The Astonishingly Funny and Strange John Hodgman
...author of the hilarious The Areas of My Expertise, offers this hysterical sendup of Ken Burns:
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Merry Christmas from all of us at Chez Shea!
Blogging will be scarce this weeka as we intend to fully celebrate the Feast of the Incarnation with a fair amount of goofing off and playing.
Blessings on all of youse! Have a Happy New Year and I will see you next week!
Blogging will be scarce this weeka as we intend to fully celebrate the Feast of the Incarnation with a fair amount of goofing off and playing.
Blessings on all of youse! Have a Happy New Year and I will see you next week!
Friday, December 21, 2007
"The Surprise" is on EWTN tonight at 10 PM Eastern!
That's 9 PM Central, 8 PM Mountain and 7 PM Pacific.
What's "The Surprise"? As the actor playing the Captain of the Guard, it's tempting to answer "Well, there's this Captain of the Guard...."
However, my role as a portly bearded Sergeant Schultz type in highly uncomfortable boots is decidedly minor. In fact, it's a fun play by G.K. Chesterton in which the action gets away from the Author, necessitating an Intervention. The redoubtable Kevin O'Brien is the real hero of the piece, along with various hilarious members Dale Ahlquist's circle of family and friends and it features sword fights, romance, Dale Ahlquist drunk on his keister, and lots of comic turns from a fine and goofy cast who had a great deal of fun shooting it last January (an Adventure you can read about by going here and scrolling up).
If you have access to EWTN by TV, you know what to do. If you are like me and don't have a tube with cable or dish, you can still stream the show live on your computer. Just go to EWTN, drag your mouse to "Television" on the header, choose "Live TV - English", pick your media player, and select the appropriate bandwith. If you aren't sure of the right bandwidth, just experiment a bit and see which works the best.
I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille!
That's 9 PM Central, 8 PM Mountain and 7 PM Pacific.
What's "The Surprise"? As the actor playing the Captain of the Guard, it's tempting to answer "Well, there's this Captain of the Guard...."
However, my role as a portly bearded Sergeant Schultz type in highly uncomfortable boots is decidedly minor. In fact, it's a fun play by G.K. Chesterton in which the action gets away from the Author, necessitating an Intervention. The redoubtable Kevin O'Brien is the real hero of the piece, along with various hilarious members Dale Ahlquist's circle of family and friends and it features sword fights, romance, Dale Ahlquist drunk on his keister, and lots of comic turns from a fine and goofy cast who had a great deal of fun shooting it last January (an Adventure you can read about by going here and scrolling up).
If you have access to EWTN by TV, you know what to do. If you are like me and don't have a tube with cable or dish, you can still stream the show live on your computer. Just go to EWTN, drag your mouse to "Television" on the header, choose "Live TV - English", pick your media player, and select the appropriate bandwith. If you aren't sure of the right bandwidth, just experiment a bit and see which works the best.
I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille!
I've always liked Denzel Washington
He seems like the genuine article. A modest man doing his job well for the glory of God. You can't ask for better than that.
He seems like the genuine article. A modest man doing his job well for the glory of God. You can't ask for better than that.
Requiescat in Pacem
My reader writes:
May Raymond's soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
My reader writes:
Raymond died last night, Wednesday the 19th at about 10:30 EST. He had been unconscious for several days, but at the last moment, he awoke, was lucid, looked at his entire family gathered around his bed and told them he loved them. He then closed his eyes, breathed deeply three times (recall that his airway was severely constricted by the tumor), and died. His family considers it to be miraculous.
The wake is Friday evening, and the funeral Mass is scheduled for Saturday morning at 10:00.
May Raymond's soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
As we approach the Feast of the Only True Extraterrestrial Visitation We Have Ever Experienced (not counting angelic visitations)
...permit me to remind everybody again: We are, for all intents and purposes All Alone in the Universe. ET *may* exist. But if he does, he is so far away that he is not coming to save or enslave us and things like this only serve as wildly unrealistic reminders of Enrico Fermi's famous question: Where is everbody?
Devotees of ET eschatology will tell you there is some Prime Directive out there that makes this ultra-crowded universe hide all its evidence of millions of technologically advanced civilization from us (no doubt till develop the warp drive).
Rubbish. A civilization capable of interstellar travel is a civilization that could not help giving off a ton of highly specified electromagnetic signals (like flood of radio and TV chatter we have been radiating into space for decades). So where is it? Out of all the alleged millions of civilizations *none* of them is detectable to our very determined electronic ears? Reeeeeeeally?
Occam's Razor has a simpler explanation: the earth is, in fact, quite rare, intelligent life is not a dime a dozen, and we are effectively all alone in the cosmos with no Vulcan, no Klingon, no Ferengi, and no Romulan to keep us company as friend or foe. Moreover, we are not going anywhere, because there is no where to go that is not infinitely more hostile to human life and infinitely more difficult to reach than Antarctica. When we build New York there, talk to me about the thriving Mars colony that's just down the road and the Treaty of Alpha Centauri and all the rest of the fantasies that fill the minds of folk who can't bear the fact that relativity means "No United Federation of Planets".
The only non-human intelligence we have ever encountered is angelic or demonic and the only genuine extra-terrestrial encounter with have every had with an organic being was the biggest encounter of them all, when God became a human being at Bethlehem 2000 years ago. Compared to that, ET is small beans. Our ultimate destiny is not the heavens. That's too small for us. It's Heaven or bust.
...permit me to remind everybody again: We are, for all intents and purposes All Alone in the Universe. ET *may* exist. But if he does, he is so far away that he is not coming to save or enslave us and things like this only serve as wildly unrealistic reminders of Enrico Fermi's famous question: Where is everbody?
Devotees of ET eschatology will tell you there is some Prime Directive out there that makes this ultra-crowded universe hide all its evidence of millions of technologically advanced civilization from us (no doubt till develop the warp drive).
Rubbish. A civilization capable of interstellar travel is a civilization that could not help giving off a ton of highly specified electromagnetic signals (like flood of radio and TV chatter we have been radiating into space for decades). So where is it? Out of all the alleged millions of civilizations *none* of them is detectable to our very determined electronic ears? Reeeeeeeally?
Occam's Razor has a simpler explanation: the earth is, in fact, quite rare, intelligent life is not a dime a dozen, and we are effectively all alone in the cosmos with no Vulcan, no Klingon, no Ferengi, and no Romulan to keep us company as friend or foe. Moreover, we are not going anywhere, because there is no where to go that is not infinitely more hostile to human life and infinitely more difficult to reach than Antarctica. When we build New York there, talk to me about the thriving Mars colony that's just down the road and the Treaty of Alpha Centauri and all the rest of the fantasies that fill the minds of folk who can't bear the fact that relativity means "No United Federation of Planets".
The only non-human intelligence we have ever encountered is angelic or demonic and the only genuine extra-terrestrial encounter with have every had with an organic being was the biggest encounter of them all, when God became a human being at Bethlehem 2000 years ago. Compared to that, ET is small beans. Our ultimate destiny is not the heavens. That's too small for us. It's Heaven or bust.
Turns Out There Are Still Christians Living in Bethlehem
You may not have heard of them because they are inconvenient to our National Policies and Alliances, not to mention the various crazy end times theories of a number of Evangelical sects for whom they do not count as Real Christians[TM]. But the Holy See thinks kindly of them and periodically tries to remind us that they matter and are caught between the hammer of Islamic thugs and the anvil of Israeli policies that aren't exceptionally kind to them. That's why there are fewer and fewer every year.
You may not have heard of them because they are inconvenient to our National Policies and Alliances, not to mention the various crazy end times theories of a number of Evangelical sects for whom they do not count as Real Christians[TM]. But the Holy See thinks kindly of them and periodically tries to remind us that they matter and are caught between the hammer of Islamic thugs and the anvil of Israeli policies that aren't exceptionally kind to them. That's why there are fewer and fewer every year.
I hope so!
It's good to remember that extremists are, well, extreme and don't Play Well With Others. So it's hard for them to stay organized.
It's good to remember that extremists are, well, extreme and don't Play Well With Others. So it's hard for them to stay organized.
I think Congress Should Stop Wasting Time with "Symbolic Resolutions"
I'd be very happy if our Congresscritters attended to the business of legislating real laws and stopped wasting time passing resolutions recognizing Christmas, Ramadan, Hannukah, National Hair Week and doing all the rest of those pointless gestures that just use up tax money paying for bureaucrats to write dumb symbolic resolutions.
That said, it should be noted that symbolic resolutions are, well, symbolic. And selective refusals to endorse symbolic resolutions do tell you something about the Congresscritter who refuses to, say, acknowledge Christmas while bending over to recognize Ramadan.
So, once again, we have the strange spectacle of a lefty liberal embracing the celebration of a religion whose legacy of tyrannies and human rights abuses dwarfs the various black legends in the Christian closet and whose representative are, even at their most liberal, still deeply hostile to McDermott's entire worldview. The explanation?
I'd be very happy if our Congresscritters attended to the business of legislating real laws and stopped wasting time passing resolutions recognizing Christmas, Ramadan, Hannukah, National Hair Week and doing all the rest of those pointless gestures that just use up tax money paying for bureaucrats to write dumb symbolic resolutions.
That said, it should be noted that symbolic resolutions are, well, symbolic. And selective refusals to endorse symbolic resolutions do tell you something about the Congresscritter who refuses to, say, acknowledge Christmas while bending over to recognize Ramadan.
So, once again, we have the strange spectacle of a lefty liberal embracing the celebration of a religion whose legacy of tyrannies and human rights abuses dwarfs the various black legends in the Christian closet and whose representative are, even at their most liberal, still deeply hostile to McDermott's entire worldview. The explanation?
Speaking of Hitchens...
Jeremy Lott answers the musical question, "Why is that such an embarrassingly bad book, panned by so many reviewers, both believing and non-believing, sells so well?"
Personally, I don't think you can improve on Paul:
Hitchens is popular with a certain crowd because he tells them what they want to hear. If the arguments are slipshod, the research non-existent, the logic tendentious, the bigotry thick enough to cut with a knife, and the substitution of sneer for fact so transparent a child could see it... well, still and all, he hates God, tell me I don't have to fret about being judged and congratulates me on my superiority to the Common Herd, so all's forgiven.
Jeremy Lott answers the musical question, "Why is that such an embarrassingly bad book, panned by so many reviewers, both believing and non-believing, sells so well?"
Personally, I don't think you can improve on Paul:
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings. (2 Timothy 4:3)
Hitchens is popular with a certain crowd because he tells them what they want to hear. If the arguments are slipshod, the research non-existent, the logic tendentious, the bigotry thick enough to cut with a knife, and the substitution of sneer for fact so transparent a child could see it... well, still and all, he hates God, tell me I don't have to fret about being judged and congratulates me on my superiority to the Common Herd, so all's forgiven.
If only teachers could marry...
I eagerly await Hitchens' next effort _school is not Great: How Education Poisons Everything_.
I eagerly await Hitchens' next effort _school is not Great: How Education Poisons Everything_.
Seems Like a Worthy Cause
We want to spread the good news that we've started a Catholic web hosting site. We do email, web site hosting and design, basically everything you can think of!
We have 24/7 tech support from some great all-American folks (real citizens, real English!).
We are going to donate 10% of all our profits to Catholic charities, so feel free to email us if you have a special charity in mind.
But we can't do this alone! We need your help to pass this message on to as many Catholics (or non-Catholics, everybody is welcome) as possible!
We need to spread the word, and help create a safe and sacred space on the internet, where families know they won't have to worry about what their children are seeing, and our customers can rest knowing that our business does not in any way support any anti-life, or immoral organizations.
We're praying that either we can be of help to you, or that you will pass this message on to anybody who you think might be able to help!
Please help spread the word, feel free to contact me if you have any questions!
Sincerely,
The Family at Catholichosting.org
I Don't Believe in Messianic Politics
The reader who wrote to chew me out yesterday, writes to apologize today. Sweat thou it not, gentle reader. All's forgiven.
I guess I should clarify something: namely, I don't "believe" in politics, much less in politicians. The most I look for in a politician is a person who will do the least damage to what remains of our civilization and contribute the least toward shoving us further toward the abyss. With rare exceptions, I think the main function of our government is to restrain evil, not help create the kingdom of God on earth. Oh sure, the state can be an instrument by which chains are struck off, humans are fed and clothed, and some small measure of dignity and property are put in the hands of the poor. But by and large I leave messianic work to the Messiah and his Church and think it highly pernicious to put one's trust in princes.
So when I express some pleasure over, say, the way Ron Paul keeps humiliating the thugs, empty suits, and poseurs of the GOP, that's not to say that I "believe" in Ron Paul (who, as I've repeatedly said, strikes me as a bit kooky). It's that I think him a valuable counterweight to the far more pernicious and dangerous kookiness that has infected the GOP with Grand End to Evil Delusions, with huge and cynical schemes for Salvation Through Leviathan by Any Means Necessary arrogance, with a contempt for fiscal responsibility that would do LBJ proud, and with a repellent knack for wrapping all this in fur Kirche und Vaterland rhetoric that constantly makes the suggestion that critics of Bush not only hate America but are enemies of Christ *and* kumbaya idiots who need to read more Machiavelli. I think the stench from that insanity is what makes people appreciate Paul's basically modest approach to what governemnt is capable of.
I don't, I repeat, think Paul has a ghost of a chance. And I think a US government reconstructed according to the wishes of Paul is likely impossible and unworkable. But (politics being the art of the possible) he is the one figure on the national stage at present who comes closest to telling the ruling party what it's pathologies are and the one guy through whom a significant portion of the base can say to the party elders, "Repent or face destruction." Paul's minor kookiness is, quite frankly, nothing in comparison with the secular messianic kookiness and cynicism that has given us this unjust war in Iraq, this colossally arrogant and dangerous executive, and the war crimes and obstruction of justice that are the fruit of it all.
The reader who wrote to chew me out yesterday, writes to apologize today. Sweat thou it not, gentle reader. All's forgiven.
I guess I should clarify something: namely, I don't "believe" in politics, much less in politicians. The most I look for in a politician is a person who will do the least damage to what remains of our civilization and contribute the least toward shoving us further toward the abyss. With rare exceptions, I think the main function of our government is to restrain evil, not help create the kingdom of God on earth. Oh sure, the state can be an instrument by which chains are struck off, humans are fed and clothed, and some small measure of dignity and property are put in the hands of the poor. But by and large I leave messianic work to the Messiah and his Church and think it highly pernicious to put one's trust in princes.
So when I express some pleasure over, say, the way Ron Paul keeps humiliating the thugs, empty suits, and poseurs of the GOP, that's not to say that I "believe" in Ron Paul (who, as I've repeatedly said, strikes me as a bit kooky). It's that I think him a valuable counterweight to the far more pernicious and dangerous kookiness that has infected the GOP with Grand End to Evil Delusions, with huge and cynical schemes for Salvation Through Leviathan by Any Means Necessary arrogance, with a contempt for fiscal responsibility that would do LBJ proud, and with a repellent knack for wrapping all this in fur Kirche und Vaterland rhetoric that constantly makes the suggestion that critics of Bush not only hate America but are enemies of Christ *and* kumbaya idiots who need to read more Machiavelli. I think the stench from that insanity is what makes people appreciate Paul's basically modest approach to what governemnt is capable of.
I don't, I repeat, think Paul has a ghost of a chance. And I think a US government reconstructed according to the wishes of Paul is likely impossible and unworkable. But (politics being the art of the possible) he is the one figure on the national stage at present who comes closest to telling the ruling party what it's pathologies are and the one guy through whom a significant portion of the base can say to the party elders, "Repent or face destruction." Paul's minor kookiness is, quite frankly, nothing in comparison with the secular messianic kookiness and cynicism that has given us this unjust war in Iraq, this colossally arrogant and dangerous executive, and the war crimes and obstruction of justice that are the fruit of it all.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Tis the Season...
for explaining away the Virgin Birth as a "translation error" based on a misreading of Isaiah 7:14.
Therefore, I herewith append an excerpt from my book Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did:
The Allegorical Sense of Scripture (excerpted from Chapter 7 of Making Senses Out of Scripture)
This means something. This is important. - Roy Neary, contemplating his sculpted pile of mashed potatoes in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
As we mentioned in the last chapter, one of the standing temptations of the biblical student is to oversimplify by seizing on one truth and using it to discount other, equally important truths. One such oversimplification consists of the habit some modern people have of exalting the primacy of the literal sense of Scripture into a flat denial of the possibility of any other senses of Scripture at all. This posture of "liberal fundamentalism" says, in effect, "The human author said it. There's nothing more to it. That settles it." According to this notion, all attempts to seek any second meanings in Scripture are to be dismissed (in the words of one modern scholar) as "a sort of weasel word" whereby the reader can make the biblical text mean anything he likes.
This denial of a second sense in Scripture can lead to curious results, as a friend of mine discovered one evening watching one of those "Mysteries of the Bible" shows on TV. On the show were a couple of theologians eager to get their 15 minutes of fame on the tube. So rather than talk about the Faith, they obligingly told the camera that Jesus was not born of a virgin and based their claim on the allegation that St. Matthew misunderstood the prophet Isaiah.
It's like this, said the scholars: A couple of centuries after Isaiah wrote, the Hebrew Bible (including the book of Isaiah) was translated into Greek (since many Jews were spread over the Greek-speaking ancient world and were forgetting their Hebrew just as European immigrants to the United States forgot their Yiddish in an English-speaking culture). This Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (that is, the Old Testament) is called the Septuagint.
Now in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 we read the prophecy that "the 'almah' shall conceive and bear a son, and you shall call his name 'Immanuel.'" "Almah" means in Hebrew "young woman" and refers to any young woman, virgin or not. But when the Jewish translators of the Septuagint translated Isaiah into Greek (decades before the birth of Christ), they did not translate the term as "young woman" but as "parthenos" which means "virgin." Later on, after Christ comes, St. Matthew is reading this Greek translation, not the original Hebrew when he declares of the Virgin Birth, "All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.'" But, said the TV theologians, we now know St. Matthew was mistaken to believe in the Virgin Birth since Isaiah did not say "virgin" but "young woman."
So my friend was wrestling with what seemed an inevitable set of conclusions: a) the Septuagint translation is flat wrong; b) Matthew was ignorant of the actual meaning of Isaiah; c) he therefore derived his belief in the Virgin Birth from a mistaken translation of Isaiah and d) the Church therefore erred in defining its dogma of the Virgin Birth of Christ by mistakenly seeing a second "spiritual" meaning in the text of Isaiah when, in reality, there was (and could only be) Isaiah's original, literal meaning.
This is however, to enter into a whole complex of mistakes, not clarifications. To find out what's really going on, let's look again at the New Testament use of Old Testament Scripture.
The first and most obvious point in the New Testament, as we saw in chapter 5, is that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The apostles came to believe this, not because they saw the Virgin Birth, but because they saw the risen Christ. And the risen Christ, as we saw previously, is the one who did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17) and, after his resurrection, tells his disciples that "Moses and all the prophets" had written "concerning himself" (Luke 24:26-27). This is where the apostles get the idea that the whole life and ministry of Christ "fulfilled the Scriptures." So far so good.
What is not so good however is that it is easy for the modern reader to adopt a kind of "checklist" mentality about messianic prophecy, as though every first century Jew had an agreed-upon set of "Messianic Verses" in the Old Testament against which all messianic claimants were measured. Indeed, many books of Christian apologetics today lay out precisely this sort of schema:
Prophecy/Source/Fulfillment
The Messiah must.../In the Old Testament/In the New Testament
Be the born in Bethlehem/Micah 5:1/Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7
Be adored by great persons/Psalm 72:10-11/Matthew 2:1-11
Be sold for 30 pieces of silver/Zechariah 11:12/Matthew 26:15
and so forth. One could easily get the impression that all a first century Jew had to do was follow Jesus around, ticking off prophecy fulfillments on his Old Testament Messianic Prophecy Checklist and he ought to have known everything that Jesus was going to do before he ever did it.
But, as we have seen, the New Testament makes plain that the prophecies of Messiah were not so much revealed by the Old Testament as they were hidden there. This is precisely why St. Paul writes that the New Covenant was "veiled" until the gospel took away the veil (2 Corinthians 3:14). It is also why he declares the gospel was "not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 3:5). In short, Paul insists the deepest meaning of the Old Testament was seen only after the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
This is why nobody before these events says, "Why, it's plain from Scripture that the Messiah will be born of a virgin, rejected by the chief priests, handed over to Gentiles, crucified with thieves, risen, ascended, and that he will abrogate the circumcision demand for Gentiles as he breaks down the barrier between man and woman, slave and free, Jew and Gentile." Even the disciples themselves, close as they were to Jesus, make it clear they did not anticipate the crucifixion, much less the resurrection, one little bit-even when Jesus rubbed their noses in it (Mark 9:9-10). As John says, they did not understand from the Scripture that the Messiah had to rise from the dead, even while they were standing in the mouth of the empty tomb gawking at his graveclothes (John 20:1-10).
And yet, these same apostles speak of the resurrection (like the Virgin Birth) as a "fulfillment" of the prophecies. What then do they mean if they do not mean the prophecies were "predictions" which everybody based their understanding of Messiah upon?
They mean that Christ fulfilled, brought to fruition, and was the ultimate Case in Point toward which all the Old Testament was straining and pointing. They mean he was the One toward whom the law and prophets were being pointed by his Spirit even when the sacred writers themselves did not know quite what they were pointing toward (1 Peter 1:10-11). This is why the early Church never had difficulty with an issue which often vexes modern minds: namely, why the New Testament often takes Old Testament texts out of their immediate context and sees them as applicable to Christ. For the early Church does not see the Old Testament as talking about something different from Christ, but rather sees it in relationship to him. What appear to us to be separate themes and events in the Old Testament, appear to the New Testament writers as so many spokes on a wheel all connected to the Hub who is Christ.
