, no matter how often the State delivers boobalicious behavior like this, makes me think that the big weakness is in our expectations, not in the State's indigenous tendency toward bureaucratic mediocrity.
Dems Vie for Stupid Party Title
Like a scene from "I was a Teenage Political Party", the Newly Anointed Democrats make an immediate impression:
However, we can't give them the title just yet. It turns out the Executive Branch (that would be the GOP-run branch) still has some glitches to work out:
Sleep well.
Like a scene from "I was a Teenage Political Party", the Newly Anointed Democrats make an immediate impression:
Turns out that Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the Texas Democrat tapped to head the
House Select Intelligence Committee, doesn't know the difference between Shia
and Sunni Muslims, and doesn't even know that Hezbollah is. I'm not making this
up.
However, we can't give them the title just yet. It turns out the Executive Branch (that would be the GOP-run branch) still has some glitches to work out:
Check out this NBC News report. Excerpt:
Dale Watson, now retired, was the FBI's top counterterrorism official before and after 9/11.
In a deposition taken on Dec. 8, 2004, Youssef’s lawyer Stephen Kohn asked Watson: “Do you know who Osama bin Laden's spiritual leader was?"
Watson: Can't recall.
Lawyer: And do you know the differences in the religion between Shiite and Sunni Muslims?
Watson: Not technically, no.
John Lewis was until recently the FBI’s deputy assistant director of counterterrorism. During his deposition on May 17, 2005, he was asked if he knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis.
Lewis: You know, generally. Not very well.
Lawyer: Was there any relationship between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks?
Lewis: I'm aware of no immediate relationship other than all emanates out of the Middle East, al-Qaida linkage, I believe. Not something I've studied recently that I'm conversant with.
Sleep well.
"What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing politicalcover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq."
That's about right. In the end, the bill will get shifted to the most powerless: in this case, the Iraqis. They were unworthy of our goodness, you see. Meanwhile, the End to Evil types will blame the Bush Administration for failing their Grand Plans and the Dems will pretend that they were helpless to resist the Bush war juggernaut.
That's about right. In the end, the bill will get shifted to the most powerless: in this case, the Iraqis. They were unworthy of our goodness, you see. Meanwhile, the End to Evil types will blame the Bush Administration for failing their Grand Plans and the Dems will pretend that they were helpless to resist the Bush war juggernaut.
Things I Don't Understand About Atheists
One of the many things I don't understand about atheists is their curious insistence on saying the religion is a purely natural phenomenon, coupled with their great outrage at religion. It seems to me to be like getting angry at a hurricane or a crocodile. If religion is simply "what the brain of homo sapiens naturally generates" then what is the point of being angry about it? You might as well get angry that the pancreas of homo sapiens generates insulin.
Of course, I don't think religion is the pure creation of the human brain. I think it is a human response to the actual presence of the divine (and the demonic, and the purely natural). In short, I think it an enormously complex phenomenon that cannot possible be explained without recourse to the supernatural. But since atheists have set themselves the task of trying to pretend the supernatural does not exist, and of ignoring all data that might suggest--sometimes extremely strongly--that it does, they have to play by their own weird rules and bide the consequences. One of the consequences of their view is that all human thought is, at the end of the day, purely a consequence of irrational biochemical forces in the brain, not of Reason. Yet they have staked their claim on a faith in Reason, and most particularly, in Reason vs. Religion. Their dilemma seems to me to be summarized by another conflicted atheist, JBS Haldane who, when he wasn't fudging the data to fit with his faith in Stalin, was observing, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
This seems to be a fairly consistent problem. On the one hand, the atheist has to take a sort of "La de dah! Religion is completely transparent and soluble to the Rational Mind" attitude in order to maintain the appearance of Modernity's Vast Superiority to the Barbarous Ways of Our Ancestors. And so we get the yakkity yak about religion as a "meme" (cool pseudo-scientific sounding word!) and the self-designation of guys like Dennett as "Brights". But at the same time, it does not seem to occur to these guys that the moralism that underlies this avenue of attack is undercut by their own insistence that religion is a naturalistically evolved epiphenomenon of the brain that can no more be eliminated than the heart's naturalistically evolved tendency to beat. Are we angry at the heart for beating? Do we berate the heart for having so much in common with our barbaric ancestors? Why then, are Brights so pissed off at ordinary human beings for having brains which, by their own account, can hardly resist the impulse to see Somebody at work behind the natural order, just as our (allegedly) Dim ancestors did?
Beyond this, of course, are other questions, including "What basis do we have for thinking that Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett have accomplished some evolutionary feat that has altered the structure of their brains from that of the common herd?" Might it not be that such abberations from the gene pool that makes most human beings religious are not the Next Phase in Evolution but rather mutants who will shortly prove themselves unable to pass along their genes as they march to extinction? Suppose their problem is not that they see better and therefore possess an evolutionary advantage, but that they are blind to what most humans can see and are therefore doomed mutants?
And, of course, the big question is: if religious thought is simply the product of preordained biochemical programming (given that all thought is simply caused by the movement of molecules in the brain and is not the product of a rational created spirit which is linked to, but not bound by, the brain), why should we think that the thoughts of Dennett and Dawkins and Harris are not just as much the irrational epiphenomena of their particular brain molecules doing their irrational thing?
One of the many things I don't understand about atheists is their curious insistence on saying the religion is a purely natural phenomenon, coupled with their great outrage at religion. It seems to me to be like getting angry at a hurricane or a crocodile. If religion is simply "what the brain of homo sapiens naturally generates" then what is the point of being angry about it? You might as well get angry that the pancreas of homo sapiens generates insulin.
Of course, I don't think religion is the pure creation of the human brain. I think it is a human response to the actual presence of the divine (and the demonic, and the purely natural). In short, I think it an enormously complex phenomenon that cannot possible be explained without recourse to the supernatural. But since atheists have set themselves the task of trying to pretend the supernatural does not exist, and of ignoring all data that might suggest--sometimes extremely strongly--that it does, they have to play by their own weird rules and bide the consequences. One of the consequences of their view is that all human thought is, at the end of the day, purely a consequence of irrational biochemical forces in the brain, not of Reason. Yet they have staked their claim on a faith in Reason, and most particularly, in Reason vs. Religion. Their dilemma seems to me to be summarized by another conflicted atheist, JBS Haldane who, when he wasn't fudging the data to fit with his faith in Stalin, was observing, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
This seems to be a fairly consistent problem. On the one hand, the atheist has to take a sort of "La de dah! Religion is completely transparent and soluble to the Rational Mind" attitude in order to maintain the appearance of Modernity's Vast Superiority to the Barbarous Ways of Our Ancestors. And so we get the yakkity yak about religion as a "meme" (cool pseudo-scientific sounding word!) and the self-designation of guys like Dennett as "Brights". But at the same time, it does not seem to occur to these guys that the moralism that underlies this avenue of attack is undercut by their own insistence that religion is a naturalistically evolved epiphenomenon of the brain that can no more be eliminated than the heart's naturalistically evolved tendency to beat. Are we angry at the heart for beating? Do we berate the heart for having so much in common with our barbaric ancestors? Why then, are Brights so pissed off at ordinary human beings for having brains which, by their own account, can hardly resist the impulse to see Somebody at work behind the natural order, just as our (allegedly) Dim ancestors did?
Beyond this, of course, are other questions, including "What basis do we have for thinking that Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett have accomplished some evolutionary feat that has altered the structure of their brains from that of the common herd?" Might it not be that such abberations from the gene pool that makes most human beings religious are not the Next Phase in Evolution but rather mutants who will shortly prove themselves unable to pass along their genes as they march to extinction? Suppose their problem is not that they see better and therefore possess an evolutionary advantage, but that they are blind to what most humans can see and are therefore doomed mutants?