So, for instance, Hebrews 2:13 quotes Isaiah 8:18: "Here I am, and the children God has given me." In its literal sense, Isaiah is speaking about his own disciples with no hint of messianic intent behind these words. Yet the author of Hebrews sees Christ, far more than Isaiah, fulfilling the text. Why? Because Christ and his Church are, most fully, what Isaiah and his disciples were in a kind of foreshadow. The words of the book of Isaiah, like all words, are signs signifying something, in this case Isaiah and his own disciples. But Isaiah and his own disciples are, in their turn, also signs signifying something even greater: Christ and his Church. For Christ and his Church are the ultimate Case in Point of what Isaiah and his disciples were: "signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion" (Isaiah 8:18). Isaiah and his disciples do indeed fulfill the passage in an immediate and literal sense. But the early Church sees no particular reason why this forbids the God whom Isaiah worshipped from fulfilling it even more profoundly when He becomes incarnate and establishes his Church. Therefore the author of Hebrews, reading the Isaian passage with hindsight through the lens of the entire life and ministry of Christ, sees an allegory hidden in it by God of which Isaiah himself knew nothing.
Likewise, with Isaiah 7:14, we find that the passage has a much more immediate fulfillment than the birth of Christ. The Immanuel Prophecy comes in an hour of national crisis during the reign of Ahaz, one of the lousier kings of Judah and descendants of David. The northern kingdom of Israel has formed an alliance with Syria against Ahaz' southern kingdom of Judah and as a result the Judeans are in a muck sweat about the future of their country. So Isaiah goes to Ahaz, tells him not to worry about the alliance since God will take care of Judah, and offers Ahaz the chance to "ask a sign of the Lord your God" (Isaiah 7:11) to assure him that everything will be fine. Ahaz refuses, ostensibly because he is too pious to put God to the test, but really because he does not want obey Isaiah. It is then that the Immanuel Prophecy is given: "Behold the almah shall conceive and bear [or 'is with child and shall bear'] a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [which means 'God with us']." What does Isaiah mean?
Most immediately and literally, Isaiah seems to have in mind the promise of a successor to Ahaz, namely Hezekiah, who will carry on the line of David so that, as Nathan had prophesied to David long ago "your throne shall be established forever" (2 Samuel 7:16). In other words, Isaiah is telling Ahaz that "God is with" the Davidic throne still and his kingdom will not be defeated by the menacing alliance to the north. And this prophecy is fulfilled. The menacing alliance against Judah fails and Hezekiah is born. The prophecy in its most immediate sense is fulfilled, not by a virgin birth, but by the pregnancy of the wife of Ahaz and the birth of a new "son of David" to carry on the Davidic line.
However, there remains in pre-Christian Jewish tradition a persistent belief in larger and second meanings in its Bible. As we have seen, there is, for instance, a growing sense that the prophecy of Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7 (despite these immediate fulfillments) speaks not so much of an everlasting political rule, but of some higher and greater Throne. That is why, when the political rule of the house of David finally does fail, Israel continues to remember Nathan's words and wonders what deeper meaning they might have. In the same way, Israel is told to await a Prophet by Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15) and, indeed, many prophets appear. Yet Israel, instead of seeing them as the final fulfillment of Moses' promise, instead comes to believe that some Great and Ultimate Prophet is coming; an august Somebody of whom the Old Testament Prophets are just dim images or foreshadows. This is why the Jews asked John the Baptist if he was "The Prophet" (John 1:21). And so, as we have seen, the Jews slowly develop over time the strong belief that there is, in the Bible, a mysterious inner meaning as well as the slowly dawning awareness that Somebody is coming-some Anointed One or Servant or Prophet or Son of David or Son of Man (the titles are fuzzy in the Old Testament)-who will make clear the tantalizing hints and "utter things hidden since the creation of the world" (Matthew 13:35).
There is then, both clarity and obscurity concerning the messianic message of the Old Testament in the time of Christ. Certain texts (like the prophecy of Nathan concerning the covenant with David) are clearly understood by most Jews to be messianic. Yet at the same time, other passages are never dreamed of as referring to a Messiah until after Jesus of Nazareth's astounding career is over. Nobody, apparently, understands Psalms 69 and 109 beforehand as a prophecy of the Election of Matthias to the office vacated by Judas, nor understands the unbroken bones of the Passover lamb as a prophetic image of Christ's unbroken bones, nor sees in advance that Isaiah 53 bears witness to the crucifixion and resurrection. If they had, says St. Paul, they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Corinthians 2:8). All these things are only seen after the fact as eerily prophetic of Christ and his Church. They fill out the picture dimly sketched by the more widely acknowledged messianic prophecies, but only in hindsight.
This is why, rather than viewing their Hebrew Bibles as a source of proof texts to be strung together into a checklist, the early Christians see the Old Testament bearing inspired witness to the extraordinary man who had dwelt among them. They did not, for instance, read "Zeal for thy house will consume me" in Psalm 69 and then decide "Let's believe Jesus cleansed the Temple because of this verse." On the contrary, Jesus cleanses the Temple first (John 2:13-16) and then afterwards his disciples remember the verse and are struck by how it "fits" the event. This happens again and again in the New Testament. The disciples are as surprised as anybody else when Jesus heals the sick or raises the dead. They do not foresee the miracles of Christ by reading the Old Testament. Rather, the ministry of Christ happens and they then see an uncanny connection between what Jesus does and the weird way in which it fits the Old Testament. When Jesus is sold for 30 pieces of silver or his hands and feet are pierced on the Cross, the apostles do not discover this by sticking their noses into the book of Zechariah or Psalm 22. Rather, after Jesus is raised, they remember that these things were written and, blinking their eyes in amazement, say "It was staring us in the face all along and we didn't see it!" The Old Testament is not the basis of their belief in these things, it is the witness to these things.
And so, back to my friend and his worries about the Virgin Birth. First off, the translators of the Septuagint did not make a "wrong" translation of "almah" into "parthenos." Recall that the translation was made just a little bit before the sexual revolution in the 1960s. Hence, it was commonly assumed in the culture of the translators that a young woman, assuming she was unmarried, would also be a virgin. The translators of the Septuagint, faced with a choice between the Greek word for "young woman" and Greek word for "virgin" opted, for whatever mysterious reasons, to use the latter. From a purely linguistic viewpoint, it was not the smartest move in the world. But neither was it wildly beyond the pale. Words seldom mean one thing and one thing only.
Second, whatever may have been the mistaken (or was it providential?) motivations of the Septuagint translators, Matthew did not, in any event, derive his belief in Mary's virginity from Isaiah 7:14. He did not sit down one day, read Isaiah, and say to himself, "Let's see. Isaiah says something about a virgin here. So if I'm going to cook up a Christ figure, I'd better make him the son of a virgin so it'll fit with this text." On the contrary, the apostles encounter a man who does extraordinary things like rising from the dead and, when they inquire about his origins-which they could only have known if Mary or Jesus volunteered them-find he was born of a virgin. They then look at their Septuagint Bibles, run across this weird passage in the Greek text of Isaiah and see him reflected in this verse (because Jesus had told them that the law and the prophets are, in their deepest sense, about him). The Church's faith in the virginity of Mary originates not in a textual misunderstanding, but in the historical fact of the Virgin Birth of Christ to which the Septuagint translation bears curiously providential witness. The basis of the Church's Faith, then as now, is Jesus Christ himself.
for explaining away the Virgin Birth as a "translation error" based on a misreading of Isaiah 7:14.
Therefore, I herewith append an excerpt from my book Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did:
The Allegorical Sense of Scripture (excerpted from Chapter 7 of Making Senses Out of Scripture)This means something. This is important. - Roy Neary, contemplating his sculpted pile of mashed potatoes in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
As we mentioned in the last chapter, one of the standing temptations of the biblical student is to oversimplify by seizing on one truth and using it to discount other, equally important truths. One such oversimplification consists of the habit some modern people have of exalting the primacy of the literal sense of Scripture into a flat denial of the possibility of any other senses of Scripture at all. This posture of "liberal fundamentalism" says, in effect, "The human author said it. There's nothing more to it. That settles it." According to this notion, all attempts to seek any second meanings in Scripture are to be dismissed (in the words of one modern scholar) as "a sort of weasel word" whereby the reader can make the biblical text mean anything he likes.
This denial of a second sense in Scripture can lead to curious results, as a friend of mine discovered one evening watching one of those "Mysteries of the Bible" shows on TV. On the show were a couple of theologians eager to get their 15 minutes of fame on the tube. So rather than talk about the Faith, they obligingly told the camera that Jesus was not born of a virgin and based their claim on the allegation that St. Matthew misunderstood the prophet Isaiah.
It's like this, said the scholars: A couple of centuries after Isaiah wrote, the Hebrew Bible (including the book of Isaiah) was translated into Greek (since many Jews were spread over the Greek-speaking ancient world and were forgetting their Hebrew just as European immigrants to the United States forgot their Yiddish in an English-speaking culture). This Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (that is, the Old Testament) is called the Septuagint.
Now in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 we read the prophecy that "the 'almah' shall conceive and bear a son, and you shall call his name 'Immanuel.'" "Almah" means in Hebrew "young woman" and refers to any young woman, virgin or not. But when the Jewish translators of the Septuagint translated Isaiah into Greek (decades before the birth of Christ), they did not translate the term as "young woman" but as "parthenos" which means "virgin." Later on, after Christ comes, St. Matthew is reading this Greek translation, not the original Hebrew when he declares of the Virgin Birth, "All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.'" But, said the TV theologians, we now know St. Matthew was mistaken to believe in the Virgin Birth since Isaiah did not say "virgin" but "young woman."
So my friend was wrestling with what seemed an inevitable set of conclusions: a) the Septuagint translation is flat wrong; b) Matthew was ignorant of the actual meaning of Isaiah; c) he therefore derived his belief in the Virgin Birth from a mistaken translation of Isaiah and d) the Church therefore erred in defining its dogma of the Virgin Birth of Christ by mistakenly seeing a second "spiritual" meaning in the text of Isaiah when, in reality, there was (and could only be) Isaiah's original, literal meaning.
This is however, to enter into a whole complex of mistakes, not clarifications. To find out what's really going on, let's look again at the New Testament use of Old Testament Scripture.
The first and most obvious point in the New Testament, as we saw in chapter 5, is that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The apostles came to believe this, not because they saw the Virgin Birth, but because they saw the risen Christ. And the risen Christ, as we saw previously, is the one who did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17) and, after his resurrection, tells his disciples that "Moses and all the prophets" had written "concerning himself" (Luke 24:26-27). This is where the apostles get the idea that the whole life and ministry of Christ "fulfilled the Scriptures." So far so good.
What is not so good however is that it is easy for the modern reader to adopt a kind of "checklist" mentality about messianic prophecy, as though every first century Jew had an agreed-upon set of "Messianic Verses" in the Old Testament against which all messianic claimants were measured. Indeed, many books of Christian apologetics today lay out precisely this sort of schema:
Prophecy/Source/Fulfillment
The Messiah must.../In the Old Testament/In the New Testament
Be the born in Bethlehem/Micah 5:1/Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7
Be adored by great persons/Psalm 72:10-11/Matthew 2:1-11
Be sold for 30 pieces of silver/Zechariah 11:12/Matthew 26:15
and so forth. One could easily get the impression that all a first century Jew had to do was follow Jesus around, ticking off prophecy fulfillments on his Old Testament Messianic Prophecy Checklist and he ought to have known everything that Jesus was going to do before he ever did it.
But, as we have seen, the New Testament makes plain that the prophecies of Messiah were not so much revealed by the Old Testament as they were hidden there. This is precisely why St. Paul writes that the New Covenant was "veiled" until the gospel took away the veil (2 Corinthians 3:14). It is also why he declares the gospel was "not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 3:5). In short, Paul insists the deepest meaning of the Old Testament was seen only after the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
This is why nobody before these events says, "Why, it's plain from Scripture that the Messiah will be born of a virgin, rejected by the chief priests, handed over to Gentiles, crucified with thieves, risen, ascended, and that he will abrogate the circumcision demand for Gentiles as he breaks down the barrier between man and woman, slave and free, Jew and Gentile." Even the disciples themselves, close as they were to Jesus, make it clear they did not anticipate the crucifixion, much less the resurrection, one little bit-even when Jesus rubbed their noses in it (Mark 9:9-10). As John says, they did not understand from the Scripture that the Messiah had to rise from the dead, even while they were standing in the mouth of the empty tomb gawking at his graveclothes (John 20:1-10).
And yet, these same apostles speak of the resurrection (like the Virgin Birth) as a "fulfillment" of the prophecies. What then do they mean if they do not mean the prophecies were "predictions" which everybody based their understanding of Messiah upon?
They mean that Christ fulfilled, brought to fruition, and was the ultimate Case in Point toward which all the Old Testament was straining and pointing. They mean he was the One toward whom the law and prophets were being pointed by his Spirit even when the sacred writers themselves did not know quite what they were pointing toward (1 Peter 1:10-11). This is why the early Church never had difficulty with an issue which often vexes modern minds: namely, why the New Testament often takes Old Testament texts out of their immediate context and sees them as applicable to Christ. For the early Church does not see the Old Testament as talking about something different from Christ, but rather sees it in relationship to him. What appear to us to be separate themes and events in the Old Testament, appear to the New Testament writers as so many spokes on a wheel all connected to the Hub who is Christ.
So, for instance, Hebrews 2:13 quotes Isaiah 8:18: "Here I am, and the children God has given me." In its literal sense, Isaiah is speaking about his own disciples with no hint of messianic intent behind these words. Yet the author of Hebrews sees Christ, far more than Isaiah, fulfilling the text. Why? Because Christ and his Church are, most fully, what Isaiah and his disciples were in a kind of foreshadow. The words of the book of Isaiah, like all words, are signs signifying something, in this case Isaiah and his own disciples. But Isaiah and his own disciples are, in their turn, also signs signifying something even greater: Christ and his Church. For Christ and his Church are the ultimate Case in Point of what Isaiah and his disciples were: "signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion" (Isaiah 8:18). Isaiah and his disciples do indeed fulfill the passage in an immediate and literal sense. But the early Church sees no particular reason why this forbids the God whom Isaiah worshipped from fulfilling it even more profoundly when He becomes incarnate and establishes his Church. Therefore the author of Hebrews, reading the Isaian passage with hindsight through the lens of the entire life and ministry of Christ, sees an allegory hidden in it by God of which Isaiah himself knew nothing.
Likewise, with Isaiah 7:14, we find that the passage has a much more immediate fulfillment than the birth of Christ. The Immanuel Prophecy comes in an hour of national crisis during the reign of Ahaz, one of the lousier kings of Judah and descendants of David. The northern kingdom of Israel has formed an alliance with Syria against Ahaz' southern kingdom of Judah and as a result the Judeans are in a muck sweat about the future of their country. So Isaiah goes to Ahaz, tells him not to worry about the alliance since God will take care of Judah, and offers Ahaz the chance to "ask a sign of the Lord your God" (Isaiah 7:11) to assure him that everything will be fine. Ahaz refuses, ostensibly because he is too pious to put God to the test, but really because he does not want obey Isaiah. It is then that the Immanuel Prophecy is given: "Behold the almah shall conceive and bear [or 'is with child and shall bear'] a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [which means 'God with us']." What does Isaiah mean?
Most immediately and literally, Isaiah seems to have in mind the promise of a successor to Ahaz, namely Hezekiah, who will carry on the line of David so that, as Nathan had prophesied to David long ago "your throne shall be established forever" (2 Samuel 7:16). In other words, Isaiah is telling Ahaz that "God is with" the Davidic throne still and his kingdom will not be defeated by the menacing alliance to the north. And this prophecy is fulfilled. The menacing alliance against Judah fails and Hezekiah is born. The prophecy in its most immediate sense is fulfilled, not by a virgin birth, but by the pregnancy of the wife of Ahaz and the birth of a new "son of David" to carry on the Davidic line.
However, there remains in pre-Christian Jewish tradition a persistent belief in larger and second meanings in its Bible. As we have seen, there is, for instance, a growing sense that the prophecy of Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7 (despite these immediate fulfillments) speaks not so much of an everlasting political rule, but of some higher and greater Throne. That is why, when the political rule of the house of David finally does fail, Israel continues to remember Nathan's words and wonders what deeper meaning they might have. In the same way, Israel is told to await a Prophet by Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15) and, indeed, many prophets appear. Yet Israel, instead of seeing them as the final fulfillment of Moses' promise, instead comes to believe that some Great and Ultimate Prophet is coming; an august Somebody of whom the Old Testament Prophets are just dim images or foreshadows. This is why the Jews asked John the Baptist if he was "The Prophet" (John 1:21). And so, as we have seen, the Jews slowly develop over time the strong belief that there is, in the Bible, a mysterious inner meaning as well as the slowly dawning awareness that Somebody is coming-some Anointed One or Servant or Prophet or Son of David or Son of Man (the titles are fuzzy in the Old Testament)-who will make clear the tantalizing hints and "utter things hidden since the creation of the world" (Matthew 13:35).
There is then, both clarity and obscurity concerning the messianic message of the Old Testament in the time of Christ. Certain texts (like the prophecy of Nathan concerning the covenant with David) are clearly understood by most Jews to be messianic. Yet at the same time, other passages are never dreamed of as referring to a Messiah until after Jesus of Nazareth's astounding career is over. Nobody, apparently, understands Psalms 69 and 109 beforehand as a prophecy of the Election of Matthias to the office vacated by Judas, nor understands the unbroken bones of the Passover lamb as a prophetic image of Christ's unbroken bones, nor sees in advance that Isaiah 53 bears witness to the crucifixion and resurrection. If they had, says St. Paul, they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Corinthians 2:8). All these things are only seen after the fact as eerily prophetic of Christ and his Church. They fill out the picture dimly sketched by the more widely acknowledged messianic prophecies, but only in hindsight.
This is why, rather than viewing their Hebrew Bibles as a source of proof texts to be strung together into a checklist, the early Christians see the Old Testament bearing inspired witness to the extraordinary man who had dwelt among them. They did not, for instance, read "Zeal for thy house will consume me" in Psalm 69 and then decide "Let's believe Jesus cleansed the Temple because of this verse." On the contrary, Jesus cleanses the Temple first (John 2:13-16) and then afterwards his disciples remember the verse and are struck by how it "fits" the event. This happens again and again in the New Testament. The disciples are as surprised as anybody else when Jesus heals the sick or raises the dead. They do not foresee the miracles of Christ by reading the Old Testament. Rather, the ministry of Christ happens and they then see an uncanny connection between what Jesus does and the weird way in which it fits the Old Testament. When Jesus is sold for 30 pieces of silver or his hands and feet are pierced on the Cross, the apostles do not discover this by sticking their noses into the book of Zechariah or Psalm 22. Rather, after Jesus is raised, they remember that these things were written and, blinking their eyes in amazement, say "It was staring us in the face all along and we didn't see it!" The Old Testament is not the basis of their belief in these things, it is the witness to these things.
And so, back to my friend and his worries about the Virgin Birth. First off, the translators of the Septuagint did not make a "wrong" translation of "almah" into "parthenos." Recall that the translation was made just a little bit before the sexual revolution in the 1960s. Hence, it was commonly assumed in the culture of the translators that a young woman, assuming she was unmarried, would also be a virgin. The translators of the Septuagint, faced with a choice between the Greek word for "young woman" and Greek word for "virgin" opted, for whatever mysterious reasons, to use the latter. From a purely linguistic viewpoint, it was not the smartest move in the world. But neither was it wildly beyond the pale. Words seldom mean one thing and one thing only.
Second, whatever may have been the mistaken (or was it providential?) motivations of the Septuagint translators, Matthew did not, in any event, derive his belief in Mary's virginity from Isaiah 7:14. He did not sit down one day, read Isaiah, and say to himself, "Let's see. Isaiah says something about a virgin here. So if I'm going to cook up a Christ figure, I'd better make him the son of a virgin so it'll fit with this text." On the contrary, the apostles encounter a man who does extraordinary things like rising from the dead and, when they inquire about his origins-which they could only have known if Mary or Jesus volunteered them-find he was born of a virgin. They then look at their Septuagint Bibles, run across this weird passage in the Greek text of Isaiah and see him reflected in this verse (because Jesus had told them that the law and the prophets are, in their deepest sense, about him). The Church's faith in the virginity of Mary originates not in a textual misunderstanding, but in the historical fact of the Virgin Birth of Christ to which the Septuagint translation bears curiously providential witness. The basis of the Church's Faith, then as now, is Jesus Christ himself.
Happy 20th Anniversary, Sherry Weddell!
It was 20 years ago today that Sherry and I were received into full communion with the Holy Catholic Church at Sacred Heart parish in the shadow of the Space Needle. Since that time, there have been highs and lows, as is the way of things in this world. But I've never looked back and I remain grateful to our Lord for the great gift of faith in Him and his great sacrament, Holy Church.
Here is Sherry's account of our entry into the Church in The Advent of the the Three Miracles.
Our prayers are with you, Sherry! Please keep us in yours too.
It was 20 years ago today that Sherry and I were received into full communion with the Holy Catholic Church at Sacred Heart parish in the shadow of the Space Needle. Since that time, there have been highs and lows, as is the way of things in this world. But I've never looked back and I remain grateful to our Lord for the great gift of faith in Him and his great sacrament, Holy Church.
Here is Sherry's account of our entry into the Church in The Advent of the the Three Miracles.
Our prayers are with you, Sherry! Please keep us in yours too.
By the way, as the Presence of Bugs Bunny over on the left rail clearly indicates:
MY WEBSITE IS BACK UP! YAY!
That would be Mark-Shea.com in case you were wondering. And that's the place where all you folks who were wondering how to order my books and audio materials can go to take care of all your Mark Shea reading needs.
Or if you prefer shorter stuff to read, you can browse several hundred Sheavings gleaned from the stuff I write for various and sundry periodicals.
At any rate, do feel free to wander over to my fully restored site and celebrate this little technological triumph.
MY WEBSITE IS BACK UP! YAY!
That would be Mark-Shea.com in case you were wondering. And that's the place where all you folks who were wondering how to order my books and audio materials can go to take care of all your Mark Shea reading needs.
Or if you prefer shorter stuff to read, you can browse several hundred Sheavings gleaned from the stuff I write for various and sundry periodicals.
At any rate, do feel free to wander over to my fully restored site and celebrate this little technological triumph.
A reader writes:
Father, grant your healing grace to Del and peace and mercy to him and his family. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen!
Could you ask your readers to pray for my friends Patty and Del? Del was hospitalized for routine surgery when his doctors discovered that he has a large and inoperable brain tumor. He is semi-counscious but unable to see or speak. He is not expected to leave the hospital. Patty is devastated. She is a woman of faith and very appreciative of all prayers.
Father, grant your healing grace to Del and peace and mercy to him and his family. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen!