And, of course, the big question is: if religious thought is simply the product of preordained biochemical programming (given that all thought is simply caused by the movement of molecules in the brain and is not the product of a rational created spirit which is linked to, but not bound by, the brain), why should we think that the thoughts of Dennett and Dawkins and Harris are not just as much the irrational epiphenomena of their particular brain molecules doing their irrational thing?
Moral Progress Redux
In post-Christian culture, "moral progress" means going from saying, "*That* horrible thing will never happen!" to saying, "*That's* not horrible!"
In post-Christian culture, "moral progress" means going from saying, "*That* horrible thing will never happen!" to saying, "*That's* not horrible!"
Joy!
One of the loveliest things there is is when your 11 year old boy comes in and reads you a passage from a Brian Jacques book and does a reasonable approximation of all the various English country accents. He's making his way through the Redwall series now and it is bringing him great happiness.
I love being a Dad.
One of the loveliest things there is is when your 11 year old boy comes in and reads you a passage from a Brian Jacques book and does a reasonable approximation of all the various English country accents. He's making his way through the Redwall series now and it is bringing him great happiness.
I love being a Dad.
Seattle Breathes a Sigh of Relief
The Great Sea-Tac Holiday Tree Seige of '06 is over!
The whole thing makes for great comedy in my book. You've got the wimpy "Holiday Trees" reminding us that Christmas is, for Blue Staters, the Holiday that Dare Not Say it's Name. You've got the rabbi who goes to the Port with his Big Gun lawyer demanding an instant menorah or else it's lawsuit city (and then acting surprised that the Port felt threatened). You've got the cowardly Port guys who were too timid to even defend "Holiday Trees" and too thick to say, "Sure, stick a menorah over there by Baggage Claim." You've got the wincing Jewish community in Seattle going to the Rabbi and saying, "Way to go. Now you've pissed off a bunch of people for no good reason other than your need for Insensitivity Training." You've the got the Big Gun lawyer with the chutzpah to say, "We are not going to be the instrument by which the port holds Christmas hostage" (as though the Port has somehow been plotting to remove Holiday trees and was happy to see the well-intended lawyer come in the door with his threats, the better to implement their nefarious plan). You've got the angry and bitter Christians who are demonstrating the love of Christ by sending the rabbi hate mail. You've got the hilarity of Seattle's Leftist Orwellian Newspeak about "the holidays" and the tortured attempts to simultaneously "celebrate diversity" while making a desert and calling it peace. You've got the Plucky Rebel Alliance of airport workers who stage a revolt and put more trees up anyway, political correctness be damned.
Now comes the next phase in the comedy, when the "make a desert and call it peace" agenda and the Celebrate Diversity guys try to haggle things out. In a sane world, we'd allow Christmas (not Holiday) trees, menorahs, whatever the Muslims do this time of year, as well as Kwanzaa disco balls or whatever it is they use. It would be pretty. Then it would be over. But in this insane world, we have to pretend that Christmas trees are not Christmas trees. And when some rabbi says, "Yeah, but everybody knows it's really a Christmas tree anyway, so I want a menorah too!" We can't say, "You're right. It *is* really a Christmas tree" or else we've taken the first step toward a new Dark Ages of Theocratic Christianist Fascism. On the other hand, if we *do* celebrate diversity, acknowledge the Christmasness of the tree and include the menorah, we have taken a step toward transforming the United States into a vast Davidic Kingdom of compulsory circumcision for all, because while the tree is not particularly religious, the menorah certainly is, and the Port's acknowledgment of it can only constitute an establishment of religion by the state. It couldn't be that the state just, like, acknowledge that a couple of important religious traditions in the US are having an annual celebration and we get to reap the benefits of that in the form of some beautiful lights and glass balls. Nope. Anything other than the complete denuding of the Public Square means that the 30 Years War is just around the corner.