Archbishop of Canterbury talks like Archbishop of Canterbury
The Magi are a legend. Nothing to actually believe. Values... full range of human experience. Please don't hurt me!
What cracks me up most about the story is that this mewling, content-free pabulum is then bravely challenged by Ricky Gervais as though he were courageously standing up, at great personal risk, against the brutal mind control techniques of North Korean Commies:
The Abp offered a few more pathetic blats about something or other and then it was over. Gervais, no doubt, walked to the pub in triumphant splendor, having crushed the head of of the menacing dragon of totalitarian brainwashing Anglicanism and asserted "You are not the boss of me!" to a nation of self-satisfied adolescent ignorami once again.
Meanwhile, down the street, in the mosque and madrassa, other children are being schooled in very definite notions about God and man by people who are not at all interested in the full range of human experience and values and not at all worried about whether Ricky Gervais disapproves. Happily, a man of Gervais' gumption would never think to challenge them, so it's all good.
By the way, there's more to the story of the Magi then the good Archbishop seems to be aware of.
The Magi are a legend. Nothing to actually believe. Values... full range of human experience. Please don't hurt me!
What cracks me up most about the story is that this mewling, content-free pabulum is then bravely challenged by Ricky Gervais as though he were courageously standing up, at great personal risk, against the brutal mind control techniques of North Korean Commies:
Later on in the show, the Archbishop was challenged by fellow guest Ricky Gervais, the comedian, about the credibility of the Christmas story.
Gervais told Dr Williams he was concerned about "brainwashing" of children who are sent to faith schools at an early age, comparing teaching that God exists to belief in Father Christmas.
The Abp offered a few more pathetic blats about something or other and then it was over. Gervais, no doubt, walked to the pub in triumphant splendor, having crushed the head of of the menacing dragon of totalitarian brainwashing Anglicanism and asserted "You are not the boss of me!" to a nation of self-satisfied adolescent ignorami once again.
Meanwhile, down the street, in the mosque and madrassa, other children are being schooled in very definite notions about God and man by people who are not at all interested in the full range of human experience and values and not at all worried about whether Ricky Gervais disapproves. Happily, a man of Gervais' gumption would never think to challenge them, so it's all good.
By the way, there's more to the story of the Magi then the good Archbishop seems to be aware of.
TAC on La Rudy
Whose numbers are, thanks be to God, slipping. Still, it tells you a lot about the GOP that he could get so far. He's normal and sane, you see. So is an empty suit like Romney. Guys like Paul and Huckabee are crazed Jeezus freaks.
Whose numbers are, thanks be to God, slipping. Still, it tells you a lot about the GOP that he could get so far. He's normal and sane, you see. So is an empty suit like Romney. Guys like Paul and Huckabee are crazed Jeezus freaks.
Huckabee's Christmas Greetings
I've been watching the silly dustup over Huckabee's Christmas Howdjadoo. Like everything else in a political campaign, it's all calculated on all sides and is therefore tainted by the fact that it's not really about Christ but about power. But on the whole, I had no big problem with the ad. Huckabee's a Babdist, what do people expect?
I thought Ron Paul's response to the ad was, as is fitting for a doctrinaire Libertarian, kinda kooky. Discerning in Huckabee's Christmas greetings the oncoming tramp of the fascist boot was, um, nutty. Not that I disagree with him and Sinclair Lewis: I do think that the fascist impulse wraps itself in flag and cross in the US, at least at present (though Nanny Statists can find other things, like The Environment, as a substitute god to bow down to in a pinch). That, I think, is *exactly* what has happened under King George "Jesus is my favorite philosopher" Bush. The unprecedented accrual of power by the Executive to arrest, detain indefinitely, torture, redefine law and language unilaterally, hide and, ultimately, destroy evidence of war crimes is all fascistic and has been, for the most part, either winked at or enthusiastically supported by dumb Christians who keep making excuses for Bush as "one of us".
That said, it's kinda crazy for Paul to attack one of the only candidates to actually call the Bushies on their arrogance and to join him in repudiating the use of torture. Looks like another one of those circular firing squads conservatives seem to be so adept at organizing.
Meanwhile, other conservative critics of Huckabee are not nutty: they are simply making clear that the GOP establishment has almost nothing but contempt for the God First Conservative the moment he asserts his Christianity in any way not useful to the Mammon First Elite. Rod Dreher has their number. So does Erick at Red State. (Don't miss this last link).
I've been watching the silly dustup over Huckabee's Christmas Howdjadoo. Like everything else in a political campaign, it's all calculated on all sides and is therefore tainted by the fact that it's not really about Christ but about power. But on the whole, I had no big problem with the ad. Huckabee's a Babdist, what do people expect?
I thought Ron Paul's response to the ad was, as is fitting for a doctrinaire Libertarian, kinda kooky. Discerning in Huckabee's Christmas greetings the oncoming tramp of the fascist boot was, um, nutty. Not that I disagree with him and Sinclair Lewis: I do think that the fascist impulse wraps itself in flag and cross in the US, at least at present (though Nanny Statists can find other things, like The Environment, as a substitute god to bow down to in a pinch). That, I think, is *exactly* what has happened under King George "Jesus is my favorite philosopher" Bush. The unprecedented accrual of power by the Executive to arrest, detain indefinitely, torture, redefine law and language unilaterally, hide and, ultimately, destroy evidence of war crimes is all fascistic and has been, for the most part, either winked at or enthusiastically supported by dumb Christians who keep making excuses for Bush as "one of us".
That said, it's kinda crazy for Paul to attack one of the only candidates to actually call the Bushies on their arrogance and to join him in repudiating the use of torture. Looks like another one of those circular firing squads conservatives seem to be so adept at organizing.
Meanwhile, other conservative critics of Huckabee are not nutty: they are simply making clear that the GOP establishment has almost nothing but contempt for the God First Conservative the moment he asserts his Christianity in any way not useful to the Mammon First Elite. Rod Dreher has their number. So does Erick at Red State. (Don't miss this last link).
Warning: This Site Links to Ritually Impure Sources
Yesterday, somebody sent me a piece about a prochoice libertarian guy who became prolife due to the influence of Ron Paul. I'm always happy when somebody comes to see the light in the matter of abortion, so I posted the link to the story.
Ah! But the link was to a story at Lew Rockwell! The horrah! A reader promptly wrote in to say:
Because, you know, I'm just *constantly* linking Lew Rockwell. Why, I must have linked something on that site *three times* in the past two years. Will the barrage of Lew Rockwell links *never* abate?
Hear, O Tribalist and listen: I link stories that interest me and I'm not much interested in their ritual impurity level of contact with The Wrong People if the story is true or (if fictional) well-written and making a good point. If you are too thin-skinned to cope with a link to a ritually impure site now and then, you should really rethink your willingness to be in cyberspace at all. It sound like you are really looking for a nice safe cubby hole to hide in.
Yesterday, somebody sent me a piece about a prochoice libertarian guy who became prolife due to the influence of Ron Paul. I'm always happy when somebody comes to see the light in the matter of abortion, so I posted the link to the story.
Ah! But the link was to a story at Lew Rockwell! The horrah! A reader promptly wrote in to say:
Sigh... I may as well go directly to Lew Rockwell from now on. I'm outta here.
Because, you know, I'm just *constantly* linking Lew Rockwell. Why, I must have linked something on that site *three times* in the past two years. Will the barrage of Lew Rockwell links *never* abate?
Hear, O Tribalist and listen: I link stories that interest me and I'm not much interested in their ritual impurity level of contact with The Wrong People if the story is true or (if fictional) well-written and making a good point. If you are too thin-skinned to cope with a link to a ritually impure site now and then, you should really rethink your willingness to be in cyberspace at all. It sound like you are really looking for a nice safe cubby hole to hide in.
A reader sends along another prayer request for his friend, Raymond:
My reader also asks prayers for another friend, who is the victim of a nasty divorce and who has a custody hearing today.
I have never heard of someone who has suffered so much, for so long.
Raymond is no longer responsive. He teared when his brother and sister were
holding his hand. His heart is failing and he has up to 48 hours projected.
Please continue those prayers,his family, his brothers and sister need them.
Their faith is being challenged as they watch their brother's body suffer so
much now. I'm sure they're wondering where God is.
Until later, may the Divine Mercy be prayed.
My reader also asks prayers for another friend, who is the victim of a nasty divorce and who has a custody hearing today.
Philip Pullman Fully Endorses my Conspiracy Theory
Head Witch in The Golden Compass says:
I love how the Church gets the blame for the Islamic practice of genital mutilation. Meanwhile in the world of post-Christian atheism Pullman pines for, the cutting continues--yet doesn't seem to have the liberating qualities the devil always promises. But Pullman is right about one thing: opposition to the gospel has always made strange bedfellows and will continue to do so.
Head Witch in The Golden Compass says:
"Sisters," she began, "let me tell you what is happening, and who it is that we must fight. For there is a war coming. I don't know who will join us but I know who we should fight. It is the Magisterium, the church. For all it's history - and that's not long by our lives, but it's many, many of theirs - it's tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. And when it can't control them, it cuts them out. Some of you have seen what they did at Bolvangar. And that was horrible, but it is only one such place, not the only such practice. Sisters, you know only the north: I have travelled in the south lands. There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too, as the horrible people of Bolvangar did - not in the same way, but just as horribly - they cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls - they cut them with knives so that they shan't feel. That is what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling. So if a war comes, and the church is on one side of it, we must be on the other, no matter what strange allies we find ourselves bound to."
I love how the Church gets the blame for the Islamic practice of genital mutilation. Meanwhile in the world of post-Christian atheism Pullman pines for, the cutting continues--yet doesn't seem to have the liberating qualities the devil always promises. But Pullman is right about one thing: opposition to the gospel has always made strange bedfellows and will continue to do so.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Conspiracy Theory
My latest for Inside Catholic. In which we learn about the only "hidden hand of history" notion that I buy.
My latest for Inside Catholic. In which we learn about the only "hidden hand of history" notion that I buy.
Congratulations to Dale, Heather and all the Pricelets!
Zach Frey writes with good news!:
Boola boola!
Zach Frey writes with good news!:
While (sensibly), their blogs are not updated yet, Dale called me this afternoon to announce that Louis Price entered the world at 1:58pm today. Baby Louie sized in at 7 lbs, 3 oz and 20" long.
Mom and baby are doing fine. Dale reports (objectively) that the nursing staff says he's the cutest baby they've seen all day. (Who am I to doubt? All the previous Pricelets are adorable.)
Boola boola!
Family, Culture, Holidays
My latest for Catholic Exchange.
And now I'm off to wrestle with getting Mark-Shea.com back on line. When you click on the link and it works, you'll know I succeeded.
My latest for Catholic Exchange.
And now I'm off to wrestle with getting Mark-Shea.com back on line. When you click on the link and it works, you'll know I succeeded.
The Scare Quote: Friend of Impenitent Sin
As I said yesterday, one of the sure marks of evil is the refusal to name things accurately. We are creatures made in the image and likeness of God and, significantly, one of our first tasks in the Garden is to act as sub-creators by naming the animals. When sin enters the picture, we immediate set about the perversion of language with it because we are distorting the image of the Word in ourselves.
That pattern continues today both in our sin, and (as we shall see in a moment) also in our redemption. In our sin, we create euphemsisms for what we do. "Kill" becomes "liquidate". "Baby" becomes "fetal tissue". And "torture" becomes "enhanced interrogation". The world is chockablock with such attempts to look away from what we do, to avert our eyes, to call it something else lest we have to face ourselves in the mirror and look into those empty eyes and see what we've done and become.
As a last resort, the corrupter of language will sometimes adopt the very word that describes what he is doing and, with a little flourish of fallen artfulness, enclose it in scare quotes. So, we are told with chin-pulling thoughtfulness that, when we are trying to parse just exactly how many ounces of water a terrified man can ethically be compelled to draw into his lungs after being forcibly held under water until his lungs are bursting, we are merely trying to separate out "torture" from torture.
This is called "doing evil with language". It is not a search for clarity. It is just the opposite. It is a search to obscure what is being done in a fog of euphemism and double-talk. It is a lie in almost chemical purity. And the goal of this lie is as straightforward as it's method is devious: to get us to look away from the fact that we are inflicting (and trying to justify inflicting) precisely those mental tortures the Church condemns as intrinsically and gravely immoral and worthy of the fires of Hell. That's how Hell's Ministry of Language *always* operates: by the falsification of the word. Because we are in the image and likeness of the Word and Hell's goal is to cut us off from Him.
The corruption of language is associated with sin from the very beginning. It start with the Serpent's good solid lie: "You shall not surely die." It promises "wisdom" and delivers death. It leads to the first attempt to avert the eyes by hiding our nakedness, by blaming somebody else ("the woman *you* gave me tempted me/the serpent tempted me! Not my fault!") and it leads to the total corruption of language (which is the point of the story of Babel).
Similarly, the redemption of language is bound up with the story of the Incarnation of the Word. The sign of this is Pentecost and the sacrament of it is Confession. No small part of confession is simply the clear, un-euphemistic *naming* of the despicable thing we have done. A confession in scare quotes is a false confession.
As I said yesterday, one of the sure marks of evil is the refusal to name things accurately. We are creatures made in the image and likeness of God and, significantly, one of our first tasks in the Garden is to act as sub-creators by naming the animals. When sin enters the picture, we immediate set about the perversion of language with it because we are distorting the image of the Word in ourselves.
That pattern continues today both in our sin, and (as we shall see in a moment) also in our redemption. In our sin, we create euphemsisms for what we do. "Kill" becomes "liquidate". "Baby" becomes "fetal tissue". And "torture" becomes "enhanced interrogation". The world is chockablock with such attempts to look away from what we do, to avert our eyes, to call it something else lest we have to face ourselves in the mirror and look into those empty eyes and see what we've done and become.
As a last resort, the corrupter of language will sometimes adopt the very word that describes what he is doing and, with a little flourish of fallen artfulness, enclose it in scare quotes. So, we are told with chin-pulling thoughtfulness that, when we are trying to parse just exactly how many ounces of water a terrified man can ethically be compelled to draw into his lungs after being forcibly held under water until his lungs are bursting, we are merely trying to separate out "torture" from torture.
This is called "doing evil with language". It is not a search for clarity. It is just the opposite. It is a search to obscure what is being done in a fog of euphemism and double-talk. It is a lie in almost chemical purity. And the goal of this lie is as straightforward as it's method is devious: to get us to look away from the fact that we are inflicting (and trying to justify inflicting) precisely those mental tortures the Church condemns as intrinsically and gravely immoral and worthy of the fires of Hell. That's how Hell's Ministry of Language *always* operates: by the falsification of the word. Because we are in the image and likeness of the Word and Hell's goal is to cut us off from Him.
The corruption of language is associated with sin from the very beginning. It start with the Serpent's good solid lie: "You shall not surely die." It promises "wisdom" and delivers death. It leads to the first attempt to avert the eyes by hiding our nakedness, by blaming somebody else ("the woman *you* gave me tempted me/the serpent tempted me! Not my fault!") and it leads to the total corruption of language (which is the point of the story of Babel).
Similarly, the redemption of language is bound up with the story of the Incarnation of the Word. The sign of this is Pentecost and the sacrament of it is Confession. No small part of confession is simply the clear, un-euphemistic *naming* of the despicable thing we have done. A confession in scare quotes is a false confession.
Regina Doman is her Usual Sensible Self in Cutting Through all the Media Hysteria
Here, she writes a thoroughly sensible piece on how the catastrophe of Dumbledore's life is not exactly what you would call an advertisement for the gay lifestyle.
Doman has been one of the most sound exegetes of Rowling's thoroughly Christian fiction from the start.
Here, she writes a thoroughly sensible piece on how the catastrophe of Dumbledore's life is not exactly what you would call an advertisement for the gay lifestyle.
Doman has been one of the most sound exegetes of Rowling's thoroughly Christian fiction from the start.
Floating Tyranny Bubbles
and their discontents.
I love that Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King's niece is now defending free speech on behalf of prolifers.
and their discontents.
I love that Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King's niece is now defending free speech on behalf of prolifers.
In response to this, a reader writes:
Re: Scientology and Mormonism, I'd say that, so far as their founders go, yes, these evil and deceptive frauds are indeed sins. So far as their adherents go, culpability may or may not be mitigated according to how much they are knowingly lying to themselves as they embrace these false religions.
With respect to Buddhism, we are dealing, not with a post-Christian reaction specifically aimed at shouting down the Christian revelation (as modern western atheism is), but with a 'nother kettle of fish, because Buddhism is a pre-Christian wisdom system that does not have the advantage of contact with the Jewish revelation. It is a human attempt to build, not merely (as western atheism tends to be) a human attempt to smash the Judeo-Christian revelation while retaining the bits of that revelation it happens to like.
That said, both Judaism and Christianity *have* always said that the great pagan systems were "without excuse" since, as Paul puts it, "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." (Romans 1:20).
Now, I'm all kinds of willing, as a convert from paganism myself, to grant slack to pagans for acting in ignorance. I'm also all kinds of willing to celebrate the huge gifts and insights the great pagan cultures have given the world and the Church. So is Paul, as he clearly shows in his sermon on the Areopagus in Acts 17. But in addition to this, I think that if we are going to take the biblical revelation seriously, we also have to grant that Christianity does assert that there is a sin involved in atheism and even in pre-Christian paganism. Otherwise, there is no point in the apostolic call to pagans to repent of their idols and false beliefs. We would have to pretend that they were merely "doing their best" when clearly this is not the teaching of Scripture.
My reader seems to me to be implying exactly that we have to take this view when he says, rhetorically, as if this were clearly ridiculous "If rejection of God is a sin then all Buddhists are sinners."
Um, all Buddhists are sinners. I don't know that they are sinners because they "reject God" (you can't reject something you've never heard of). But it is a foundational fact of the Christian faith that all men, including Buddhists, are sinners. And it is further a fact that because of this sin, pagans in particular are prone, in Paul's words, to living "in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart" (Ephesians 3:17-18). In short, Paul says there is an element of sin, not just ignorance, in the pagan lack of the knowledge of God.
Meanwhile, here in the West, it *is* possible to reject God directly and to his face. To be sure, people reject God for all sorts of reasons that mitigate their culpability. But that still is very far from saying that every person who rejects God is utterly without sin and a victim of those mean Christians at summer camp, or that their rejection of God may not, in fact, be intimately bound up with the core, pet sin that is warping and distorting their life and darkening their intellect. In the case of Dawkins, I think this is manifestly the case (given the lousy quality of his stupid arguments) and is what leads him to propose such dangerous and stupid ideas as "protecting" children from being raised by religious parents.
Is scientology a sin?
Is Mormonism?
Is Buddhism?
As I understand it, Buddhists believe in exactly the same number of gods atheists do--one less than we do, a few less than scientologists and Mormons. If rejection of God is a sin then all Buddhists are sinners.
Re: Scientology and Mormonism, I'd say that, so far as their founders go, yes, these evil and deceptive frauds are indeed sins. So far as their adherents go, culpability may or may not be mitigated according to how much they are knowingly lying to themselves as they embrace these false religions.
With respect to Buddhism, we are dealing, not with a post-Christian reaction specifically aimed at shouting down the Christian revelation (as modern western atheism is), but with a 'nother kettle of fish, because Buddhism is a pre-Christian wisdom system that does not have the advantage of contact with the Jewish revelation. It is a human attempt to build, not merely (as western atheism tends to be) a human attempt to smash the Judeo-Christian revelation while retaining the bits of that revelation it happens to like.
That said, both Judaism and Christianity *have* always said that the great pagan systems were "without excuse" since, as Paul puts it, "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." (Romans 1:20).
Now, I'm all kinds of willing, as a convert from paganism myself, to grant slack to pagans for acting in ignorance. I'm also all kinds of willing to celebrate the huge gifts and insights the great pagan cultures have given the world and the Church. So is Paul, as he clearly shows in his sermon on the Areopagus in Acts 17. But in addition to this, I think that if we are going to take the biblical revelation seriously, we also have to grant that Christianity does assert that there is a sin involved in atheism and even in pre-Christian paganism. Otherwise, there is no point in the apostolic call to pagans to repent of their idols and false beliefs. We would have to pretend that they were merely "doing their best" when clearly this is not the teaching of Scripture.
My reader seems to me to be implying exactly that we have to take this view when he says, rhetorically, as if this were clearly ridiculous "If rejection of God is a sin then all Buddhists are sinners."
Um, all Buddhists are sinners. I don't know that they are sinners because they "reject God" (you can't reject something you've never heard of). But it is a foundational fact of the Christian faith that all men, including Buddhists, are sinners. And it is further a fact that because of this sin, pagans in particular are prone, in Paul's words, to living "in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart" (Ephesians 3:17-18). In short, Paul says there is an element of sin, not just ignorance, in the pagan lack of the knowledge of God.
Meanwhile, here in the West, it *is* possible to reject God directly and to his face. To be sure, people reject God for all sorts of reasons that mitigate their culpability. But that still is very far from saying that every person who rejects God is utterly without sin and a victim of those mean Christians at summer camp, or that their rejection of God may not, in fact, be intimately bound up with the core, pet sin that is warping and distorting their life and darkening their intellect. In the case of Dawkins, I think this is manifestly the case (given the lousy quality of his stupid arguments) and is what leads him to propose such dangerous and stupid ideas as "protecting" children from being raised by religious parents.
Gary Michuta Sends Along a Christmas Gift for the Apologetically Inclined
He writes:
He writes:
I spend a few hours beefing up my desktop webpage that contains all sorts of helpful and hard to get research material on the internet. It contains links to dozens of books and articles that are available online or on .pdf files. It has already saved me hours of library work and I would like to make it available to you. It cannot be accessed from my website, but only through this link. I hope it will prove to be helpful. If you know any resources that ought to be included on the page,please let me know and I'll add the link.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Herod Would be Proud
My latest for the Register. In which we discover that the sin of atheism makes people like Richard Dawkins especially and dangerously stupid.
My latest for the Register. In which we discover that the sin of atheism makes people like Richard Dawkins especially and dangerously stupid.
John C. Wright Has More Big Fun at the Expense of Philip Pullman
Among other things, he gleefully takes apart the "It's not a bug, it's a feature" defenses of Pullman's numerous broken narrative promises that are put forward by atheists who are no fun at parties. Pullman sets up all sort of prophetic foreshadows only to rip off the reader with stupid and banal denouements? That's a *good* thing because it preaches that prophecies don't really happen. Pullman substitutes preaching for storytelling? That's a *good* thing because the message being preached is atheistic. Pullman questions all authority but the Authority of Himself? That's a *good* thing because atheists are right and should be trusted without question.
Meanwhile, a nation of moviegoers unworthy of its Bright Masters continue to contribute to filmmaking history by handing The Golden Compass a 66% drop in second weekend box office (normally a 50% drop is the kiss of death).
Wright also has a grand time propounding his Beauty Contest Method for Choosing Sides, concluding with this eminently workable axiom:
I don't see how anybody can argue with that.
Among other things, he gleefully takes apart the "It's not a bug, it's a feature" defenses of Pullman's numerous broken narrative promises that are put forward by atheists who are no fun at parties. Pullman sets up all sort of prophetic foreshadows only to rip off the reader with stupid and banal denouements? That's a *good* thing because it preaches that prophecies don't really happen. Pullman substitutes preaching for storytelling? That's a *good* thing because the message being preached is atheistic. Pullman questions all authority but the Authority of Himself? That's a *good* thing because atheists are right and should be trusted without question.
Meanwhile, a nation of moviegoers unworthy of its Bright Masters continue to contribute to filmmaking history by handing The Golden Compass a 66% drop in second weekend box office (normally a 50% drop is the kiss of death).
Wright also has a grand time propounding his Beauty Contest Method for Choosing Sides, concluding with this eminently workable axiom:
[S]upport only the pretty democracies and in all other cases ... support the pretty monarchies. As soon as the monarchs get old and ugly, switch your support immediately to a younger and more fertile, what we call a 'trophy regime'.
I don't see how anybody can argue with that.
County GOP sees influx of Paul backers: Some Republicans fear support for presidential hopeful stymies party goals
And I'm supposed to think stymying GOP goals is bad why?
Don't tell me: HILLARY! OOGA BOOGA!
And I'm supposed to think stymying GOP goals is bad why?
Don't tell me: HILLARY! OOGA BOOGA!
More Moral Dementia in the Comboxes
It's hard to pick the craziest statement from among all the "I'm ready for tyranny to keep me safe" rhetoric in the comboxes. But I think this may be the winner:
This peculiar bulletin from Oceania's Ministry of Love overlooks minor details like, oh, the fact that "illegal combatants" is now a term which is now applied to anybody the President chooses to apply it to. The notion that it is avoiding a near ocassion of sin to just shoot an innocent man like Abdullah Higazy or Maher Arar is a unique take on Catholic moral teaching, but the sort of thing I've grown used to in conversations from people twisting themselves into pretzels to square the actions of the Bushies with Catholic moral teaching.
The fantastic thing, to me, is how ripe and ready so many on the Rubber Hose Right are for Caesar to assume tyrannical powers--in the name of what used to be called "conservatism". Caesar wants the power to name anybody he likes an illegal combatant? No problem! And illegal combatants deserve summary execution without any examination of the evidence? Great! After all, they are "by definition" guilty of death penalty crimes! What possible holes could there be in iron-clad logic like that? How could *that* pose a danger to innocent people?
Talk about sin making you stupid!
It's hard to pick the craziest statement from among all the "I'm ready for tyranny to keep me safe" rhetoric in the comboxes. But I think this may be the winner:
"Avoid near occasions of mortal sin" in terms of interrogation means we shoot our enemies, we shoot them all. Accepting surrender is optional for illegal combatants. It always has been so long as we've done war. And by we, I mean human beings, not just americans. By definition illegal combatants are guilty of death penalty crimes.
This peculiar bulletin from Oceania's Ministry of Love overlooks minor details like, oh, the fact that "illegal combatants" is now a term which is now applied to anybody the President chooses to apply it to. The notion that it is avoiding a near ocassion of sin to just shoot an innocent man like Abdullah Higazy or Maher Arar is a unique take on Catholic moral teaching, but the sort of thing I've grown used to in conversations from people twisting themselves into pretzels to square the actions of the Bushies with Catholic moral teaching.
The fantastic thing, to me, is how ripe and ready so many on the Rubber Hose Right are for Caesar to assume tyrannical powers--in the name of what used to be called "conservatism". Caesar wants the power to name anybody he likes an illegal combatant? No problem! And illegal combatants deserve summary execution without any examination of the evidence? Great! After all, they are "by definition" guilty of death penalty crimes! What possible holes could there be in iron-clad logic like that? How could *that* pose a danger to innocent people?
Talk about sin making you stupid!
More Perversion of Language
Rather than name what we do, we come up with little gimmicks like this. It's what creatures made in the image of the Word do, when they twist and distort that image.
Rather than name what we do, we come up with little gimmicks like this. It's what creatures made in the image of the Word do, when they twist and distort that image.
Dawn Eden Follows the Nauseating Planned Parenthood Ad Campaigns So You Don't Have To
Tacky and repulsive? You bet. But then we are talking about the people who release some variation on this every Christmas:
I've always thought Victor Lams' take was more direct and to the point:
But in the world of the Culture of Death, euphemisms like "Fetal tissue" for "baby" and "dunking" for "cruel torture" are the order of the day. We humans do not like to accurately name the hideous things we do. We are creatures made in the image of the Word. When we do evil, we inevitably pervert the word to keep ourselves from facing ourselves.
Tacky and repulsive? You bet. But then we are talking about the people who release some variation on this every Christmas:
I've always thought Victor Lams' take was more direct and to the point:
But in the world of the Culture of Death, euphemisms like "Fetal tissue" for "baby" and "dunking" for "cruel torture" are the order of the day. We humans do not like to accurately name the hideous things we do. We are creatures made in the image of the Word. When we do evil, we inevitably pervert the word to keep ourselves from facing ourselves.
Sister Mary Margaret Raises Crustiness to an Art Form
Her blog motto reads thus: "Life is tough. But Nuns are tougher. If you need helpful advice just Ask Sister Mary Martha. She'll help you. Just don't expect any sympathy."
Here she helpfully explains that You Can't Screw Around with the Brown Scapular:
Her blog motto reads thus: "Life is tough. But Nuns are tougher. If you need helpful advice just Ask Sister Mary Martha. She'll help you. Just don't expect any sympathy."
Here she helpfully explains that You Can't Screw Around with the Brown Scapular:
Do I think if you wear a Brown Scapular and lead a sinful life and are not sorry ever but just run around saying, "Ha ha, I'm wearing a brown Scapular! Satan will never get me!" that you won't see the fires of hell? Not a chance. Satan already has you. The one time you take it off to shower, you'll slip on the soap and crack your head open. The bus that knocks you out of your shoes will knock you right out of your scapular. The flood waters that wash you away will wash the scapular off your neck. Your evil boyfriend will remove it while you sleep and murder you for your jewels. The paramedic will take it off to give you a shot of adrenaline that doesn't work. The nursing home worker will steal it from you. The atomic blast will vaporize the Scapular one millisecond before it vaporizes you. As you tumble, end over end, down the basement stairs with no one home to hear all the thumping, your scapular will be tossed off and land right before your eyes along with you at the foot of the stairs. As the life drains from you as you lay bleeding from your head wound, you will reach pathetically for your scapular, but the cat will grab it and run out the basement window. At some point, you are going to want to throw it in the wash. When you do, you'll drop dead.
You are not going to get away with it, mark my words.
Caelum et Terra on Ron Paul
I can't help but like the guy too. And the multiple low blows aimed at him by the Establishment Suits, the cheap tricks to exclude him, the manufactured horror and sundry attempts to smear him, just make me like him all the more. Is there something slightly kooky about him? I think so. But then I think that about any doctrinaire libertarian. The thing is, there is something fantastically and excessively kooky about virtually all the other contenders, with their bizarre enthusiasms for abortion and torture, or their crazy fealty to the disastrous policies of the Bushies, or their spineless and calculating poll driven "convictions". I'll take the mild eccentric (who will, I am perfectly aware, never win) over the soulless corporate lackeys, empty suits, and consummate Beltway operators any day.
The man seems far removed from what we think of when we hear the word "politician." As many of you know, he has never voted for a congressional pay increase, and returns part of his salary each year. He accepts no corporate campaign funds. He has never taken a congressional junket. And he speaks his mind regardless of the audience. I mean, this is the kind of guy who recently announced, in Miami of all places, that it was time to normalize relations with Cuba. He was booed.
Ron Paul is an obstetrician by trade, and has overseen the births of over 4,000 babies. He has delivered the babies of poor women for free. Dr. Paul was raised on a farm and has been married to the same woman for over 50 years. These two facts alone put him in a different category than most of the candidates. In short, Dr. Ron Paul seems like the real thing, a representative of the better sort of America, the one that is fading fast. He has my vote, libertarian warts and all.
I can't help but like the guy too. And the multiple low blows aimed at him by the Establishment Suits, the cheap tricks to exclude him, the manufactured horror and sundry attempts to smear him, just make me like him all the more. Is there something slightly kooky about him? I think so. But then I think that about any doctrinaire libertarian. The thing is, there is something fantastically and excessively kooky about virtually all the other contenders, with their bizarre enthusiasms for abortion and torture, or their crazy fealty to the disastrous policies of the Bushies, or their spineless and calculating poll driven "convictions". I'll take the mild eccentric (who will, I am perfectly aware, never win) over the soulless corporate lackeys, empty suits, and consummate Beltway operators any day.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Progress, of a sort
Time was when at least some of my readers would proudly say they didn't care about torturing a few bad guys. War is hell, etc.
Slowly, through a process of attrition, those guys have found their natural habitat at Little Green Footballs and other places that have nothing but contempt for any Catholic teaching that stand in the way of such secular messianic projects as Grand End to Evil Schemes for Changing the World and Salvation Through Leviathan by Any Means Necessary Projects. So the open contempt for Catholic moral teaching has faded in the comboxes somewhat.
However, we are still playing the "What O What *is* torture" game. Because not e few people still have the notion that the Church's teaching here is entirely negative--"Don't torture"--and has no positive component. Also, there is still tthe delusional notion that the world is chockablock with Ticking Time Bombs, so that we *need* to be able to tiptoe right up to torturing somebody in order to, 'ow you say, "save countless lives". Consequently, we have been treated to the spectacle of various readers trying to parse just exactly where to draw the line between "breaking the will" and torture or puzzling about what possible moral difference there could be between training people to endure waterboarding in a nice safe environment and being subjected to waterboarding at the hands of interrogators who don't much care whether you drown or not.
This embarrassing spectacle of attempting to simultaneously claim that waterboarding is *not* torture but training people is makes me roll my eyes.
Here's the deai: have you ever had an experience of being dunked when you weren't rready for it as a teenager? Ever wrestle as a kid and have somebody cut off your wind for half a second? Remember the panic when you needed to breathe and couldn't?
Now: You are strapped to a board spread-eagle. You already can't breath too deeply in this position. The board is tipped back into a dunk tank and you are head down in the water. The water runs into your sinuses unless you breathe out through your nose. But breathing out means you can't hold your breathe for long. You feel the urge to breathe but you mustn't. Your whole body begins to flex in panic and terror. Your knotted fists bang ineffectually on the board. But the people doing this are not trainers. They are Professionals. They aren't waiting for you to say, "Okay guys, I get the idea of what it's like, You can take me out now!"
They are waiting for your lungs to feel as though they will burst, for the moment *past* the moment of supreme horror when your autonomic system kicks in and you inhale--and gag on--a lungful of water, when you would scream if there were any air in your lungs, when you start to black out.
Then, they pull you from the water, pound on your chest, and bring you too, coughing and retching and more terrified than you have ever been in your life. You have five seconds to start talking--even if you have nothing to say.
And then it all starts again.
And people in these comfy comboxes and elsewhere in cyberspace and on the Rubbber Hose Right (not to mention in the office of the Vice President) have the *gall* to say "That does not rise to the level of torture."
A second and a half of not being able to reach the surface of the lake when I was a kid is still the stuff of nightmares decades later. Those who pretend waterboarding is not torture are either so out of touch with reality that they should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery or they are moral imbeciles.
And still, all this fine parsing about "What O what is torture?" come nowhere near to discussing the real issue of how to deal with the Church *positive* command to "Treat prisoners humanely". That command is so far beyond the thinking of most of the discussants because, still, so many people don't really believe the gospel to be a reflection of reality but an unattainable ideal.
I think the gospel is, quite simply, the truth about the human person. Therefore, I believe that if we obey the gospel instead of searching for excuses to disobey it, reality will, in the long run, cooperate and we will be blessed for it. Might be an interesting change of pace to change the conversation from "How close can we tiptoe to war crimes?" to "How do we treat prisoners humanely *and* get the intelligence we need?"
Time was when at least some of my readers would proudly say they didn't care about torturing a few bad guys. War is hell, etc.
Slowly, through a process of attrition, those guys have found their natural habitat at Little Green Footballs and other places that have nothing but contempt for any Catholic teaching that stand in the way of such secular messianic projects as Grand End to Evil Schemes for Changing the World and Salvation Through Leviathan by Any Means Necessary Projects. So the open contempt for Catholic moral teaching has faded in the comboxes somewhat.
However, we are still playing the "What O What *is* torture" game. Because not e few people still have the notion that the Church's teaching here is entirely negative--"Don't torture"--and has no positive component. Also, there is still tthe delusional notion that the world is chockablock with Ticking Time Bombs, so that we *need* to be able to tiptoe right up to torturing somebody in order to, 'ow you say, "save countless lives". Consequently, we have been treated to the spectacle of various readers trying to parse just exactly where to draw the line between "breaking the will" and torture or puzzling about what possible moral difference there could be between training people to endure waterboarding in a nice safe environment and being subjected to waterboarding at the hands of interrogators who don't much care whether you drown or not.
This embarrassing spectacle of attempting to simultaneously claim that waterboarding is *not* torture but training people is makes me roll my eyes.
Here's the deai: have you ever had an experience of being dunked when you weren't rready for it as a teenager? Ever wrestle as a kid and have somebody cut off your wind for half a second? Remember the panic when you needed to breathe and couldn't?
Now: You are strapped to a board spread-eagle. You already can't breath too deeply in this position. The board is tipped back into a dunk tank and you are head down in the water. The water runs into your sinuses unless you breathe out through your nose. But breathing out means you can't hold your breathe for long. You feel the urge to breathe but you mustn't. Your whole body begins to flex in panic and terror. Your knotted fists bang ineffectually on the board. But the people doing this are not trainers. They are Professionals. They aren't waiting for you to say, "Okay guys, I get the idea of what it's like, You can take me out now!"
They are waiting for your lungs to feel as though they will burst, for the moment *past* the moment of supreme horror when your autonomic system kicks in and you inhale--and gag on--a lungful of water, when you would scream if there were any air in your lungs, when you start to black out.
Then, they pull you from the water, pound on your chest, and bring you too, coughing and retching and more terrified than you have ever been in your life. You have five seconds to start talking--even if you have nothing to say.
And then it all starts again.
And people in these comfy comboxes and elsewhere in cyberspace and on the Rubbber Hose Right (not to mention in the office of the Vice President) have the *gall* to say "That does not rise to the level of torture."
A second and a half of not being able to reach the surface of the lake when I was a kid is still the stuff of nightmares decades later. Those who pretend waterboarding is not torture are either so out of touch with reality that they should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery or they are moral imbeciles.
And still, all this fine parsing about "What O what is torture?" come nowhere near to discussing the real issue of how to deal with the Church *positive* command to "Treat prisoners humanely". That command is so far beyond the thinking of most of the discussants because, still, so many people don't really believe the gospel to be a reflection of reality but an unattainable ideal.
I think the gospel is, quite simply, the truth about the human person. Therefore, I believe that if we obey the gospel instead of searching for excuses to disobey it, reality will, in the long run, cooperate and we will be blessed for it. Might be an interesting change of pace to change the conversation from "How close can we tiptoe to war crimes?" to "How do we treat prisoners humanely *and* get the intelligence we need?"
"Father" Philip Wm. (Phil Bill) Hill
Some guy has been posting in my comboxes under that alias for a month or so now. The first few times he commented, his homepage linked to this bit of mockery of the sufferings of Our Lord, which kinda makes clear that he's no priest.
Since then, he has posted from about a dozen different (now banned) IPs. He's a troll. His email address is a fake. Don't respond to him.
Da Management
Some guy has been posting in my comboxes under that alias for a month or so now. The first few times he commented, his homepage linked to this bit of mockery of the sufferings of Our Lord, which kinda makes clear that he's no priest.
Since then, he has posted from about a dozen different (now banned) IPs. He's a troll. His email address is a fake. Don't respond to him.
Da Management
Dan Brown's 15 Minutes is Up
A reader writes:
I wonder how many people are starting to wake up from the fugue of enthusiasm for that piece of crap and say, "Wait! I took that thing seriously? What was I thinking?"
A reader writes:
We're supporters of one of our local library systems - Montgomery County, Maryland - and we received their bulletin recently. In it the man in charge of their retail sales division - they sell used books and have stores in some branches - wrote that a year ago there was a heavy demand for the DaVinci Code. Now, he reports, 'you can't give it away.'
I wonder how many people are starting to wake up from the fugue of enthusiasm for that piece of crap and say, "Wait! I took that thing seriously? What was I thinking?"
A while back I wrote some piece for the Register concerning the Church's teaching on Islam
I basically reiterated the fundamental point: to the degree that Muslims affirm what the Catholic revelation affirms, they are right. To the degree that they contradict that revelation, they are wrong.
You'd think that this no-brainer restatement of the Law of Non-Contradiction would be uncontroversial. But no, I got angry mail from the "Muslims do NOT worship the same God as we do!!!!!" brigade, whose loathing for Islam was so strong that they didn't mind jettisoning any teaching of the Church if a Muslim affirmed it. A new and strange sort of Protestantism, methinks.
Anyway, part of my reason for writing those articles was precisely because, the moment Catholics stop getting their cues from revelation and start Pavlovianly obeying their favorite political ideology or the parroting the crap they hear on Talk Radio or NPR, they start making themselves prey to human wisdom. Case in point, this letter:
No.
I think that there is enormous mischief being done by the demonization of anything that bears any commonality with Islam, because we inevitably wind up pitching out a huge amount that is a legitimate part of the Jewish and Christian tradition. The question must not be allowed to become "Does this resemble the Taliban? Yikes, then out with it!" This is the trick the New Atheists have been playing since 9/11. It's a game for suckers.
The Taliban were a group of people fighting off perceived "outsiders". Christopher Hitchens and other End to Evil Globalist types use that template to attack all religious fighters from the Maccabees to Christian European Crusaders under their one size fits all "religion poisons everything" Big Tent. Indeed, the New Atheists *constantly* point to Radical Islam as the archetype of "religion" and then accuse Christians (who are mysteriously eager to please them) of being indistinguishable.
But you might as well say that the French Resistance, the Battle of Britain, the American Revolutionaries, and the Japanese-occupied China were "just like the Taliban" since they too were fighting outsiders and, what's more, outsiders from a technologically superior civilization. Clearly, they were just backward savages who did not want the civilization that their betters were trying to bring them.
That's the basic narrative Hitchens just used to compare the Maccabees to the Taliban. And in their reactionary loathing of all things Muslim, some Christians *fall* for that, instead of taking their understanding of history from the revelation (which understands that the Jewish people really did have a special charge to keep as the custodians of a real revelation and could not just let themselves be swallowed up by Greek culture), they bow to the arrogant prattle of agitprop from people who imagine that the secular western vision is the source and summit of all human history.
I basically reiterated the fundamental point: to the degree that Muslims affirm what the Catholic revelation affirms, they are right. To the degree that they contradict that revelation, they are wrong.
You'd think that this no-brainer restatement of the Law of Non-Contradiction would be uncontroversial. But no, I got angry mail from the "Muslims do NOT worship the same God as we do!!!!!" brigade, whose loathing for Islam was so strong that they didn't mind jettisoning any teaching of the Church if a Muslim affirmed it. A new and strange sort of Protestantism, methinks.
Anyway, part of my reason for writing those articles was precisely because, the moment Catholics stop getting their cues from revelation and start Pavlovianly obeying their favorite political ideology or the parroting the crap they hear on Talk Radio or NPR, they start making themselves prey to human wisdom. Case in point, this letter:
Would like your opinion on something; hope you won't find this too odd, but: Does the story of Hannukah actually celebrate the triumph of the Taliban?
No.
This might seem odd to ask, given that we're Catholic and all that, but Hannukah is a big thing for the Jewish community, and furthermore, both Maccabee books are part of our OT Canon (unlike--oddly enough--with the Jewish Bible), and it wasn't that long ago that Mass featured a Maccabee reading about some martyrs. Furthermore, Mel Gibson is said to be planning to do a Maccabee movie.
And yet, reviewing the whole story, I couldn't help but note *something* of a resemblance between the story's protagonists and today's religious fundamentalists. And you know what "everyone" thinks about religious fundamentalists.
Perhaps you're the wrong person to ask about this. If you are, well, then I apologize.
So, anyway, what do you think?
I think that there is enormous mischief being done by the demonization of anything that bears any commonality with Islam, because we inevitably wind up pitching out a huge amount that is a legitimate part of the Jewish and Christian tradition. The question must not be allowed to become "Does this resemble the Taliban? Yikes, then out with it!" This is the trick the New Atheists have been playing since 9/11. It's a game for suckers.
The Taliban were a group of people fighting off perceived "outsiders". Christopher Hitchens and other End to Evil Globalist types use that template to attack all religious fighters from the Maccabees to Christian European Crusaders under their one size fits all "religion poisons everything" Big Tent. Indeed, the New Atheists *constantly* point to Radical Islam as the archetype of "religion" and then accuse Christians (who are mysteriously eager to please them) of being indistinguishable.
But you might as well say that the French Resistance, the Battle of Britain, the American Revolutionaries, and the Japanese-occupied China were "just like the Taliban" since they too were fighting outsiders and, what's more, outsiders from a technologically superior civilization. Clearly, they were just backward savages who did not want the civilization that their betters were trying to bring them.
That's the basic narrative Hitchens just used to compare the Maccabees to the Taliban. And in their reactionary loathing of all things Muslim, some Christians *fall* for that, instead of taking their understanding of history from the revelation (which understands that the Jewish people really did have a special charge to keep as the custodians of a real revelation and could not just let themselves be swallowed up by Greek culture), they bow to the arrogant prattle of agitprop from people who imagine that the secular western vision is the source and summit of all human history.