The Great Sea-Tac Holiday Tree Seige of '06 is over!
The whole thing makes for great comedy in my book. You've got the wimpy "Holiday Trees" reminding us that Christmas is, for Blue Staters, the Holiday that Dare Not Say it's Name. You've got the rabbi who goes to the Port with his Big Gun lawyer demanding an instant menorah or else it's lawsuit city (and then acting surprised that the Port felt threatened). You've got the cowardly Port guys who were too timid to even defend "Holiday Trees" and too thick to say, "Sure, stick a menorah over there by Baggage Claim." You've got the wincing Jewish community in Seattle going to the Rabbi and saying, "Way to go. Now you've pissed off a bunch of people for no good reason other than your need for Insensitivity Training." You've the got the Big Gun lawyer with the chutzpah to say, "We are not going to be the instrument by which the port holds Christmas hostage" (as though the Port has somehow been plotting to remove Holiday trees and was happy to see the well-intended lawyer come in the door with his threats, the better to implement their nefarious plan). You've got the angry and bitter Christians who are demonstrating the love of Christ by sending the rabbi hate mail. You've got the hilarity of Seattle's Leftist Orwellian Newspeak about "the holidays" and the tortured attempts to simultaneously "celebrate diversity" while making a desert and calling it peace. You've got the Plucky Rebel Alliance of airport workers who stage a revolt and put more trees up anyway, political correctness be damned.
Now comes the next phase in the comedy, when the "make a desert and call it peace" agenda and the Celebrate Diversity guys try to haggle things out. In a sane world, we'd allow Christmas (not Holiday) trees, menorahs, whatever the Muslims do this time of year, as well as Kwanzaa disco balls or whatever it is they use. It would be pretty. Then it would be over. But in this insane world, we have to pretend that Christmas trees are not Christmas trees. And when some rabbi says, "Yeah, but everybody knows it's really a Christmas tree anyway, so I want a menorah too!" We can't say, "You're right. It *is* really a Christmas tree" or else we've taken the first step toward a new Dark Ages of Theocratic Christianist Fascism. On the other hand, if we *do* celebrate diversity, acknowledge the Christmasness of the tree and include the menorah, we have taken a step toward transforming the United States into a vast Davidic Kingdom of compulsory circumcision for all, because while the tree is not particularly religious, the menorah certainly is, and the Port's acknowledgment of it can only constitute an establishment of religion by the state. It couldn't be that the state just, like, acknowledge that a couple of important religious traditions in the US are having an annual celebration and we get to reap the benefits of that in the form of some beautiful lights and glass balls. Nope. Anything other than the complete denuding of the Public Square means that the 30 Years War is just around the corner.
Why would anybody not want to be tagged and tracked like sheep?
Hey! If that's what it takes to be safe and have a full belly, then I am so there! And if some future Caesar feels a need to cull the herd or do some specialized breeding, or otherwise tweak the statistics in the demographic bloc, well hey! You've gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. The notion of the person is so passe anyway. What matters is the good of the State, or the Corporation, or the gene pool, or the collective, or the hive.
Seriously, the amazing thing is how many people will line up for this enthusiastically because it's The Latest Thing.
Hey! If that's what it takes to be safe and have a full belly, then I am so there! And if some future Caesar feels a need to cull the herd or do some specialized breeding, or otherwise tweak the statistics in the demographic bloc, well hey! You've gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. The notion of the person is so passe anyway. What matters is the good of the State, or the Corporation, or the gene pool, or the collective, or the hive.
Seriously, the amazing thing is how many people will line up for this enthusiastically because it's The Latest Thing.
Nick Alexander writes:
Now you know!
I, Nick Alexander (aka The Catholic Weird Al) have a new album out called "I Wanna Be Debated" (available at my website). And I will be the guest on this week's "Life on the Rock" (on EWTN)?