Pavel Chichikov writes:
Just a little something for the various folk who are laboring in the comboxes to figure out a way to split hairs and justify the use of torture by the Bush Administration. Begging Caesar to take up torture to keep you safe is like setting your dry lawn on fire to keep warm on a chilly evening and expecting the fire to just "stay there" in the corner of the yard. The modern state is like a roach motel. Rights go in, but they don't come back out.
DOWN IT CAME
I saw the great tree fall, the state
Which had before been tall and straight
At least in circuses and shows,
Fell to quaking in its throes
Between the leaves the transport stopped
Of milk and butter to the shops,
Branches died of bare neglect
Where work and money intersect
The bark was rotted, dry and cracked,
Corruption spread where trust had lacked,
The heartwood where the tree was dead
Incorporated hearts of lead
The sapwood of the living wood
Had not the blight of lies withstood,
Roots were decomposed like teeth
Of paupers in the soil beneath
Then by faith that was undone,
That was as green as cambium,
The hollows in the rotting grew
Till it was hollow through and through
Some beneath it heard the crack
Of every spiritual lack,
The fibers of morality
Snapped that stiffen living trees
Down it came, a massive weight,
The rotten hollow tree of state,
Down it came, I lived by chance,
Each side of me a broken branch.
Just a little something for the various folk who are laboring in the comboxes to figure out a way to split hairs and justify the use of torture by the Bush Administration. Begging Caesar to take up torture to keep you safe is like setting your dry lawn on fire to keep warm on a chilly evening and expecting the fire to just "stay there" in the corner of the yard. The modern state is like a roach motel. Rights go in, but they don't come back out.
Because, as I've been told many times, I hate Traditionalists
Dear Friend of God,
Father Phil Bloom has announced that he will be offering a
TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS
Tuesday, January 1st, 2008 - a Holy Day of Obligation
(Circumcision of the Lord - Old Calendar, Mother of God - New Calendar)
at 7:30 p.m.
Holy Family Parish
9622 20th Ave SW
Seattle WA 98106
More info here.
Come worship the Lord in the beauty of the ancient liturgy.
How do you "fix" a vastly complex billions-of-years-old system you've only barely begun to understand?
Attention, Ladies and Gentlemen: We are not entering another "What could it hurt?" phase of history.
Attention, Ladies and Gentlemen: We are not entering another "What could it hurt?" phase of history.
An idea for Christmas
Bernardo Aparicio writes:
I have some very important news to share with you about *Dappled Things*, and I hope that you will be able to share them with your readers.
Since its inception, *Dappled Things* has sought to provide a venue for emerging writers and artists to engage the culture from a Catholic perspective. In order to safeguard this mission, we have followed the policy of only receiving submissions from contributors between the ages of 18 and 35. However, throughout the past two years we have received comments from many readers and potential contributors who wish *Dappled Things* would accept work from persons of any age. This desire is understandable, as there are almost no other venues that specialize in creative work inspired by the Catholic tradition. Still, we have hesitated to remove our age limits because we do not want a situation in which more experienced writers and artists crowd out those who are still at the start of their careers.
After much deliberation, we have concluded that opening up the magazine to creative Catholics of all ages need not undermine our mission. We will remain committed to seeking out and publishing the work of emerging writers and artists, but *we will now welcome submissions without regard to a person's age*. By doing this, we hope *Dappled Things* will become a locus of the best creative talent available within the English-speaking Church. We want *Dappled Things* to be a magazine of which the Church can be proud (in a completely non-sinful way, that is) and through which Catholics can offer an alternative to the often confused culture that surrounds them.
If "The Golden Compass" and "The DaVinci Code" are works that characterize the "wisdom" of our age, we hope that *Dappled Things* will become a venue where those with a more profound vision -- the Tolkiens, Lewises, Waughs, and O'Connors of the future -- will be able to become known and share their work with the world. So whether you are a reader seeking material that will enrich your mind, soul, and imagination, or a writer who hopes to share some truth and beauty with the world, we hope you will join the *Dappled Things* community. To submit your work, please visit our website for instructions.
Sincerely in Christ,
Bernardo Aparicio
President, *Dappled Things*
P.S.: Now that we are in the season of giving, might you consider promoting this effort by giving your friends and family gift subscriptions to *Dappled Things* for Christmas? Not only will it be a completely unique Christmas present, but it will support the work of those who would win back imaginations from the Dan Browns and Philip Pullmans of our world. Or would you consider making a donation, no matter how small? These two types of support are *crucial* to the future of the magazine. You can subscribe or donate online via PayPal, or send us a check, payable to Dappled Things Magazine, to the mailing address listed on our subscriptions page. Thanks and God bless!
Bernardo Aparicio writes:
I have some very important news to share with you about *Dappled Things*, and I hope that you will be able to share them with your readers.
Since its inception, *Dappled Things* has sought to provide a venue for emerging writers and artists to engage the culture from a Catholic perspective. In order to safeguard this mission, we have followed the policy of only receiving submissions from contributors between the ages of 18 and 35. However, throughout the past two years we have received comments from many readers and potential contributors who wish *Dappled Things* would accept work from persons of any age. This desire is understandable, as there are almost no other venues that specialize in creative work inspired by the Catholic tradition. Still, we have hesitated to remove our age limits because we do not want a situation in which more experienced writers and artists crowd out those who are still at the start of their careers.
After much deliberation, we have concluded that opening up the magazine to creative Catholics of all ages need not undermine our mission. We will remain committed to seeking out and publishing the work of emerging writers and artists, but *we will now welcome submissions without regard to a person's age*. By doing this, we hope *Dappled Things* will become a locus of the best creative talent available within the English-speaking Church. We want *Dappled Things* to be a magazine of which the Church can be proud (in a completely non-sinful way, that is) and through which Catholics can offer an alternative to the often confused culture that surrounds them.
If "The Golden Compass" and "The DaVinci Code" are works that characterize the "wisdom" of our age, we hope that *Dappled Things* will become a venue where those with a more profound vision -- the Tolkiens, Lewises, Waughs, and O'Connors of the future -- will be able to become known and share their work with the world. So whether you are a reader seeking material that will enrich your mind, soul, and imagination, or a writer who hopes to share some truth and beauty with the world, we hope you will join the *Dappled Things* community. To submit your work, please visit our website for instructions.
Sincerely in Christ,
Bernardo Aparicio
President, *Dappled Things*
P.S.: Now that we are in the season of giving, might you consider promoting this effort by giving your friends and family gift subscriptions to *Dappled Things* for Christmas? Not only will it be a completely unique Christmas present, but it will support the work of those who would win back imaginations from the Dan Browns and Philip Pullmans of our world. Or would you consider making a donation, no matter how small? These two types of support are *crucial* to the future of the magazine. You can subscribe or donate online via PayPal, or send us a check, payable to Dappled Things Magazine, to the mailing address listed on our subscriptions page. Thanks and God bless!
Prayer Request
A reader wrote on December 11:
Father, you are the Lord of time, so we ask you to hear our prayers for Raymond and grant him relief from his sufferings, an ease to his breathing, peace, and (if you will it) a miracle of healing. If not, we ask that you would grant him the grace of a happy death and full consolation to his family, through Jesus our Lord.
A reader wrote on December 11:
Dear fellow Prayer Warriors,
I just got back from visiting Raymond.
Since my last email, Raymond has occasionally been awake. He has had some alert times where he sits and talks. His mom is very thankful for those times. He is suffering, though . When I called and he answered.... he said 'he was doing fine.' He asked me for a scapular and so I brought it to him. I told him that he could be honest with me on the phone and tell me that he was suffering. His reply was 'Well, I want to make people happy and when I'm feeling gloomy I don't want to make them gloomy too.' He is continuing to love, thinking of others first, even through the pain.
By the way, some of you may not have gotten my first email. Raymond is a 20 year old, dying of bone cancer.... I taught him in PreK and First grade..... and he's from my home parish, St. Michael's.
Tomorrow, Tuesday at 3PM, I'd like to ask you to pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet with your family, for Raymond. He needs peace. He needs to know that God's mercy is great and there is nothing to fear.
Thank you for your perserverance in prayer. After our last email call for prayer, Mary Ann, Raymond's mother, noted that that is when Raymond awoke from 2 and a half days of sleep.
I'll be in touch.
Raymond UPDATE: Mary Ann just called, at 12:20 AM.... Raymond's tumor is wrapped around his air tube and is struggling to breath! Please pray if you're awake. Thank you.
Father, you are the Lord of time, so we ask you to hear our prayers for Raymond and grant him relief from his sufferings, an ease to his breathing, peace, and (if you will it) a miracle of healing. If not, we ask that you would grant him the grace of a happy death and full consolation to his family, through Jesus our Lord.
More People in Need of Insensitivity Training
Professionally Aggrieved Grievance Professionals that live past the point of actual usefulness tend to take on a life of their own and go creating problems for themselves to "solve". Here we see the NAACP doing this to a bunch of helpless high school bureaucrats who had the misfortune to have the local drama class do a performance of "And Then There Were None", the classic murder mystery by Agatha Christie. Turns out the play was *originally* titled "Ten Little Niggers" in 1939. It hasn't been titled that in decades and, in fact, has nothing really to do with racial issues. It was a reference to a nursery rhyme.
But that's not good enough! The play is forever "racially tainted" and so may not ever be performed, ever again, because some exquisitely sensitive person may go do a Wikipedia search, remind himself of what the title was 70 years ago, and whip himself into a froth of hurt feelings.
LaShawn Barber provides sane commentary.
Professionally Aggrieved Grievance Professionals that live past the point of actual usefulness tend to take on a life of their own and go creating problems for themselves to "solve". Here we see the NAACP doing this to a bunch of helpless high school bureaucrats who had the misfortune to have the local drama class do a performance of "And Then There Were None", the classic murder mystery by Agatha Christie. Turns out the play was *originally* titled "Ten Little Niggers" in 1939. It hasn't been titled that in decades and, in fact, has nothing really to do with racial issues. It was a reference to a nursery rhyme.
But that's not good enough! The play is forever "racially tainted" and so may not ever be performed, ever again, because some exquisitely sensitive person may go do a Wikipedia search, remind himself of what the title was 70 years ago, and whip himself into a froth of hurt feelings.
LaShawn Barber provides sane commentary.
A reader writes:
Please pray for Father Andrew 'Drew' Royals, who collapsed December 7th and had to be rushed to the hospital. Andrew has had a history of heart conditions. His condition is stable. The doctors will decide what course of action to take on Monday, December 10. The Archbishop anointed Father Andrew on Saturday.
Fr Andrew is a young priest of the Archdiocese of Washington. He was ordained in 2006. He is the oldest of eight children.
Messages may be sent to him at this e-mail address. His family will read the messages to him. You may check up on his condition here.
Please pray for Father Andrew 'Drew' Royals, who collapsed December 7th and had to be rushed to the hospital. Andrew has had a history of heart conditions. His condition is stable. The doctors will decide what course of action to take on Monday, December 10. The Archbishop anointed Father Andrew on Saturday.
Fr Andrew is a young priest of the Archdiocese of Washington. He was ordained in 2006. He is the oldest of eight children.
Messages may be sent to him at this e-mail address. His family will read the messages to him. You may check up on his condition here.
Internet Weirdness
Several folks wrote me various emails on December 10-11. They arrived in my inbox promptly--late on December 14. Who knows why. Anyway, I will post them presently.
Several folks wrote me various emails on December 10-11. They arrived in my inbox promptly--late on December 14. Who knows why. Anyway, I will post them presently.
Friday, December 14, 2007
A reader (and Thomist Philosopher) asks a pertinent question:
Just so. Morally dubious acts like waterboarding are, like abortion, matters where, if you don't know if it's evil or not, you shouldn't do it. In the same way, you don't shoot the bush if you are not sure there isn't a hunter behind it.
The reality is this: to boast of a willingness to be waterboarded is to say "I am absolutely sure that waterboarding is not torture." It is not the boast of a thoughtful, nuanced person who can see all aides of the issue. It is the boast of somebody who Who Sees No Moral Ambiguities At All.
Me: I'm willing to grant that a SEAL trainer who waterboards troops to prepare them for the real thing is not a torturer, but a good and responsible trainer. Of course, I also think that it is precisely *because* waterboarding is torture that we train our troops to prepare for it. In short, I get that there is "moral ambiguity" to the physical actions behind the technique. That's why we shouldn't do it. But the reader who speaks of "moral ambiguity" out of one side of his mouth and then urge us to *do* these morally shady things with the absolute assurance that they are not shady at all is not really looking for moral nuance. He is stating his utter certitude and urging us to shoot into the bush.
Postscript: reader Pavel Chichikov, who spent some time in the Soviet Union before it fell and who knew... professionals in some dark professions, writes of my other reader's faux offer to be waterboarded:
Amen and amen.
Since when did "moral ambiguity" become a synonym for "let's proceed"?
Just so. Morally dubious acts like waterboarding are, like abortion, matters where, if you don't know if it's evil or not, you shouldn't do it. In the same way, you don't shoot the bush if you are not sure there isn't a hunter behind it.
The reality is this: to boast of a willingness to be waterboarded is to say "I am absolutely sure that waterboarding is not torture." It is not the boast of a thoughtful, nuanced person who can see all aides of the issue. It is the boast of somebody who Who Sees No Moral Ambiguities At All.
Me: I'm willing to grant that a SEAL trainer who waterboards troops to prepare them for the real thing is not a torturer, but a good and responsible trainer. Of course, I also think that it is precisely *because* waterboarding is torture that we train our troops to prepare for it. In short, I get that there is "moral ambiguity" to the physical actions behind the technique. That's why we shouldn't do it. But the reader who speaks of "moral ambiguity" out of one side of his mouth and then urge us to *do* these morally shady things with the absolute assurance that they are not shady at all is not really looking for moral nuance. He is stating his utter certitude and urging us to shoot into the bush.
Postscript: reader Pavel Chichikov, who spent some time in the Soviet Union before it fell and who knew... professionals in some dark professions, writes of my other reader's faux offer to be waterboarded:
"...(which, by the way, I openly volunteer to have done on me)..."
No he doesn't. He volunteers to have it done to him as a demo. He doesn't volunteer to have it *done* to him.
Does he volunteer to have it done to him so that he crawls around on his hands and knees in his own **** and ****, crying for his mother and begging to be put out of his misery, while those who have done it to him laugh and refuse?
Does he know that there are even worse things than the above that can be done to him?
So far as I know we in the US don't do that sort of thing. Thank God.
But there's even worse than that. Given the right sort of emergency accompanied by the right sort of hysteria *anyone* can find himself in that cellar. I know a country where it happened. Proven loyalty and patriotism saved no one, if it was their fate to end up in that cellar. Your barber or the guy next door could put you in that cellar. And you could put him there. They don't call it a Terror for nothing.
You have no idea what can happen. God bless the law.
Amen and amen.
A reader writes on behalf of poor persecuted apologists for torture
It must be wonderful to live in a world where legal precedents have no effect. That's why Griswold didn't lead to Roe and Roe did not not lead to euthanasia. Similarly, giving Caesar the power to name anybody he likes an illegal combatant, detain them indefinitely, torture them, and suppress/destroy the evidence of same will surely never lead to an abuse of power against *innocent* people.
And besides, torture breaks people in record time! That's how we know it's not torture! And besides, I prefer to privilege accounts of torture from peopple who are trying salve their conscience that at least something useful cam out of it and to ignore accounts which say
The best part of my reader's response is the brave empty offer to be waterboarded from the comfort of his cubicle, because he knows he will never have to do it--and certainly not have to do it under the circumstance that real prisoners experience it.
My reader also prefers to go on overlooking the fact that waterboarding is but one form of torture, and to ignore the fact that we have murdered people using other forms of torture that he does *not* make even empty promises to undergo. He also prefers not to look at the fact that we have renditioned innocent men for torture and threatened to torture the families of innocent men.
Instead, he brasses it out and seriously tries to make people believe that he is a thoughtul nuanced thinker as he makes excuses for tortures authorized by a man famous for his morally unambiguous Manichaean "you are with us or with the terrorists" approach to the world.
Uh huh.
Dunno if my reader is Catholic or not. If not, then I don't expect him to be familiar with the Magisterium. But for us Catholics (at least the ones who take the Magisterium seriously), it's not complicated. Torture is wrong. Don't do it. (See Veritatis Splendor 80). If you are not sure whether an act is torture, don't tiptoe up to the line. Instead, try this: Treat prisoners humanely. When you start spouting rubbish about "moral ambiguity" in defense of things like "breaking a man with raw terror in 35 seconds", ask yourself "Am I just full of crap?" If you find yourself making empty promises to be waterboarded in the comfort of your cubicle, amend that question to "Why am I full of crap?" Do the same if find yourself making excuses for Roe v Wade and all the tremendous "moral ambiguities" surrounding abortion on demand.
Meanwhile, if I have to make a choice between taking the word of the notorious radical Left, America-hating Armed Forces Journal and the laptop bombardiers who draw on their deep expertise in Wall Street Journal editorial reading, I will go with the Armed Forces Journal:
Which means the President lies when he says "We do not torture". We do torture. And according to the CIA guy ABC interviewed, Bush authorized it. If it's a war crime when the Japanese do it, it's a war crime when we do it.
Look up any decent book on elementary logic; "slippery slope" is one of the most common of all logical fallacies.
And of course, we already know now--for a fact--that 35 seconds of waterboarding (which, by the way, I openly volunteer to have done on me) on Abu Zubaydah saved many, many lives.
But I'm sure those lives don't matter a whit to our Morally Upright Host Who Sees No Moral Ambiguities At All In Any Circumstances?
It must be wonderful to live in a world where legal precedents have no effect. That's why Griswold didn't lead to Roe and Roe did not not lead to euthanasia. Similarly, giving Caesar the power to name anybody he likes an illegal combatant, detain them indefinitely, torture them, and suppress/destroy the evidence of same will surely never lead to an abuse of power against *innocent* people.
And besides, torture breaks people in record time! That's how we know it's not torture! And besides, I prefer to privilege accounts of torture from peopple who are trying salve their conscience that at least something useful cam out of it and to ignore accounts which say
Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be....Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics...
Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?"
Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety — against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each...target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."
The best part of my reader's response is the brave empty offer to be waterboarded from the comfort of his cubicle, because he knows he will never have to do it--and certainly not have to do it under the circumstance that real prisoners experience it.
My reader also prefers to go on overlooking the fact that waterboarding is but one form of torture, and to ignore the fact that we have murdered people using other forms of torture that he does *not* make even empty promises to undergo. He also prefers not to look at the fact that we have renditioned innocent men for torture and threatened to torture the families of innocent men.
Instead, he brasses it out and seriously tries to make people believe that he is a thoughtul nuanced thinker as he makes excuses for tortures authorized by a man famous for his morally unambiguous Manichaean "you are with us or with the terrorists" approach to the world.
Uh huh.
Dunno if my reader is Catholic or not. If not, then I don't expect him to be familiar with the Magisterium. But for us Catholics (at least the ones who take the Magisterium seriously), it's not complicated. Torture is wrong. Don't do it. (See Veritatis Splendor 80). If you are not sure whether an act is torture, don't tiptoe up to the line. Instead, try this: Treat prisoners humanely. When you start spouting rubbish about "moral ambiguity" in defense of things like "breaking a man with raw terror in 35 seconds", ask yourself "Am I just full of crap?" If you find yourself making empty promises to be waterboarded in the comfort of your cubicle, amend that question to "Why am I full of crap?" Do the same if find yourself making excuses for Roe v Wade and all the tremendous "moral ambiguities" surrounding abortion on demand.
Meanwhile, if I have to make a choice between taking the word of the notorious radical Left, America-hating Armed Forces Journal and the laptop bombardiers who draw on their deep expertise in Wall Street Journal editorial reading, I will go with the Armed Forces Journal:
Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II.
Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue.
Which means the President lies when he says "We do not torture". We do torture. And according to the CIA guy ABC interviewed, Bush authorized it. If it's a war crime when the Japanese do it, it's a war crime when we do it.
The reader who requested prayer last week writes:
Damien and my son Corrin arrived at home around 1:30 this morning. They were stuck in Wisconsin an extra day due to the ice in Illinois as they would have been driving at night. Kevin was laid to rest and Kenneth's broken neck was downgraded to a fractured neck, thank God, and he is already home.
Please continue to pray for him as he celebrates his 20th birthday tomorrow alone. It will be his first birthday without his twin brother and I have no doubt it will be hard for everyone. I don't have much of an update, my husband is a man of few words, but I can tell you that it was good for his family to get together. I hope it will be a new relationship for them.
If you would also say a prayer for us. None of this was planned out, the travel and such, and it has put a strain on things for us.
My husband's blog is here.
Abp Burke
and
Tom Piatak
on the Golden Compass
Now in its second financially catastrophic week!
After all these years of misguided Harry-hatred, it's good to see people are finally getting a clue about *really* toxic kid lit.
and
Tom Piatak
on the Golden Compass
Now in its second financially catastrophic week!
After all these years of misguided Harry-hatred, it's good to see people are finally getting a clue about *really* toxic kid lit.
What I mean by the Darwin Mythos
Periodically, I will post something on the Darwin Mythos. Inevitably, somebody will come along to tell me I "don't believe" in evolution or natural selection, which always strikes me the same as telling me I "don't believe" in the sphericity of the earth. It is curious how confessional language always tends to creep in with discussions of Darwin, as much from the atheists materialists as from Fundamentalists. But then, that's so often because atheist materialists *are* fundamentalists.
So far as I can tell, natural selection is not a matter of belief or disbelief, but of evidence and observation. And, so far as I can tell, the evidence for natural selection is pretty good, as is the evidence for common descent with modifications over time. At any rate, I see no other really probable explanation for a fossil record that starts out with bacteria and gets more complicated and diverse over millions of years. So I've never had a big problem with evolution per se.
What I think is silly is the use of evolution as a fig leaf for a Grand Scheme of Atheistic Materialism and denial of God as Creator. So periodically, I will post things like this. And, sure as shooting, somebody like AEC will turn up to berate me in words like this:
Here's the thing: I didn't say natural selection was random. Nor did I say that evolution disproves the existence of the Creator. Nor did I say that the existence of a Creator disproves evolution.
I was commenting on this distillation of the Darwinist Mythos:
My reader can pretend that lots and lots of evolutionists don't use evolution to make this grand metaphysical claim if he likes. But the reality is, they do. And it's rubbish.
The dumb luck to which I refer is not merely the series of mutations and selections that needed to occur to get us to the spine and all the other happy strokes of dumb luck that made AEC possible, but to the nature of physical reality itself. AEC's argument is, "Given the physical constants that govern the behavior of sodium and chlorine ions, it's not that big a deal that they form an orderly pattern." My reply is, "Yep, the physical constants governing the behavior of sodium and chlorine is one of the umpteen billion lucky breaks I'm talking about." We might have wound up with any number of universes. By a stroke of dumb luck so improbable that you could fill the universe with the zeros needed to compute the odds, we wound up with this one. That's why materialists desperately postulate an infinite number of multiverses in order to drown the odds in an ocean of probability. Never mind the existence of other universes is an entirely evidence free claim. Anything will do in trying to get rid of the possibility of You Know Who.
As to the matter of the "efficiency" of evolution, my reader is smuggling in something of the same metaphysical claim as Simpson when he infers from the human spine that a *real* Creator would primarily be interested in engineering efficiency. Like he knows. But of course, he doesn't. The human spine may be a work of art as much as a work of engineering. It may have been created to be inefficient for purposes we don't know. It may be damaged as a result of the fall. It may be a divine practical joke intended for our good. It may be almost any number of things. This tendency to smuggle in metaphysical claims ("God should, above all, care about Efficient Engineering and, if he doesn't then he does not exist!") and denounce critics of such metaphysical claims as "anti-science" is endemic among evolutionists who try to use natural selection as a fig leaf for their metaphysics.
AEC has had trouble distinguishing metaphysical and non-metaphysical questions in the past. Specifically, he had difficulty telling the difference between claims of authorship and claims of inspiration.
It's understandable really. When you settle for atheist materialism as your philosophy, you start talking as though the physical sciences are the only tool in the toolkit for comprehending reality. And like the man said, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Periodically, I will post something on the Darwin Mythos. Inevitably, somebody will come along to tell me I "don't believe" in evolution or natural selection, which always strikes me the same as telling me I "don't believe" in the sphericity of the earth. It is curious how confessional language always tends to creep in with discussions of Darwin, as much from the atheists materialists as from Fundamentalists. But then, that's so often because atheist materialists *are* fundamentalists.
So far as I can tell, natural selection is not a matter of belief or disbelief, but of evidence and observation. And, so far as I can tell, the evidence for natural selection is pretty good, as is the evidence for common descent with modifications over time. At any rate, I see no other really probable explanation for a fossil record that starts out with bacteria and gets more complicated and diverse over millions of years. So I've never had a big problem with evolution per se.
What I think is silly is the use of evolution as a fig leaf for a Grand Scheme of Atheistic Materialism and denial of God as Creator. So periodically, I will post things like this. And, sure as shooting, somebody like AEC will turn up to berate me in words like this:
Please actually learn something about evolutionary biology before attempting to critique it. A little basic probability theory would not hurt, either.
Mutation is random. However natural selection is highly nonrandom. It constrains the genetic variations that are viable.
This also applies in other scientific fields.
Consider a salt crystal. The regular arrangement of sodium and chlorine ions would be highly improbable if any old arrangement of ions was equally probable. But that isn't the case, due to the physics of chemical bonding. The regular lattice of the salt crystal is highly favored over all other arrangements of ions.
Thus your "10 to the million strokes of dumb luck" is utterly irrelevant, as it does not describe how evolution works. It isn't random rolls of the dice with all states equally probable.
The viable configurations of the human spine are going to be constrained by physics. That said, the human spine remains a highly suboptimal "design" for a bipedal walker, suggesting your intuited "creator" is pretty inefficient in its choice of methodology.
That's not to say evolution disproves the existence of a creator. It doesn't. Your own church seems to recognize this.
Here's the thing: I didn't say natural selection was random. Nor did I say that evolution disproves the existence of the Creator. Nor did I say that the existence of a Creator disproves evolution.
I was commenting on this distillation of the Darwinist Mythos:
The meaning of evolution is that man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. - G. G. Simpson
My reader can pretend that lots and lots of evolutionists don't use evolution to make this grand metaphysical claim if he likes. But the reality is, they do. And it's rubbish.
The dumb luck to which I refer is not merely the series of mutations and selections that needed to occur to get us to the spine and all the other happy strokes of dumb luck that made AEC possible, but to the nature of physical reality itself. AEC's argument is, "Given the physical constants that govern the behavior of sodium and chlorine ions, it's not that big a deal that they form an orderly pattern." My reply is, "Yep, the physical constants governing the behavior of sodium and chlorine is one of the umpteen billion lucky breaks I'm talking about." We might have wound up with any number of universes. By a stroke of dumb luck so improbable that you could fill the universe with the zeros needed to compute the odds, we wound up with this one. That's why materialists desperately postulate an infinite number of multiverses in order to drown the odds in an ocean of probability. Never mind the existence of other universes is an entirely evidence free claim. Anything will do in trying to get rid of the possibility of You Know Who.
As to the matter of the "efficiency" of evolution, my reader is smuggling in something of the same metaphysical claim as Simpson when he infers from the human spine that a *real* Creator would primarily be interested in engineering efficiency. Like he knows. But of course, he doesn't. The human spine may be a work of art as much as a work of engineering. It may have been created to be inefficient for purposes we don't know. It may be damaged as a result of the fall. It may be a divine practical joke intended for our good. It may be almost any number of things. This tendency to smuggle in metaphysical claims ("God should, above all, care about Efficient Engineering and, if he doesn't then he does not exist!") and denounce critics of such metaphysical claims as "anti-science" is endemic among evolutionists who try to use natural selection as a fig leaf for their metaphysics.
AEC has had trouble distinguishing metaphysical and non-metaphysical questions in the past. Specifically, he had difficulty telling the difference between claims of authorship and claims of inspiration.
It's understandable really. When you settle for atheist materialism as your philosophy, you start talking as though the physical sciences are the only tool in the toolkit for comprehending reality. And like the man said, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
For Those of you on the East Coast Trapped in the Storm
Here's some British humor to make things a bit more fun
Here's some British humor to make things a bit more fun
Oops!
A reader writes:
The Bible: Use according to directions.
A reader writes:
I wanted to tell you something so funny that happened today. I have this listing of Jesse tree readings for Advent. Well, instead of reading from 1 Samuel 16:14-23:Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him. And Saul's servants said to him, "Behold now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants, who are before you, to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the lyre; and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well." So Saul said to his servants, "Provide for me a man who can play well, and bring him to me." One of the young men answered, "Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence; and the LORD is with him." Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, "Send me David your son, who is with the sheep." And Jesse took an ass laden with bread, and a skin of wine and a kid, and sent them by David his son to Saul. And David came to Saul, and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight." And whenever the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand; so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
I read 2 Samuel 16:14-23:And the king, and all the people who were with him, arrived weary at the Jordan; * and there he refreshed himself. Now Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him. And when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, came to Absalom, Hushai said to Absalom, "Long live the king! Long live the king!" And Absalom said to Hushai, "Is this your loyalty to your friend? Why did you not go with your friend?" And Hushai said to Absalom, "No; for whom the LORD and this people and all the men of Israel have chosen, his I will be, and with him I will remain. And again, whom should I serve? Should it not be his son? As I have served your father, so I will serve you." Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel; what shall we do?" Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." 2 So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. Now in those days the counsel which Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the oracle* of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.
So, instead of reading about David and how he played the harp beautifully and was so handsome and a good warrior and his harp playing made the evil spirits go away for Saul, we read about odious sexual exhibitionists on David's roof.
When I first read that reading about Absalom I was just thinking it was so weird and what the heck kind of an Advent reading was that? Here I am trying to control what my daughter is seeing and hearing in the media and all you have to do is open the Bible to get the same kind of stuff. When we got back from our gig (I'm a professional musician) I thought I'd read a little more for some context. That's when I discovered my error. My husband and I just howled over that one.
The Bible: Use according to directions.
My readers are so cool!
So the other day, I make a couple of brief comments on paradox and humor. Yesterday, a reader writes in with this:
I love that somebody knows about this stuff.
The only thing I have to add to the discussion is this:
So the other day, I make a couple of brief comments on paradox and humor. Yesterday, a reader writes in with this:
Parts of what you say are true and parts are not. This is somewhat frustrating as there is little room in this combox for explaining the logic of humor. I have been working on the logical structure of humor for twenty years (you may goggle my name and the word, "humor", to read some of my work) and it is much more complicated than you describe.
You write, for instance:
A paradox is a seeming contradiction.
This is not, strictly speaking, true. A paradox is a contradiction. This result in logic goes back to 1933 (and in its infancy to 1926) due to the work of the logician, Alfred Tarski. They are called paradoxes of self-reference.
What occurs in humor is not, technically-speaking, true paradoxes, but a near-cousin, which I have called skewed ambiguities. These are situations which seem to contradict one another on a single level of discourse, but the actual situation involves two levels which co-exist. Imagine two lines that one swears cross each other (a "paradox"). Then, one flies over the two lines and finds out that one is two feet off of the ground and the other is two miles off of the ground. Looking straight down, the lines look as if they cross, but the reality is that they do not. I wish I had more room to give extended explanations.
In any case, were humor really based on paradoxes, it would have no identifiable truth-content (the linguist, Victor Raskin, proposed this idea, independently, as few years ago). Since humor does have truth content, it must be based on something other than genuine paradoxes. This idea that humor is based on paradox goes back to at least the 1960's with the work of William Fry (whom I know, very well). It was only after a few researchers started to look at the consequences of what paradoxes would be like in humor, that we realized something similar, but not identical, must be at work.
Work is still continuing.
As for incongruity being necessary for humor, this is somewhat correct (at least there is neurodynamic support for this in brain processing), but until a few years ago, we did not even have a way to study incongruity as there was no theory of incongruity in existence. There is, now, although we do not know how true it is. There have been no real studies to date on the connection of incongruity strength and strength of humor response, partially because of the difficulty in quantifying incongruity.
Chesterton does use humor and apparent paradoxes, which are really compressed forms of statement/meta-statement structures.
If the reader who e-mailed you wants to contact me, I could give him a better discussion of how Chestertonian humor works.
I wrote a long series of posts for the blog, Disputations, about a year ago explaining some of this in more detail (and somewhat more clearly).
I love that somebody knows about this stuff.
The only thing I have to add to the discussion is this:
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die. - Mel Brooks
Thursday, December 13, 2007
So a Muslim Dad Up in Canada Strangles His Daughter to Death Because She Wants to Wear Western Clothes
The response of Mohamed Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress:
"It's a teenager issue".
This sort of "kid had it coming" response from the spokesman for Islam in Canada is but one of the thousand items you can file in your "Not Ready for Civilization" folder in your Islamic Studies file cabinet.
This why all the practioners of moral equivalence who attempt to say that "Oh yeah? Well Christians are exactly the same!" are so lame.
Yes, there is child abuse, spouse beating and murder among Christians. It's called "sin". In Christian culture, you do not attempt to excuse the strangulation of a kid by her nutjob fundy father by saying "B*tch had it coming."
The response of Mohamed Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress:
"It's a teenager issue".
This sort of "kid had it coming" response from the spokesman for Islam in Canada is but one of the thousand items you can file in your "Not Ready for Civilization" folder in your Islamic Studies file cabinet.
This why all the practioners of moral equivalence who attempt to say that "Oh yeah? Well Christians are exactly the same!" are so lame.
Yes, there is child abuse, spouse beating and murder among Christians. It's called "sin". In Christian culture, you do not attempt to excuse the strangulation of a kid by her nutjob fundy father by saying "B*tch had it coming."
Seattleite Andrew Miller's New Christmas Composition is Getting Good Reviews
For those of you not familiar with her, the story of Gloria Strauss and her family has made big ripples here in the Seattle area.
For those of you not familiar with her, the story of Gloria Strauss and her family has made big ripples here in the Seattle area.
A Dream of Jefferson by Dr. Peter Simpson
When Caesar says, "Here, let me take away these rights and I'll keep you safe" the right and proper Jeffersonian response is "Go to Hades".
I had a dream the other day in which I descended into Hades. There I met the ghost of Thomas Jefferson. Having served him, after the Odyssean manner, with a libation of sacrificial blood, I asked him about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and its abolition of habeas corpus for aliens, which was then a matter much on my mind. He spoke to me as follows:
"An act undertaking to authorize the President to incarcerate a person on the President's own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without hearing witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void and of no force."
Continuing with great passion, he added:
"If the act before specified should stand, these conclusions will flow from it. First, that the federal government may place any act it thinks proper on the list of crimes and transfer its cognizance to the President who will be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions will be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction;
Second, that a very numerous and valuable class of the inhabitants of the United States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away, no rampart now remains to protect them against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress or to defend from a like incarceration, or other more grievous punishment, either the minority of the same body, or the legislatures, judges, governors and counselors of the States, or their other peaceable inhabitants, who may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions, of the President, or be thought dangerous to his position, or other interests, public or personal. Third, that while the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment, the citizens will soon follow after."
He then exclaimed, in great anguish, in more anguish, indeed, than I thought a spirit capable of: "Let that man say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which our elected representatives have thus conferred on our President, which the President has assented to, and accepted, over the friendly strangers to whom the mild spirit of our country and its laws have pledged hospitality and protection. These representatives," he continued in evident exasperation, "have more respected the bare suspicions of the President than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice."
I was struck by the vigor of his speech and marveled that a single draught of sacrificed blood could so energize a mere spirit, a bodiless wraith. But he marveled at me that I had not heard such things before. For he averred that all which he had told me he had penned long ago, that, indeed, he had published much of it, though anonymously [as the Kentucky Resolution], back in November of 1798. He then pulled a piece of ancient parchment from his coat pocket on which I could see that the words he had spoken were written down in an elegant 18th. Century hand.
I was much impressed at the power and force of his presence, and, not quite knowing what I was saying, urged him to return with me and speak to all the Americans in the same way. But he responded fiercely that he would rather be a landless serf in Hades than again a public figure in what we had made of his United States. With that he hastened back into the gloom to his place among the other shades there to console himself, as best a shade can, in past memories and gratitude at being already dead.
When Caesar says, "Here, let me take away these rights and I'll keep you safe" the right and proper Jeffersonian response is "Go to Hades".
Lane Core writes:
Provident Father, please provide for your son Lane. Grant him work where he can use his gifts for the good that you intend and an income so that he can pay for his needs. Send you Spirit to strengthen him in this trial and make him more into the image and likeness of your Son Jesus Christ. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
I know many other folks have problems more serious than mine. Still, I am shortly to become unemployed, so I am writing to ask for your prayers.
My background is in Math & Computer Science. I write well, occasionally freelancing for a local newspaper. And, I have discovered that I am a good teacher, too: I have been teaching night classes at the local vo-tech school for five semesters, and I get very good feedback from my students, including the teachers among them.
Please say a prayer for me, and, if you wouldn't mind, please ask your readers to do the same. (I know, though, some of you aren't actively blogging right now; neither am I.)
Thanks, and God bless, Lane.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
Provident Father, please provide for your son Lane. Grant him work where he can use his gifts for the good that you intend and an income so that he can pay for his needs. Send you Spirit to strengthen him in this trial and make him more into the image and likeness of your Son Jesus Christ. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Though you'd hardly know it from the media coverage recently
There are other books to get your kids for Christmas besides His Dark Materials
There are other books to get your kids for Christmas besides His Dark Materials
The Curt Jester asks a perfect reasonable question of all the Catholic consequentialists
The thing about slippery slopes is that you don't stop where you plan to stop.
The thing about slippery slopes is that you don't stop where you plan to stop.
A reader writes:
I think you are pretty much on track here. War crimes have always been committed and often winked at. Most people are not yet at the point of utter corruption where they are *proud* of our crimes (as, for instance, many on the Left are proud of abortion and speak of it, not as a "tragic necessity" but as an especial point of boasting).
But that's merely because the frog in the pot is boiled slowly, not tossed directly into scalding water. In 1973, we were assured that abortion was a tragic necessity and that only a few hundred people would be affected. It would never lead to a culture were millions were killed and abortion was treated as a Good Thing to be proud of.
In the same way today, apologists for the Bush Administration push to make torture, not the act of desperate men bending the rules, but the policy of these United States, tell us that this will not lead to a brutal culture in which we boast of our Machiavellian destruction of any weakling who crosses us. Surely it will not create a whole class of people who *enjoy* this kind of work. It won't lead to a culture of torture porn that not longer skulks around having to pretend that torture is "sad but necessary" and instead exults in violence.
Oh. Wait. 24 is already on the air!
Yes, but *fictional* violence and torture can only deliver so many thrills. Sooner or later one wants to up the dosage to something more... edgy. Something a little more... reality TV.
Me: I'm reasonably confident that we will see something like the return of the Roman arena on TV, with real bloody death, probably before I expire. And if the culture keeps de-Christianizing, I would not at all be surprised if I and a great many other Christians wound up expiring in the arena. It has happened before.
I was thinking about your most recent torture post, and a thought occurred to me. It occurred to me that one reason that the current situation is so outrageous is not that there are individuals torturing or individuals being tortured per se. I'm sure that this kind of behavior has gone on for much of the history of our country and others. But, in the past, this kind of behavior was viewed as an unfortunate aberration, a moral error, a crime of passion by a frustrated interrogator. We are now moving it from the realm of the enraged murder when a man walks in on his wife and her lover to the planned assassination of the same. While both of these examples are morally inexcusable, we can sympathize with a man who cannot control his rage much more than a man who calmly plans a murder. One recognizes the rule against murder even if he fails to keep it in his passion. The other throws the rule out the window altogether.
It's sort of like the euthanasia debate. People in great physical pain or mental anguish already have the capacity to kill themselves. A bottle of pills and some vodka, a gun or a high building are all that are required. But they don't just want to engage in a personal sin, they want to drag the medical establishment with them. They want to implicate society. They want everyone to pat them on the back and tell them that they're "brave". This is what makes the euthanasia agenda so insidious. We've always had suicide, but it was a private sin that society as a whole condemned.
Now, with torture, the right proves that it can just as morally flexible as the left. They don't just want to torture, they want that pat on the back and the plaudits. I can understand the interrogator that gets so frustrated with a subject that he lashes out at them in anger. I don't think he is acting as he should, but at least is acknowledging the moral precept to the extent that he has to get angry before he crosses the line, and hopefully regrets it afterward. What the administration is doing now is to make that moral line, as a matter of policy, so fuzzy and indistinct that torture is inflicted with cool forethought and planning, and, in theory, no guilt afterward. (Though I'd bet that even the staunchest pro-torture folks would have a few nightmares after dishing it out even once.)
I say all this as someone who was previously conflicted about this issue, firmly in the "it's wrong in theory, but if we have to do it, well." camp. Thanks in large part to you, I have long since moved over to the "it's intrinsically wrong and inherently counterproductive anyway so we shouldn't ever do it" camp. I am glad to leave my moral squishiness behind.
I think you are pretty much on track here. War crimes have always been committed and often winked at. Most people are not yet at the point of utter corruption where they are *proud* of our crimes (as, for instance, many on the Left are proud of abortion and speak of it, not as a "tragic necessity" but as an especial point of boasting).
But that's merely because the frog in the pot is boiled slowly, not tossed directly into scalding water. In 1973, we were assured that abortion was a tragic necessity and that only a few hundred people would be affected. It would never lead to a culture were millions were killed and abortion was treated as a Good Thing to be proud of.
In the same way today, apologists for the Bush Administration push to make torture, not the act of desperate men bending the rules, but the policy of these United States, tell us that this will not lead to a brutal culture in which we boast of our Machiavellian destruction of any weakling who crosses us. Surely it will not create a whole class of people who *enjoy* this kind of work. It won't lead to a culture of torture porn that not longer skulks around having to pretend that torture is "sad but necessary" and instead exults in violence.
Oh. Wait. 24 is already on the air!
Yes, but *fictional* violence and torture can only deliver so many thrills. Sooner or later one wants to up the dosage to something more... edgy. Something a little more... reality TV.
Me: I'm reasonably confident that we will see something like the return of the Roman arena on TV, with real bloody death, probably before I expire. And if the culture keeps de-Christianizing, I would not at all be surprised if I and a great many other Christians wound up expiring in the arena. It has happened before.
A reader writes:
A paradox is a seeming contradiction. As in "To save your life you must lose it". Chesterton was hugely fond of paradox, in no small part because it was so useful in illuminating the real contradictions of modern thought. Humor was a big part of his work because no small part of humor is the perception of incongruity. A bishop in galoshes is funny because a bishop is a solemn office. And so, paradoxically, to laugh at a bishop in galoshes is to recognize something serious about what the bishop represents.
In studying Chesterton, I've been trying to hammer out exactly what the difference is between a paradox and a logical inconsistency. So far I've only attained a vague awareness that paradoxes allow more of a sense of humor. Please help.
A paradox is a seeming contradiction. As in "To save your life you must lose it". Chesterton was hugely fond of paradox, in no small part because it was so useful in illuminating the real contradictions of modern thought. Humor was a big part of his work because no small part of humor is the perception of incongruity. A bishop in galoshes is funny because a bishop is a solemn office. And so, paradoxically, to laugh at a bishop in galoshes is to recognize something serious about what the bishop represents.
God bless him
Profile of the guy who invented the technique to create stem cells without killing anybody:
Profile of the guy who invented the technique to create stem cells without killing anybody:
"When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters," said Dr. Yamanaka, 45, a father of two and now a professor at the Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences at Kyoto University. "I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way."
Another stroke of dumb luck unplanned and without purpose from any Creator or anything
1010000000 strokes of dumb luck and counting!
1010000000 strokes of dumb luck and counting!
Wisdom from a reader
Heh.
Three rules of combox reading:
1. Ignore school-assignment-length essays.
2. Ignore "I am grieved by what I find" posts.
3. Ignore "shake the dust from my feet" posts.
Heh.
Sinning by Hypotheticals
This useful term was first coined by Zippy. It refers to the corrupt mental habit of coming up with the most extreme and preposterous scenario possible to justify an existing evil, while paying no attention to the fact that the evil is, right this very moment, being practiced with no criticism from the person fretting about the phantasm that justifies it.