The songs I parody are very topical... "Footloose" is now "Ichthus" (the fish symbol). "Dancing Queen" is now about the "Nicene Creed". "Summer Nights" (from Grease) is now a pro-chastity anthem. I even have a pro-bloggers anthem ("Internet Bloggers" to the melody of Queen's "Radio Ga-Ga"). Sound clips are available here. And yes, individual songs available via iTunes.
Now you know!
Monday, December 11, 2006
Most People Don't Think of Bob Newhart as a Catholic Theologian
But you could hardly ask for a more insightful commentary on Romans 7, the insufficiency of the law to save us from the bondage of original sin, and the weakness of stoic philosophy than this:
But you could hardly ask for a more insightful commentary on Romans 7, the insufficiency of the law to save us from the bondage of original sin, and the weakness of stoic philosophy than this:
Good Morning! It's Day 1 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Gift Week
If you like what you read here, please help keep an emphatically lower middle class writer solvent so he can keep bringing you the weird combination of offbeat humor, theological ramblings, ecclesial and civil politics, and various cultural ephemera that you've come to realize you can't live without. Click on the PayPal button to the left and help CAEI stay on the air, our kids have Christmas presents, and our dentist get his kids through college. 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.
Also, don't forget that I am available to come speak at your parish, conference, or Catholic get-together.
If you like what you read here, please help keep an emphatically lower middle class writer solvent so he can keep bringing you the weird combination of offbeat humor, theological ramblings, ecclesial and civil politics, and various cultural ephemera that you've come to realize you can't live without. Click on the PayPal button to the left and help CAEI stay on the air, our kids have Christmas presents, and our dentist get his kids through college. 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.
Also, don't forget that I am available to come speak at your parish, conference, or Catholic get-together.
"They're shown as these extremely barbaric people, when in fact, the Maya were a very sophisticated culture."
Um, sophistication and barbarism are not mutually exclusive. Just ask the Carthaginians or the Germans of the Hitler era. That's, um, kind of the whole point of the film.
Bear in mind the quote come from a scholar who also says of a film depicting the Mayan traffic in human sacrifice:
and
Of course, some of the anti-human sacrifice absolutists out there will complain of her eagerness to condemn Gibson and her peculiar quietude about ritually slaughtering human beings. Some of the most arrogant of these Human Sacrifice Pharisees will even charge that she is a "Human Sacrifice Apologist". In fact, however, she is simply "anti-anti-human sacrifice". All she really wants is for us to be open to the rich diversity of religious options in life's colorful pageant. Can anyone fault her for that?
More discussion of Apocalypto over at Amy's place.
Um, sophistication and barbarism are not mutually exclusive. Just ask the Carthaginians or the Germans of the Hitler era. That's, um, kind of the whole point of the film.
Bear in mind the quote come from a scholar who also says of a film depicting the Mayan traffic in human sacrifice:
It's offensive to those of us who try to teach cultural sensitivity and alternative world views that might not match our own 21st-century Western ones but are nonetheless valid.
and
We have evidence to suggest that there were group sacrifices. But it would probably have been done as a pious act with solemnity.
Of course, some of the anti-human sacrifice absolutists out there will complain of her eagerness to condemn Gibson and her peculiar quietude about ritually slaughtering human beings. Some of the most arrogant of these Human Sacrifice Pharisees will even charge that she is a "Human Sacrifice Apologist". In fact, however, she is simply "anti-anti-human sacrifice". All she really wants is for us to be open to the rich diversity of religious options in life's colorful pageant. Can anyone fault her for that?
More discussion of Apocalypto over at Amy's place.
A Truly Beautiful Post from Fr. Shane Tharp over at Catholic Ragemonkeys
God bless this great priest.
God bless this great priest.
Seattle: The Most Unchurched City in the Most Unchurch State in the Nation
Only here can we first re-name Christmas trees "Holiday Trees" and *still* find somebody whose Exquisite Sensitivity cannot bear to endure them in an airport. Next on deck: lawsuits demanding the separation of Sparkle Season and State.
Anti-Christmas people are psychotic.
Update: Apparently, the Purge was the work of idiot bureaucrats who would rather make a desert and call it peace than of some crank. I've never understood why it would be so hard to put up a menorah or some Kwanzaa thingie than to undertake this yearly kabuki of fretting about trees and creches.
Only here can we first re-name Christmas trees "Holiday Trees" and *still* find somebody whose Exquisite Sensitivity cannot bear to endure them in an airport. Next on deck: lawsuits demanding the separation of Sparkle Season and State.
Anti-Christmas people are psychotic.
Update: Apparently, the Purge was the work of idiot bureaucrats who would rather make a desert and call it peace than of some crank. I've never understood why it would be so hard to put up a menorah or some Kwanzaa thingie than to undertake this yearly kabuki of fretting about trees and creches.
Jimmy Ponders Imponderables
Latest on the roster: Does Allah=God? and What if the Pope Converted to Islam? As ever, a fun and clear-headed analysis of the problem.
I have no big thoughts about the latter. About the former, my two bits to add to Jimmy's ponderings are that the church has already provided some guidance, which some Catholics don't want to hear. Basically, that guidance boils down to saying "Muslims have a real but very imperfect knowledge of the God of Abraham. Insofar as they acknowledge what the Church acknowledges about God and his relationship with man, they are right. Insofar as they are ignorant or deny what the Church says about God and his relationship with man, they are mistaken or in sin."
Of course, some Exclusivist Catholics want to say that Muslims "don't worship the same God" we do. Some of the more extreme ones want to say the same thing about Jews, Orthodox and Protestants. What lies behind this sort of thinking, it seems to me, is a theory of salvation by intellectual works coupled with a mysterious and foggy faith in the ability of the human intellect to create God.
By "salvation by intellectual works" I mean that the idea seems to be that God will not accept somebody who does not have all their intellectual conceptions of God in perfect shipshape. If, say, a Jew, through no fault of his own, finds it impossible to believe that Jesus is God (due to who-knows-what sort of familial and cultural baggage that keeps him from seeing Jesus as the Church sees Him) well then, too bad for the Jew. The Exclusivist Catholic has this Bible verse which says "No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well." and that's that. Never mind that the Jewish guy has never had a real encounter with Christ as the Church understands him, but only with a phantom named "Jesus" that is compounded of junk images from the media, memories of pogroms his grandfather endured, and the opinions of some pinheads in comboxes. He's had his shot, says the Exclusivist. He doesn't worship the same God we do (despite the fact that his conscience drives him to do things which (if he but knew it) Jesus wants (like the orthodox Jewish handyman at the parish I just visited, who always asks the priest to give him a blessing when he is done working). Men are saved by having correct doctrine, as the parable of the Sheep and the Goats plainly says.
But in addition to this notion of salvation by intellectual works, there is the curious notion that we can somehow create other gods by our thinking. I can find no other explanation for the wierd insistence that Muslims, for instance, "worship another god".
But this is a misapplication of language. Yes, Scripture speaks of "other gods", but this is imagery, not fact. The *fact* is that there is one (1) God and there are no others. All other "gods" are creatures we treat as gods by making them first in our lives. Muslims have received real bits of revelation from Judaism and Christianity. Insofar as they have done so, they have received revelation about the only God there is: the God of Abraham. That they have not received the fullness of revelation, and that they have received false ideas about that God does not mean they worship "another god" because there *are* no other gods and no amount of wrong thinking by a Muslim can create another god. There is only the one God.