So, for instance, in a country where the Executive has arrogated to himself the power to declare anyone he likes an illegal combatant, detain them for as long as he likes, torture them (and recall that torture means more than that cinematic form known as waterboarding as various dead and innocent men and their families can attest), order court opinions redacted to hide these inconvenient facts, and destroy evidence "in the interest of national security" it is a classic case of sinning by hypotheticals to be living in *that* reality but choose to spend all one's time in a fantasy world asking (as one tongue-in-cheek reader summarizes what he rightly calls the Hopeless Position), "Imagine ten Hitlers, 5 Stalins and 2 Maos rolled into one guy. Yeah, that kind of bad. Surely we can waterboard them, no?"
This sort of stuff, recycled endlessly by the Give Torture a Chance arm of the Ministry of Truth in the Dictatorship of Relativism is like the Catholic for a Free Choice member who stares 1.4 million abortions in the face, averts her eyes, and say, "But suppose you were impregnated by aliens who seeded you with a child you *knew* was going to grow up to be the Antichrist! Surely we can abort *that*, no?" The whole push to figure out *some* way to justify torture in the middle of a culture that doesn't need any help at all welcoming torture is a profound betrayal of the Catholic mission to be salt and light in a dark world.
May I, yet again, direct those who spout this sort of rot to the wisdom of Uncle Screwtape:
And finally, may I urge those who are tempted to cave to this sort of moral-navigation-by-fear to recall what I said here.
Be not conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
This useful term was first coined by Zippy. It refers to the corrupt mental habit of coming up with the most extreme and preposterous scenario possible to justify an existing evil, while paying no attention to the fact that the evil is, right this very moment, being practiced with no criticism from the person fretting about the phantasm that justifies it.
So, for instance, in a country where the Executive has arrogated to himself the power to declare anyone he likes an illegal combatant, detain them for as long as he likes, torture them (and recall that torture means more than that cinematic form known as waterboarding as various dead and innocent men and their families can attest), order court opinions redacted to hide these inconvenient facts, and destroy evidence "in the interest of national security" it is a classic case of sinning by hypotheticals to be living in *that* reality but choose to spend all one's time in a fantasy world asking (as one tongue-in-cheek reader summarizes what he rightly calls the Hopeless Position), "Imagine ten Hitlers, 5 Stalins and 2 Maos rolled into one guy. Yeah, that kind of bad. Surely we can waterboard them, no?"
This sort of stuff, recycled endlessly by the Give Torture a Chance arm of the Ministry of Truth in the Dictatorship of Relativism is like the Catholic for a Free Choice member who stares 1.4 million abortions in the face, averts her eyes, and say, "But suppose you were impregnated by aliens who seeded you with a child you *knew* was going to grow up to be the Antichrist! Surely we can abort *that*, no?" The whole push to figure out *some* way to justify torture in the middle of a culture that doesn't need any help at all welcoming torture is a profound betrayal of the Catholic mission to be salt and light in a dark world.
May I, yet again, direct those who spout this sort of rot to the wisdom of Uncle Screwtape:
The use of fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of the mere "understanding." Cruel ages are put on their guard against sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against respectability, lecherous ones against Puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make liberalism the prime bogey.
And finally, may I urge those who are tempted to cave to this sort of moral-navigation-by-fear to recall what I said here.
Be not conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
And finally.... Thanks!
To all who dropped something in the Tin Cup. We at Chez Shea deeply appreciate your kindness and generosity! God bless you and yours this Advent and Christmas through Our Lord Jesus!
To all who dropped something in the Tin Cup. We at Chez Shea deeply appreciate your kindness and generosity! God bless you and yours this Advent and Christmas through Our Lord Jesus!
As is usual, Rome seems to be sensibly balanced on global warming
It would appear the basic position in Rome is the ancient one: humans should take care of creation--and not be stampeded by fearmongers into crazy scheme aimed at concentrating power into the hand of a few who are eager to oppress the weak and stamp out children in the name of the pagan worship of creation. That, at least, is what I glean from this.
It would appear the basic position in Rome is the ancient one: humans should take care of creation--and not be stampeded by fearmongers into crazy scheme aimed at concentrating power into the hand of a few who are eager to oppress the weak and stamp out children in the name of the pagan worship of creation. That, at least, is what I glean from this.
Garrison Keillor is so good and he makes it look so easy
I like his quirky perspective on the Incarnation:
I like his quirky perspective on the Incarnation:
This magical story is a cornerstone of the Christian faith and I am sorry if it's a big hurdle for the skeptical young. It is to the Church what his Kryptonian heritage was to Clark Kent -- it enables us to stop speeding locomotives and leap tall buildings at a single bound, and also to love our neighbors as ourselves. Without the Nativity, we become a sort of lecture series and coffee club, with not very good coffee and sort of aimless lectures.
On Christmas Eve, the snow on the ground, the stars in the sky, the spruce tree glittering with beloved ornaments, we stand in the dimness and sing about the silent holy night and tears come to our eyes and the vast invisible forces of Christmas stir in the world. Skeptics, stand back. Hush. Hark. There is much in this world that doubt cannot explain.
Russell Shaw argues against the Justice of the Iraq War
Second installment of the Just War debate at Inside Catholic. For obvious reasons, I think he's going to have the stronger case, but we'll see how it goes.
Second installment of the Just War debate at Inside Catholic. For obvious reasons, I think he's going to have the stronger case, but we'll see how it goes.
The Marvelous Power of Rationalization
Latest incoherence from the Ministry of Truth for the Rubber Hose Right: "Hey! It was *only* 35 seconds!"
So: *Because* waterboarding is so terrifying that it can break a man in less than a minute, it is therefore not torture? According to our brutal Vice President, that's exactly right. It's just little "dunking". What does a professional interrogator know when he calls it "torture"?
Meanwhile, a reader is miffed at me because I think that arguments like the ones in response to this comment are pathetically weak rationalizations that only make it easier for ignorant and delusional people to remain that way on the subject of our Administration's embrace of Strength Through War Crimes. I am implored to understand that "people are sincerely conflicted" about torture.
The thing is, I *do* understand that people are "sincerely conflicted". That's because people have been skillfully manipulated into feeling conflicted.
If you stopped the average person in the street on September 10, 2001 and said, "Should it be the policy of the United States to torture people if the President thinks it's a good idea?" you *know* what the answer would have been. Hell NO!
But people have been *taught* over the past few years to be "sincerely conflicted" by apologists for Strength Through War Crimes and shills for the Administration. I recognize that the vast majority of people are thinking about torture (when they happen to do so, which is seldom) in light of "24" and crap fed them by professional crapmeisters who scare people with endless (and completely unreal) ticking time bomb scenarios. My ire is not with the plumber or the soccer mom who has never given the matter much thought beyond, "Yikes! I'd do anything to save my family from the Bad Guys." My ire is with those in the media who have, with calculated malice aforethought (not to mention self-serving abuse of power), worked with might and main to excuse, abet, and aid the Bush Administration with a policy of war crimes that they *know* is torture, that they *know* is shady, and that they strive to cover up with redacted court opinions, lies, and euphemisms. And they have taught us to parrot them.
Supremely, as a member of the media, my grievance, then, is with media types who will not tell the truth about this but will, like (for instance), emit bullshit like "The fact that torture can break a man in a minute proves that it's *not* torture--or that it was necessary--or that, anyway, really is it such a bad thing?--and besides if the President says it's not torture then how could a professional interrogator possibly be right when he says it is?" I am beyond weary with people who sow confusion and then say, "Look! A lot of people are confused about torture! So they are sincerely conflicted and critics of torture should not be so mean to all those poor conflicted souls that have been confused by the lame excuses for torture over the past five years."
My basic point: Of those to whom much is given, much will be required. Of those to whom little is given, little will be required. My beef is much more with the liars and the Conditioners of Public Opinion than with those trusting souls who have been lied to. At the same time, *some*body's got to speak up and stop making excuses for this filth. Would to God more Catholics would do so.
Meanwhile, *as* a Catholic, I go on insisting the Church has very clear guidance that can clear up the "conflict" (wether sincere or not-so-sincere for anybody willing to actually listen to Her.
Here is it is: torture is gravely and intrinsically immoral. Don't do it, support it or excuse it or you risk the everlasting fires of Hell, where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.
Baffled about what O what "torture" could possibly mean, even when a professional interrogator says, "That's torture" and a shill for the torturers simultaneously boasts "Hey! That can break a guy in half a minute! Cool" and demurs "er, and that means it's not really torture but is just 'dunking'"? Curious about how close you can get to torturing somebody without technically precisely exactly, you know, doing it?
A) Learn the Church's elementary teaching about "avoiding near ocassions of sin". If that concept is too complicated for you, try asking a five year old.
B) Once you have talked to the five year old, stop asking how close we can tiptoe to evil and instead start asking, "How do we obey the Church's command to "treat prisoners humanely." Make that your goal and you will not accidently torture anybody.
C) Listen to professional interrogators who tell you that this whole idiotic approach of Strength Through War Crimes is not the way to get good intelligence. Ask yourself, "Golly! Didn't we get actionable intelligence in the past without committing war crimes? Maybe we should do that instead of defending the indefensible!"
Latest incoherence from the Ministry of Truth for the Rubber Hose Right: "Hey! It was *only* 35 seconds!"
So: *Because* waterboarding is so terrifying that it can break a man in less than a minute, it is therefore not torture? According to our brutal Vice President, that's exactly right. It's just little "dunking". What does a professional interrogator know when he calls it "torture"?
Meanwhile, a reader is miffed at me because I think that arguments like the ones in response to this comment are pathetically weak rationalizations that only make it easier for ignorant and delusional people to remain that way on the subject of our Administration's embrace of Strength Through War Crimes. I am implored to understand that "people are sincerely conflicted" about torture.
The thing is, I *do* understand that people are "sincerely conflicted". That's because people have been skillfully manipulated into feeling conflicted.
If you stopped the average person in the street on September 10, 2001 and said, "Should it be the policy of the United States to torture people if the President thinks it's a good idea?" you *know* what the answer would have been. Hell NO!
But people have been *taught* over the past few years to be "sincerely conflicted" by apologists for Strength Through War Crimes and shills for the Administration. I recognize that the vast majority of people are thinking about torture (when they happen to do so, which is seldom) in light of "24" and crap fed them by professional crapmeisters who scare people with endless (and completely unreal) ticking time bomb scenarios. My ire is not with the plumber or the soccer mom who has never given the matter much thought beyond, "Yikes! I'd do anything to save my family from the Bad Guys." My ire is with those in the media who have, with calculated malice aforethought (not to mention self-serving abuse of power), worked with might and main to excuse, abet, and aid the Bush Administration with a policy of war crimes that they *know* is torture, that they *know* is shady, and that they strive to cover up with redacted court opinions, lies, and euphemisms. And they have taught us to parrot them.
Supremely, as a member of the media, my grievance, then, is with media types who will not tell the truth about this but will, like (for instance), emit bullshit like "The fact that torture can break a man in a minute proves that it's *not* torture--or that it was necessary--or that, anyway, really is it such a bad thing?--and besides if the President says it's not torture then how could a professional interrogator possibly be right when he says it is?" I am beyond weary with people who sow confusion and then say, "Look! A lot of people are confused about torture! So they are sincerely conflicted and critics of torture should not be so mean to all those poor conflicted souls that have been confused by the lame excuses for torture over the past five years."
My basic point: Of those to whom much is given, much will be required. Of those to whom little is given, little will be required. My beef is much more with the liars and the Conditioners of Public Opinion than with those trusting souls who have been lied to. At the same time, *some*body's got to speak up and stop making excuses for this filth. Would to God more Catholics would do so.
Meanwhile, *as* a Catholic, I go on insisting the Church has very clear guidance that can clear up the "conflict" (wether sincere or not-so-sincere for anybody willing to actually listen to Her.
Here is it is: torture is gravely and intrinsically immoral. Don't do it, support it or excuse it or you risk the everlasting fires of Hell, where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.
Baffled about what O what "torture" could possibly mean, even when a professional interrogator says, "That's torture" and a shill for the torturers simultaneously boasts "Hey! That can break a guy in half a minute! Cool" and demurs "er, and that means it's not really torture but is just 'dunking'"? Curious about how close you can get to torturing somebody without technically precisely exactly, you know, doing it?
A) Learn the Church's elementary teaching about "avoiding near ocassions of sin". If that concept is too complicated for you, try asking a five year old.
B) Once you have talked to the five year old, stop asking how close we can tiptoe to evil and instead start asking, "How do we obey the Church's command to "treat prisoners humanely." Make that your goal and you will not accidently torture anybody.
C) Listen to professional interrogators who tell you that this whole idiotic approach of Strength Through War Crimes is not the way to get good intelligence. Ask yourself, "Golly! Didn't we get actionable intelligence in the past without committing war crimes? Maybe we should do that instead of defending the indefensible!"
Woman Delivered from Christmas Spirit
These and other whimsical stories available at the Wittenberg Door--"the world's pretty much only Christian satire magazine" (though LarkNews is now giving them a run for their money).
These and other whimsical stories available at the Wittenberg Door--"the world's pretty much only Christian satire magazine" (though LarkNews is now giving them a run for their money).
Never Get on the Bad Side of a Writer
Case in point: the Writer's Strike (you can get some background on it here from the invaluable Barb Nicolosi).
So here's the Bad Guys site: the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers
Now here is the parody site put together by... professional comic writers. Very wickedly funny. I particularly like this FAQ sheet.
Oh, and in case you wonder where I stand:
Case in point: the Writer's Strike (you can get some background on it here from the invaluable Barb Nicolosi).
So here's the Bad Guys site: the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers
Now here is the parody site put together by... professional comic writers. Very wickedly funny. I particularly like this FAQ sheet.
Oh, and in case you wonder where I stand:
They shook The Romish slavery off; and freedom, then, Truly became your birthright - Thomas Cooper, A Paradise of Martyrs, A Faith Rhyme
Here's a little relic of when English Protestants glorious shook off Romish slavery and pronounced liberty to the captive:
Yes, I'm aware of Catholic brutalities. What I want to know though is what the Reformation actually reformed?
I finally concluded that Stanley Hauerwas is basically right:
Read the whole thing. Of course, we Catholics have our own share in the disaster of the "Reformation". But at the end of the day, I think the thing was a classic example of a highly unbalanced reaction that took on a life of its own, stopped being about reform and started being about preserving the reaction. Like all such movements it bred children bent on rebelling against the rebellion, and grandchildren bent on rebelling against the rebellion against the rebellion. Eventually, that sort of enthusiasm ends in utter fatigue. Melville pretty much called the history of the post-"Reformation" West a hundred years ago in these words:
Yes, I'm aware that, in America, Protestantism's devolution into postmodern deconstructionist liberalism has been slowed by the American experience. I am acutely aware of the great vitality and heroism that still inheres in the brave and devout Protestant world. But a brief look at our culture demonstrates that All is Not Well and a great deal is not improving but rapidly degrading. I resonate with C.S. Lewis' description of his place in English culture ("I am a converted pagan living among apostate Puritans"). And the breakup of Evangelicalism is getting closer every day as Emergent continue the tradition of rebellion against Whatever Was Before. It will be, as so much has been already, a confirmation of Chesterton's remark that the world does not progress: it wobbles.
So, sooner or later, it seems to me, it's a good idea to stop making excuses remaining out of full communion with the Church and return home. Everybody has to do that at their own pace and in their own way. John Paul famously said that the Church does not impose, but propose, the gospel. And the day came when, for the life of me, I could not see why the Protest should continue. As a friend of mine put it, "I hit the point where I realized I could be Protestant or Christian, but not both." Mere Protest, for its own sake, is not the gospel.
I will now don my flame retardant underwear. Commence firing! :)
Here's a little relic of when English Protestants glorious shook off Romish slavery and pronounced liberty to the captive:
A private buyer has paid £5,400 at auction for a book alleged to be bound in the skin of a Jesuit priest executed over the 1605 Gunpowder Plot.
The macabre lot, deemed "a bit spooky" by the auctioneer, has the mysterious image of a face on the cover, said to be that of Father Henry Garnet.
Yes, I'm aware of Catholic brutalities. What I want to know though is what the Reformation actually reformed?
I finally concluded that Stanley Hauerwas is basically right:
I must begin by telling you that I do not like to preach on Reformation Sunday. Actually I have to put it more strongly than that. I do not like Reformation Sunday, period. I do no understand why it is part of the church year. Reformation Sunday does not name a happy event for the Church Catholic; on the contrary, it names failure. Of course, the church rightly names failure, or at least horror, as part of our church year. We do, after all, go through crucifixion as part of Holy Week. Certainly if the Reformation is to be narrated rightly, it is to be narrated as part of those dark days.
Reformation names the disunity in which we currently stand. We who remain in the Protestant tradition want to say that Reformation was a success. But when we make Reformation a success, it only ends up killing us. After all, the very name ‘Protestantism’ is meant to denote a reform movement of protest within the Church Catholic. When Protestantism becomes an end in itself, which it certainly has through the mainstream denominations in America, it becomes anathema. If we no longer have broken hearts at the church’s division, then we cannot help but unfaithfully celebrate Reformation Sunday.
For example, note what the Reformation has done for our reading texts like that which we hear from Luke this morning. We Protestants automatically assume that the Pharisees are the Catholics. They are the self-righteous people who have made Christianity a form of legalistic religion, thereby destroying the free grace of the Gospel. We Protestants are the tax collectors, knowing that we are sinners and that our lives depend upon God’s free grace. And therefore we are better than the Catholics because we know they are sinners. What an odd irony that the Reformation made such readings possible. As Protestants we now take pride in the acknowledgement of our sinfulness in order to distinguish ourselves from Catholics who allegedly believe in works-righteousness.
Read the whole thing. Of course, we Catholics have our own share in the disaster of the "Reformation". But at the end of the day, I think the thing was a classic example of a highly unbalanced reaction that took on a life of its own, stopped being about reform and started being about preserving the reaction. Like all such movements it bred children bent on rebelling against the rebellion, and grandchildren bent on rebelling against the rebellion against the rebellion. Eventually, that sort of enthusiasm ends in utter fatigue. Melville pretty much called the history of the post-"Reformation" West a hundred years ago in these words:
Who 's gamed by all the sacrifice
Of Europe's revolutions ? who ?
The Protestant ? the Liberal ?
I do not think it—not at all:
Rome and the Atheist have gained :
These two shall fight it out—these two ;
Protestantism being retained
For base of operations sly
By Atheism.'
Yes, I'm aware that, in America, Protestantism's devolution into postmodern deconstructionist liberalism has been slowed by the American experience. I am acutely aware of the great vitality and heroism that still inheres in the brave and devout Protestant world. But a brief look at our culture demonstrates that All is Not Well and a great deal is not improving but rapidly degrading. I resonate with C.S. Lewis' description of his place in English culture ("I am a converted pagan living among apostate Puritans"). And the breakup of Evangelicalism is getting closer every day as Emergent continue the tradition of rebellion against Whatever Was Before. It will be, as so much has been already, a confirmation of Chesterton's remark that the world does not progress: it wobbles.
So, sooner or later, it seems to me, it's a good idea to stop making excuses remaining out of full communion with the Church and return home. Everybody has to do that at their own pace and in their own way. John Paul famously said that the Church does not impose, but propose, the gospel. And the day came when, for the life of me, I could not see why the Protest should continue. As a friend of mine put it, "I hit the point where I realized I could be Protestant or Christian, but not both." Mere Protest, for its own sake, is not the gospel.
I will now don my flame retardant underwear. Commence firing! :)
A reader writes:
My bag is theology, not econ. But as far as I can tell, the snippet you post is perfectly sound. I see no necessary connection between capitalism and liberty or democracy. Certainly, in the 19th Century capitalism resulted in what was effectively slavery. The fallen human reaction to that slavery was, as is the custom with our race, to create a more profound slavery called communism. The Church's response to both forms of slavery was the great encyclical Rerum Novarum.
So, the heart being desperately wicked and all, I have no trouble seeing the happy fusionism between capitalist and communist materialism and despotism in China. That's because I don't believe economics is the key to freeing the human person: Christ is. With the guidance of a Christian revelation that could, among other things, produce Rerum Novarum and the labor movement, a West that was willing to receive the gospel humanized its brutal economic systems--to a degree. Communism, atheistic by nature, refused.
However, the West is now laboring to get out from under the yoke of Christianity--and so will inevitably become a system of slavery too if it succeeds. Because only Christ is the source of liberty.
On the other hand, China is rapidly Christianizing. So we may be in for some surprises if the Chinese really let the implications of the gospel shape their society. I doubt I will live to see it. But it could be very interesting.
This is a bit dated (a couple months old) but given some of your comments cautioning against the whole hearted endorsement of a free market religion or dogma I thought it might interest you.
My favorite snippet:"America must disenthrall itself from one of its most cherished myths: that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, that the spread of markets inevitably means the coming of democracy."
Yikes, do American Catholics get this?
As a Catholic businessman (federal contracting) I admit I'm pretty much a neophyte as far as having a well developed Catholic economic philosophy or outlook. I pretty much live and function in the machine like a good, well paid cog. . . profitability first.
I do have a bit of an acidic reaction towards some of the thinking that is fostered at Acton Institute and other apologists for a capitialist catholicism. Er, or is it a catholic capitalism. Anyway, I don't need an enabler, I need salt, (I suppose that's my responsibility too, huh). My thought: the free market ain't so free.
I'm looking forward to getting into the Pope's latest encyclical as it seems pretty relevant. Seems to me our last Pope had to warn against a socialist materialism while our current Pope has to warn against a capitalist-consummerism materialism. Two heads of the same beast, I guess. Which makes China an awfully curious exhibit.
My bag is theology, not econ. But as far as I can tell, the snippet you post is perfectly sound. I see no necessary connection between capitalism and liberty or democracy. Certainly, in the 19th Century capitalism resulted in what was effectively slavery. The fallen human reaction to that slavery was, as is the custom with our race, to create a more profound slavery called communism. The Church's response to both forms of slavery was the great encyclical Rerum Novarum.
So, the heart being desperately wicked and all, I have no trouble seeing the happy fusionism between capitalist and communist materialism and despotism in China. That's because I don't believe economics is the key to freeing the human person: Christ is. With the guidance of a Christian revelation that could, among other things, produce Rerum Novarum and the labor movement, a West that was willing to receive the gospel humanized its brutal economic systems--to a degree. Communism, atheistic by nature, refused.