Bottom line: What contradicts Christ is false. But what does not contradict him is true, even if it is spoken by Muslims. "He who is not with me is against me" says the Lord, "But he who is not against us is for us" as well. The effort to make Allah somebody besides "The-True-God-poorly-perceived-by-Muslims" is dumb because it winds up throwing the baby out with the bath. You have to deny the true things Muslims say about God to call Allah a false god. It's more sensible to do as the Church does and simply acknowledge that where Islam is on the same page with the Church, it's right and where it isn't, it's wrong.
Latest on the roster: Does Allah=God? and What if the Pope Converted to Islam? As ever, a fun and clear-headed analysis of the problem.
I have no big thoughts about the latter. About the former, my two bits to add to Jimmy's ponderings are that the church has already provided some guidance, which some Catholics don't want to hear. Basically, that guidance boils down to saying "Muslims have a real but very imperfect knowledge of the God of Abraham. Insofar as they acknowledge what the Church acknowledges about God and his relationship with man, they are right. Insofar as they are ignorant or deny what the Church says about God and his relationship with man, they are mistaken or in sin."
Of course, some Exclusivist Catholics want to say that Muslims "don't worship the same God" we do. Some of the more extreme ones want to say the same thing about Jews, Orthodox and Protestants. What lies behind this sort of thinking, it seems to me, is a theory of salvation by intellectual works coupled with a mysterious and foggy faith in the ability of the human intellect to create God.
By "salvation by intellectual works" I mean that the idea seems to be that God will not accept somebody who does not have all their intellectual conceptions of God in perfect shipshape. If, say, a Jew, through no fault of his own, finds it impossible to believe that Jesus is God (due to who-knows-what sort of familial and cultural baggage that keeps him from seeing Jesus as the Church sees Him) well then, too bad for the Jew. The Exclusivist Catholic has this Bible verse which says "No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well." and that's that. Never mind that the Jewish guy has never had a real encounter with Christ as the Church understands him, but only with a phantom named "Jesus" that is compounded of junk images from the media, memories of pogroms his grandfather endured, and the opinions of some pinheads in comboxes. He's had his shot, says the Exclusivist. He doesn't worship the same God we do (despite the fact that his conscience drives him to do things which (if he but knew it) Jesus wants (like the orthodox Jewish handyman at the parish I just visited, who always asks the priest to give him a blessing when he is done working). Men are saved by having correct doctrine, as the parable of the Sheep and the Goats plainly says.
But in addition to this notion of salvation by intellectual works, there is the curious notion that we can somehow create other gods by our thinking. I can find no other explanation for the wierd insistence that Muslims, for instance, "worship another god".
But this is a misapplication of language. Yes, Scripture speaks of "other gods", but this is imagery, not fact. The *fact* is that there is one (1) God and there are no others. All other "gods" are creatures we treat as gods by making them first in our lives. Muslims have received real bits of revelation from Judaism and Christianity. Insofar as they have done so, they have received revelation about the only God there is: the God of Abraham. That they have not received the fullness of revelation, and that they have received false ideas about that God does not mean they worship "another god" because there *are* no other gods and no amount of wrong thinking by a Muslim can create another god. There is only the one God.
Bottom line: What contradicts Christ is false. But what does not contradict him is true, even if it is spoken by Muslims. "He who is not with me is against me" says the Lord, "But he who is not against us is for us" as well. The effort to make Allah somebody besides "The-True-God-poorly-perceived-by-Muslims" is dumb because it winds up throwing the baby out with the bath. You have to deny the true things Muslims say about God to call Allah a false god. It's more sensible to do as the Church does and simply acknowledge that where Islam is on the same page with the Church, it's right and where it isn't, it's wrong.
The Western Confucian writes:
It's a good blog. If you feel inclined, go give him a boost!
Much to my astonishment, my blog, The Western Confucian, is a finalist in the Best Asian Blog category.
I would be most happy if you and some of your readers paid a visit to my blog and felt inclined to vote.
It's a good blog. If you feel inclined, go give him a boost!
The Denouement to the Sister of Perpetual Indulgence Debacle
Some of you may remember this little spectacle, approved by one Rev Stephen Meriwether, who was both parish pastor and Chancellor of the Archdiocese.
Now a reader writes:
Just a nice thing to see on a Monday morning.
Some of you may remember this little spectacle, approved by one Rev Stephen Meriwether, who was both parish pastor and Chancellor of the Archdiocese.
Now a reader writes:
As per the Catholic San Francisco, the official diocesan paper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the Reverend Meriwethers has been dismissed as Chancellor (okay, they say 'replaced,' but doesn't dismissed just fit better?)
His 'replacement' is the Very Reverend C. Michael Padazinski, JCD, formerly the Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese, appointed by Archbishop Levada in June of 2000.
We give thanks to God for He is great and let us continue to pray for the Church of San Francisco and for the continued courage of the Archbishop!
Might I suggest that we all write letters of congratulations and thanks to the Archbishop? I for one, am extremely proud to see an Apostle stand-up for Christ and the good people of God of San Francisco!
Just a nice thing to see on a Monday morning.
Progress in the Post-Christian US
means going from contraception to abortion to euthanasia, from no fault divorce to gay marriage to man boy love, and going from covert CIA torture to legalized torture.
Weird how postmodernity's idea of progress seems to consistently track with rejecting a Christian morality and returning to a pagan one.
means going from contraception to abortion to euthanasia, from no fault divorce to gay marriage to man boy love, and going from covert CIA torture to legalized torture.
Weird how postmodernity's idea of progress seems to consistently track with rejecting a Christian morality and returning to a pagan one.
Interesting Little Inroads Happening in the Islamosphere
I won't bet the farm on stuff like this. But it is a handy little reminder that the Story has a Storyteller who has a habit of intervening in history in unexpected ways. We can't count on some sort of miraculous mass conversion of Muslims. On the other hand, we can't count on God simply doing nothing either. People who appeal to the amazing power of Islam to resist the gospel need to bear in mind that paganism had been around since Cro-Magnon man was carving goddesses out of clay. Judaism and Christianity were still able to defeat it by the power of the Holy Spirit. If God can raise up Joan of Arc or bring down Communism without out a shot, it's too early to pronounce upon the worldwide triumph of Islam.
I won't bet the farm on stuff like this. But it is a handy little reminder that the Story has a Storyteller who has a habit of intervening in history in unexpected ways. We can't count on some sort of miraculous mass conversion of Muslims. On the other hand, we can't count on God simply doing nothing either. People who appeal to the amazing power of Islam to resist the gospel need to bear in mind that paganism had been around since Cro-Magnon man was carving goddesses out of clay. Judaism and Christianity were still able to defeat it by the power of the Holy Spirit. If God can raise up Joan of Arc or bring down Communism without out a shot, it's too early to pronounce upon the worldwide triumph of Islam.
With Lightning Speed, Rome Springs into Action in the Matter of the Lincoln Diocese
Turns out Bp. Bruskewitz can excommunicate Call to Action if he wants to. Much bustle will no doubt ensue from people in the blogosphere who discern either the pitch blackness of a New Dark Ages or the Great Rosy Dawn of Coming Rollback of Vatican II.
Me: I think Rome is saying "Bishops pretty much run their own dioceses. Next case!"
Turns out Bp. Bruskewitz can excommunicate Call to Action if he wants to. Much bustle will no doubt ensue from people in the blogosphere who discern either the pitch blackness of a New Dark Ages or the Great Rosy Dawn of Coming Rollback of Vatican II.
Me: I think Rome is saying "Bishops pretty much run their own dioceses. Next case!"
Sungenis Heads Deeper into Space
When everybody around you is a traitor, or infected with sinister Jew influences, or insufficiently pure for your discriminating palate, you might consider the possibility that you and not they are the problem.
When everybody around you is a traitor, or infected with sinister Jew influences, or insufficiently pure for your discriminating palate, you might consider the possibility that you and not they are the problem.