However, the West is now laboring to get out from under the yoke of Christianity--and so will inevitably become a system of slavery too if it succeeds. Because only Christ is the source of liberty.
On the other hand, China is rapidly Christianizing. So we may be in for some surprises if the Chinese really let the implications of the gospel shape their society. I doubt I will live to see it. But it could be very interesting.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us!
Our Lady is the Patroness of America, so it never hurts to ask her prayers. Thanks so much, Mama, for the roses!
On the off chance you don't know the story of Our Lady of Guadalupe, go here.
Our Lady is the Patroness of America, so it never hurts to ask her prayers. Thanks so much, Mama, for the roses!
On the off chance you don't know the story of Our Lady of Guadalupe, go here.
Green Christmas
My latest on Catholic Exchange, in which a Western Washingtonian assesses whether or not we get a raw deal in the weather department at Christmas.
My latest on Catholic Exchange, in which a Western Washingtonian assesses whether or not we get a raw deal in the weather department at Christmas.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Good Morning! It's Day 7 of the Quarterly Catholic and Enjoying It! Tin Cup Rattle
My thanks to you for your support. Please help this Tin Cup Rattle go out with a real bang by clicking on the PayPal button to the left.
Of course, you can still buy my books and tapes too (albeit by email till my site--currently the victim of an evil webhost that went out of business and flew the coop--comes back on line. And if you'd rather not do the PayPal thang, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Thanks again for all your generosity to us as we struggle to meet the bills another month!
My thanks to you for your support. Please help this Tin Cup Rattle go out with a real bang by clicking on the PayPal button to the left.
Of course, you can still buy my books and tapes too (albeit by email till my site--currently the victim of an evil webhost that went out of business and flew the coop--comes back on line. And if you'd rather not do the PayPal thang, feel free to email me and ask for my snailmail address. I'll happily take a check instead.
Thanks again for all your generosity to us as we struggle to meet the bills another month!
The Beginning of a Debate Between Robert Reilly and Russell Shaw on the Justice of the Iraq War
Reilly opens with the affirmative position: the war was just.
Should be interesting.
Reilly opens with the affirmative position: the war was just.
Should be interesting.
As I've mentioned before...
...each Christian tradition has its own peculiar odor of sanctity and it's own peculiar stench of corruption. A good Evangelical is good like Billy Graham or William Wilberforce, not like John Paul or C.S. Lewis or Solzhenitsyn. A bad Episcopalian smells like John Shelby Spong or Gene Robinson, not like Jimmy Swaggart or Heinrich Himmler. (Though with ecumenism, bad Catholics have, at least in this country, come to smell more and more like rotting Episcopalians such as our Anglo-Muslim priestette who teaches New Testament at our local "university in the Jesuit tradition".
Here's a loopy group of Christians that give off a weird smell you could only find in rotting Orthodoxy.
...each Christian tradition has its own peculiar odor of sanctity and it's own peculiar stench of corruption. A good Evangelical is good like Billy Graham or William Wilberforce, not like John Paul or C.S. Lewis or Solzhenitsyn. A bad Episcopalian smells like John Shelby Spong or Gene Robinson, not like Jimmy Swaggart or Heinrich Himmler. (Though with ecumenism, bad Catholics have, at least in this country, come to smell more and more like rotting Episcopalians such as our Anglo-Muslim priestette who teaches New Testament at our local "university in the Jesuit tradition".
Here's a loopy group of Christians that give off a weird smell you could only find in rotting Orthodoxy.
IVF: To Breed a Race of Brights!
Here's the Hoped-for Product:
Because Western parents have a *right* to superior children, no matter how many human beings have to be killed to get them!
Here's the Hoped-for Product:
Because Western parents have a *right* to superior children, no matter how many human beings have to be killed to get them!
Oh. So. True.
Over at Rod Dreher's blog, this valuable insight has been formulated:
For instance...
Over at Rod Dreher's blog, this valuable insight has been formulated:
Manning's Corollary:
In any online conversation about an incident of violence perpetrated by adherents of Islamic fundamentalism, the conversation will inevitably devolve into claims that Christians commit the same type and degree of violent acts, regardless of how demonstrably false that is; further, the claim will be made that past historical violence involving Christians means that present-day Christians are morally incapable of denouncing current violence involving Muslims.
For instance...
I agree with Sherry
Sherry's post reminds me of a suggestion somebody made recently, and that reminds me of one of the more dreadful curses in the Psalms: a curse I begin to understand.
"May his memory be cut off from the earth."
I think it would be a very good thing to simply stop speaking the names of these monsters who commit outrages. Have you ever noticed how fond the media is of blaring, not just their names, but their full names (Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, Charles Joseph Whitman). I think it would be great if, beyond the duties of reporting the facts (name, age, place of residence) the news, and our culture, would simply cease to name these monsters. They want infamy, give them oblivion.
By the same token, our media that relishes "if it bleeds, it leads" news has the memory of a fruit fly when it comes to the victims of these massacres. The Mighty Favog struggles to remind us that the suffering in Omaha has not ceased merely because our Attention Deficit Disordered media bustled off in search of the next wave of carnage. Nor has the honorable memory of brave men like John McDonald. May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Sherry's post reminds me of a suggestion somebody made recently, and that reminds me of one of the more dreadful curses in the Psalms: a curse I begin to understand.
"May his memory be cut off from the earth."
I think it would be a very good thing to simply stop speaking the names of these monsters who commit outrages. Have you ever noticed how fond the media is of blaring, not just their names, but their full names (Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, Charles Joseph Whitman). I think it would be great if, beyond the duties of reporting the facts (name, age, place of residence) the news, and our culture, would simply cease to name these monsters. They want infamy, give them oblivion.
By the same token, our media that relishes "if it bleeds, it leads" news has the memory of a fruit fly when it comes to the victims of these massacres. The Mighty Favog struggles to remind us that the suffering in Omaha has not ceased merely because our Attention Deficit Disordered media bustled off in search of the next wave of carnage. Nor has the honorable memory of brave men like John McDonald. May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Mitt Romney on Mormonism
A nice little parsing of the usual stuff Mormons say. When people ask me if Mormonism is Christian, I generally say, "It depends on what you mean." It's not a Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist heresy. So that extent it's "Christian", just as Arianism was. But the whole point is that it *is* a heresy. It's polytheistic in direct contradiction to all historic Christian faith. It is a bunch of human lies (peculiarly early 19th Century American in flavor, full of bogus King James English, special glasses, and other rubbish from the Wizard of Oz) cobbled together with bits and pieces of Christianity and held together with spit, chicken wire, and family values.
Historically, we've had any number of Presidents who evinced little or no Christian faith, including great ones like Jefferson and Lincoln. Truman was a Mason and did okay. We've also had dogs like Carter and Bush II and second stringers like Kennedy who were believing Christians. So I see no special corrolary between a man's competence to do his office as President and his religious affiliation. But at the same time, I do see a corollary between a man's ability to do his office and his ability to be honest and I regard Romney's attempts to gloss over the relationship of Mormonism to Christianity (and the relationship of himself to Mormonism) as shady, much as I regarded Kennedy's attempt to say "We have no king but Caesar" as a disastrous departure for Catholic politicians.
A nice little parsing of the usual stuff Mormons say. When people ask me if Mormonism is Christian, I generally say, "It depends on what you mean." It's not a Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist heresy. So that extent it's "Christian", just as Arianism was. But the whole point is that it *is* a heresy. It's polytheistic in direct contradiction to all historic Christian faith. It is a bunch of human lies (peculiarly early 19th Century American in flavor, full of bogus King James English, special glasses, and other rubbish from the Wizard of Oz) cobbled together with bits and pieces of Christianity and held together with spit, chicken wire, and family values.
Historically, we've had any number of Presidents who evinced little or no Christian faith, including great ones like Jefferson and Lincoln. Truman was a Mason and did okay. We've also had dogs like Carter and Bush II and second stringers like Kennedy who were believing Christians. So I see no special corrolary between a man's competence to do his office as President and his religious affiliation. But at the same time, I do see a corollary between a man's ability to do his office and his ability to be honest and I regard Romney's attempts to gloss over the relationship of Mormonism to Christianity (and the relationship of himself to Mormonism) as shady, much as I regarded Kennedy's attempt to say "We have no king but Caesar" as a disastrous departure for Catholic politicians.
Remember When...
...apologists for torture in the media assured us that it was purely for the sake of our safety and, like Denethor, assured us was not to be used except at the "uttermost end of need."
That, for instance, was the pitch Linda Chavez made a few years ago, when she pretended to ask "what *is* torture anyway?" and, by the end of her column, was already demanding that "squeamish" people shut up and acquiesce to torture. But not to worry:
That, if you will remember, was *why* we had all those ticking time bomb scenarios swirling around (ticking time bombs that don't actually exist in real life). The whole claim was torture, while regrettable, was what you *have* to do sometimes to save LA from Jack Bauer's latest villain at the uttermost end of need.
However, times have now changed, as Bryan at Hot Air demonstrates with this revealing remark:
Ah! So the torture of a prisoner who gave us worse-than-worthless "intelligence" was not, then, really about getting intelligence, but about, well, torturing an animal. I appreciate his candor about the real motivation behind the torture apologists (namely, vengeance). But I doubt that's what he meant to reveal. However, as our Lord says, out of the fullness off the heart, the mouth speaks.
In case you are among those who still insist, at this late date, in wondering whether we "really" torture people, it may be worth noting that one of the torturers himself says, in essence, "Get a clue. Of course we torture--and it works!" That means that apologists for torture have a little problem: either the CIA guy is lying when he says "We torture" or President Bush is lying when he says "We do not torture."
By the way, the CIA guy also says that everything was very closely monitored and approved up the chain of command. Indeed, according to him, the president absolutely knew and approved of the waterboarding. President Bush personally authorized the torture of a prisoner, via the Deputy Director for Operations of the CIA. So the whole "few bad apples" lie that was deployed after Abu Ghraib is defunct if this perfectly credible witness is to be believed.
Of course, consequentialists eager to evade this gaping hole in the President's credibility will (like the CIA guy himself) quickly shift the conversation to the Brutal Realism argument and say that what the Church calls an instrinsically and gravely immoral act is "necessary". Prescinding from the fact that this act of dissent from the Magisterium is, perhaps, understandable in a non-Catholic but inexcusable in a Catholic, I have to ask "How do we know it was 'necessary'? Because the CIA guy trying to salve his conscience and justify his actions says so?"
Ahem: The torture of Zubaydah resulted in this valuable chicken-with-its-head-cut-off panic on the part of the Administration:
And that's the thing about Bush/Cheneyesque "brutal realism" as distinct from the gospel demand for truth. Such realism winds up being unrealistic, because a culture of death is a culture of fear, not a culture of truth. Sin is not realistic. That's why it makes you stupid, not to mention full of Hot Air.
...apologists for torture in the media assured us that it was purely for the sake of our safety and, like Denethor, assured us was not to be used except at the "uttermost end of need."
That, for instance, was the pitch Linda Chavez made a few years ago, when she pretended to ask "what *is* torture anyway?" and, by the end of her column, was already demanding that "squeamish" people shut up and acquiesce to torture. But not to worry:
McCarthy suggests we need to create "controlled, highly regulated, and responsibly accountable conditions" to obtain information from enemy combatants. "Under such a system, the government would have to apply to a federal court for permission to administer a predetermined form of non-lethal torture," McCarthy argues.
That, if you will remember, was *why* we had all those ticking time bomb scenarios swirling around (ticking time bombs that don't actually exist in real life). The whole claim was torture, while regrettable, was what you *have* to do sometimes to save LA from Jack Bauer's latest villain at the uttermost end of need.
However, times have now changed, as Bryan at Hot Air demonstrates with this revealing remark:
"It’s obvious in retrospect that the waterboarding of animals like Zubaydah was an exercise in restraint, not an orgy of mistreatment."
Ah! So the torture of a prisoner who gave us worse-than-worthless "intelligence" was not, then, really about getting intelligence, but about, well, torturing an animal. I appreciate his candor about the real motivation behind the torture apologists (namely, vengeance). But I doubt that's what he meant to reveal. However, as our Lord says, out of the fullness off the heart, the mouth speaks.
In case you are among those who still insist, at this late date, in wondering whether we "really" torture people, it may be worth noting that one of the torturers himself says, in essence, "Get a clue. Of course we torture--and it works!" That means that apologists for torture have a little problem: either the CIA guy is lying when he says "We torture" or President Bush is lying when he says "We do not torture."
By the way, the CIA guy also says that everything was very closely monitored and approved up the chain of command. Indeed, according to him, the president absolutely knew and approved of the waterboarding. President Bush personally authorized the torture of a prisoner, via the Deputy Director for Operations of the CIA. So the whole "few bad apples" lie that was deployed after Abu Ghraib is defunct if this perfectly credible witness is to be believed.
Of course, consequentialists eager to evade this gaping hole in the President's credibility will (like the CIA guy himself) quickly shift the conversation to the Brutal Realism argument and say that what the Church calls an instrinsically and gravely immoral act is "necessary". Prescinding from the fact that this act of dissent from the Magisterium is, perhaps, understandable in a non-Catholic but inexcusable in a Catholic, I have to ask "How do we know it was 'necessary'? Because the CIA guy trying to salve his conscience and justify his actions says so?"
Ahem: The torture of Zubaydah resulted in this valuable chicken-with-its-head-cut-off panic on the part of the Administration:
Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be....Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics...
Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?"
Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety — against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each...target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."
And that's the thing about Bush/Cheneyesque "brutal realism" as distinct from the gospel demand for truth. Such realism winds up being unrealistic, because a culture of death is a culture of fear, not a culture of truth. Sin is not realistic. That's why it makes you stupid, not to mention full of Hot Air.
That'll teach you to think I know everything
A reader writes:
Beat's me.
A reader writes:
You know everything. A guy, who thinks that I know everything, came up
to me today and asked me a question. In the movie "The Greatest Story
Ever Told", when Jesus enters or exits the temple, he touches a specific
block on the wall and says a few words (prayer?) to Himself. What is he
doing?
Beat's me.
Li'l Jeffy Overstreet (picture him there with upturned face full of wonder) has a magical Christmas wish come true
It's just like in the movies!
Ahem:
We will leave the cubicle dwellers at the USCCB to concoct delicately worded reasons for withdrawing the review. Could it be that Forbes "wants to spend more time with his family"? No, that's what Congressmen say when they suddenly retire. Maybe we'll be treated to the "We have all learned in these past few days what a dreadful thing atheism and the sexual recruitment of children is." Except that I thought we heard remarkably similar language from them just a few years ago. Are they *still* learning that? Doesn't Scripture have something to say about those who are ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth? (2 Timothy 3:1-7)
Anyhow, whatever the mysterious reason for the withdrawal of the review...
...I'm glad that Young Master Overstreet got his Special Christmas Miracle. So are a lot of other people.
The only thing that would make this special Christmas miracle complete would be if they withdrew, not just the review, but the whole office for film review. It would be a special Christmas gift to all of us not to have our tithe monies go toward an office Overstreet describes this way:
That's the thing. This is a job for the laity, not the bishop's office. There are lay Catholic film critics out there, doing this work, none better than Steven Greydanus. So why not leave it to them? Since the job of the bishop is to equip the saints, not do their work for them, it seems to me they would be far better employed helping somebody like Greydanus get syndicated in their diocesan papers across the country than by butting into this essentially lay function with their own third-rate office of film reviews.
Not that bishops don't have a right to an opinion about the film. Here, for instance, is Abp. Chaput's astute review. But what we don't need is a whole office, funded by us, where reviews as clueless as the ones for the Golden Compass and Brokeback Mountain are fed to an unsuspecting soccer mom who is looking for something to do with her kids on Saturday afternoon. Close the office, devote the funding to something useful, and encourage diocesan papers to pick up Greydanus or some other good reviewer.
It's just like in the movies!
Ahem:
Today the U.S. bishops withdrew the review of the film “The Golden Compass,” which opened in theaters in the United States Dec. 7. The review was written by Harry Forbes and John Mulderig, the director and staff reviewer respectively of the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The review was released and posted on the CNS Web site Nov. 29. The USCCB gave no reason for withdrawing the review.
We will leave the cubicle dwellers at the USCCB to concoct delicately worded reasons for withdrawing the review. Could it be that Forbes "wants to spend more time with his family"? No, that's what Congressmen say when they suddenly retire. Maybe we'll be treated to the "We have all learned in these past few days what a dreadful thing atheism and the sexual recruitment of children is." Except that I thought we heard remarkably similar language from them just a few years ago. Are they *still* learning that? Doesn't Scripture have something to say about those who are ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth? (2 Timothy 3:1-7)
Anyhow, whatever the mysterious reason for the withdrawal of the review...
...I'm glad that Young Master Overstreet got his Special Christmas Miracle. So are a lot of other people.
The only thing that would make this special Christmas miracle complete would be if they withdrew, not just the review, but the whole office for film review. It would be a special Christmas gift to all of us not to have our tithe monies go toward an office Overstreet describes this way:
I’ve been reading the USCCB’s reviews for a decade now, more out of curiosity than anything, wondering if there will ever be a day where I am actually impressed or enlightened by one of them. I’m still waiting. I find wiser Christian-perspective interpretations and more challenging artistic analysis on fanboy chat rooms than I do in the reviews published by the Catholic News Service. And I don’t know that I’ve ever come away from one of Greydanus’s reviews unimpressed.
That's the thing. This is a job for the laity, not the bishop's office. There are lay Catholic film critics out there, doing this work, none better than Steven Greydanus. So why not leave it to them? Since the job of the bishop is to equip the saints, not do their work for them, it seems to me they would be far better employed helping somebody like Greydanus get syndicated in their diocesan papers across the country than by butting into this essentially lay function with their own third-rate office of film reviews.
Not that bishops don't have a right to an opinion about the film. Here, for instance, is Abp. Chaput's astute review. But what we don't need is a whole office, funded by us, where reviews as clueless as the ones for the Golden Compass and Brokeback Mountain are fed to an unsuspecting soccer mom who is looking for something to do with her kids on Saturday afternoon. Close the office, devote the funding to something useful, and encourage diocesan papers to pick up Greydanus or some other good reviewer.
Two from the Zipmeister
First, for all those who will endure airline hell over the Holidays:
Second, just cuz it's funny:
First, for all those who will endure airline hell over the Holidays:
Second, just cuz it's funny:
Monday, December 10, 2007
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. To all who have helped, not only me but my wife, our dentist, our kids, our dentist, our doctor, our dentist, our mortgage company and our dentist really appreciate it--though not as much as I do. However, we have two more days to go and can use 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 CAEI can stay on the air and a roof stay over the kids heads this winter. 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. Listen to your shoulder angel, "C'mon, do the right thing! You *love* this blog! Where else can you get snippets of Behold Your Mother for free?"
We're in the Home Stretch of the Great Winter Drive. To all who have helped, not only me but my wife, our dentist, our kids, our dentist, our doctor, our dentist, our mortgage company and our dentist really appreciate it--though not as much as I do. However, we have two more days to go and can use 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 CAEI can stay on the air and a roof stay over the kids heads this winter. 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. Listen to your shoulder angel, "C'mon, do the right thing! You *love* this blog! Where else can you get snippets of Behold Your Mother for free?"
I can't help much here, but maybe one of you can
A reader writes:
A reader writes:
Can I ask you to unleash the power of the Blog on the behalf of my college friend Jose Urquilla? Below is the text of the email his roommates just sent out. Jose has been studying International Affairs at CUA, worked for the Brownback campaign, and is just an all around great guy...my heart bleeds to think of him in this situation. Please ask for prayers and, should anyone feel called, donations to help him and his family in this difficult time.Brothers and Sisters,
We have a brother in a lot of distress right now. Jose's father passed away on Monday night. He died of a heart attack after spending a month and a half in the hospital. Jose flew home to El Salvador Tuesday morning. Please pray for Jose and his family.
Jose has always had financial needs, but now they are very pressing. He is responsible for providing the money for his father's hospital bills. When he applied for a loan to cover them, the private lender he has been borrowing from to go to grad school said that he would not be able to also get a loan to cover his grad school expenses next semester. Which is how he stays in the United States, on a student visa. He must also pay the funeral expenses. And the cost of flying home. His family's needs that have gone unmet while his Dad was in the hospital. And now he is left as the only one to support his mother and younger sister.
We are all members of one body. Now we have an opportunity to help bear some of Jose's burdens, in love. Daniel Son and I are coordinating the efforts to ease Jose's financial burden. We cannot bring his father back, but we can help bear this burden on this shoulders.
As Jose's roommate, I think it is very important that we do this anonymously. I've gotten the impression, based on times that I have given him money in the past, that he feels like he is imposing on his friends when he has to ask for money. I believe we can most bless Jose by giving him the money anonymously, letting him know that his brothers and sisters are caring for and support him without knowing who it came from or how much he owes to any individual person. Danielson got Jose's bank account information from him before he left, and we can deposit checks made out to him in it without him ever knowing who it came from.
Anyone who wants to give Jose and his family money can write a check to him and get it to either of us, or mail it to one of us as the Jonathan House (320 East Capitol St NE, Washington, DC 20003).
Rather than just having money appear in his bank account, we should also write him cards and letters expressing our love and support. It would bless him if he came back to D.C. to know and feel the love of his brothers and sisters. Like any financial contributions, just get letters and cards to Danielson or myself, or mail them to the JHouse, and I'll put them on his dresser for when he returns.
If anyone has the contact information for any of Jose's friends from grad school, Ave Maria, Brownback's office, Witherspoon, or anyone else who would like to help, please forward this message to them.
I totally trust people who want to cannibalize human beings and so should you
Once again, we discover that those who are willing to defy the law of God might even think to ignore the laws of man. Murder *could* lead to conflict of interest and, by gradual degrees, might even cause a person to sink as low as fibbing.
Scrambling to deal with their second conflict-of-interest snafu in three weeks, officials at California's stem-cell institute said Friday they have rejected 10 new applications for research grants because some of its board members wrote in support of the grants.
Once again, we discover that those who are willing to defy the law of God might even think to ignore the laws of man. Murder *could* lead to conflict of interest and, by gradual degrees, might even cause a person to sink as low as fibbing.