A reader writes

Another Fellow Adopted Brother of Christ, Fran Porretto, writes an interesting post that, in some ways--and whether he meant it or not--has some bearing on the coming season of Lent:

Ritual Denigrations

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.

Something else--something that's been bothering me about your blog for some time:
Is it too much to ask that whenever you write about someone discussing important *practical* matters--say, for *example,* matters of economics, or policies the government pursues with regard to the WoT--that you not so *casually* dismiss the viewpoints by simply sneering/scoffing that the author is merely a "worshipper of Mammon" (in discussions of economics) or a "worshipper of caesar" (in discussions of WoT policies). It really isn't fair of you, Mr. Shea. Among the things that're to the eternal credit of Our Lord is that He *always* gave an intelligent answer/reply/ to a question--even a mere rhetorical or insincere one. He didn't *just* sneer/scoff. Can you at least give some indication that you actually *understand* what the author (you're criticizing) is saying?

I find it hard to believe that no one else has reproached you for this. But just in case, I thought to let you know.

Anyway, looking forward to what you have to say about Mr. Porretto's essay. Thanks.

Gentle Reader:

Go back and read over this letter, then come back and I will give you a little tour of What It's Like Being Me. I'll wait here.

Everyday, I am flooded with emails and links from various people. Sometimes they want my comments on an article. Sometimes they want to tell me what a jerk I am. Only rarely, however, do I get emails saying, "Please take time out of your busy day to comment on this link and, by the way, here's what I don't like about you." Thanks for economizing on electrons like that. What a delightful way to start the week.

As to the link, I think the guy is basically right with respect to Augustine's counsel to "Love and do as you please." I also think he's badly misreading the Church's tradition of asceticism in a fairly typical suburban way. If we really follow his advice, I don't think there would be any asceticism in the Church at all. Lent clearly contradicts this counsel, as does the One upon whom Lent is modeled: Christ in the desert. Porretto's picture of the Christian life is way too comfy and suburban. Yes, there have been excesses of asceticism in the Church's members. But the notion that this was particularly encouraged by the Church or that it was about the notion that "worldly pleasures compete with devotion to the Church" is bunk. The focus was on complete devotion to *God*. And it was usually taken up from the grass roots, not imposed by the hierarchy. The Prophet Chesterton speaks to this suburban misreading of the Church's ascetic tradition in St. Thomas Aquinas: the Dumb Ox:

St. Thomas, like other monks, and especially other saints, lived a life of renunciation and austerity; his fasts, for instance, being in marked contrast to the luxury in which he might have lived if he chose. This element stands high in his religion, as a manner of asserting the will against the power of nature, of thanking the Redeemer by partially sharing his sufferings, of making a man ready for anything as a missionary or martyr, and similar ideals. These happen to be rare in the modern industrial society of the West, outside his communion; and it is therefore assumed that they are the whole meaning of that communion. Because it is uncommon for an alderman to fast for forty days, or a politician to take a Trappist vow of silence, or a man about town to live a life of strict celibacy, the average outsider is convinced, not only that Catholicism is nothing except asceticism, but that asceticism is nothing except pessimism. He is so obliging as to explain to Catholics why they hold this heroic virtue in respect; and is ever ready to point out that the philosophy behind it is an Oriental hatred of anything connected with Nature, and a purely Schopenhauerian disgust with the Will to Live. I read in a "high-class" review of Miss Rebecca West's book on St.. Augustine, the astounding statement that the Catholic Church regards sex as having the nature of sin. How marriage can be a sacrament if sex is a sin, or why it is the Catholics who are in favour of birth and their foes who are in favour of birth-control, I will leave the critic to worry out for himself. My concern is not with that part of the argument; but with another.

The ordinary modern critic, seeing this ascetic ideal in an authoritative Church, and not seeing it in most other inhabitants of Brixton or Brighton, is apt to say, "This is the result of Authority; it would be better to have Religion without Authority." But in truth, a wider experience outside Brixton or Brighton would reveal the mistake. It is rare to find a fasting alderman or a Trappist politician, but it is still more rare to see nuns suspended in the air on hooks or spikes; it is unusual for a Catholic Evidence Guild orator in Hyde Park to begin his speech by gashing himself all over with knives; a stranger calling at an ordinary presbytery will seldom find the parish priest lying on the floor with a fire lighted on his chest and scorching him while he utters spiritual ejaculations. Yet all these things are done all over Asia, for instance, by voluntary enthusiasts acting solely on the great impulse of Religion; of Religion, in their case, not commonly imposed by any immediate Authority; and certainly not imposed by this particular Authority. In short, a real knowledge of mankind will tell anybody that Religion is a very terrible thing; that it is truly a raging fire, and that Authority is often quite as much needed to restrain it as to impose it. Asceticism, or the war with the appetites, is itself an appetite. It can never be eliminated from among the strange ambitions of Man. But it can be kept in some reasonable control; and it is indulged in much saner proportion under Catholic Authority than in Pagan or Puritan anarchy. Meanwhile, the whole of this ideal, though an essential part of Catholic idealism when it is understood, is in some ways entirely a side issue. It is not the primary principle of Catholic philosophy; it is only a particular deduction from Catholic ethics. And when we begin to talk about primary philosophy, we realise the full and flat contradiction between the monk fasting and the fakir hanging himself on hooks.

So much for the link. As to your complaint about me, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't believe I've ever claimed that proponents of the War on Terror are Mammon-First Conservatives. That would be rather self-defeating since I am a proponent of the War on Terror, just not of the War in Iraq. I can't for the life of me see that supporting the war on Terror necessarily has anything to do with Mammon-First conservatism. Similarly, I don't think somebody who supports the War necessarily worships Caesar (though I suppose there are people out there who are willing to give the State the power to do anything if it will promise to keep them safe, which is a form of Caesar-worship). Indeed, I would argue that many who *oppose* the War are prone to worship Caesar (so long as Caesar pursues a Leftist agenda). I have tweaked one writer for excommunicating Rod Dreher from the ranks of conservatism for the crime of writing Crunchy Cons and saying that God and family were more important than profit and bigness and power. But that was essentially playing defense against one conservative's absurd act of aggression.

Your note reads to me like a sort of hand-waving complaint. It's short on details and long a hazy sense of grievance. Could you give me details and documentation to back up your complaint? I do think there are roughly two main schools of thought among conservatives: there are conservatives who think God gave us freedom so we could practice virtue (i.e. Love God and neighbor, especially family) and those who think we have freedom (where it comes from is an open question) so that we can be left alone to do what we want, particularly get rich and acquire power. I'm basically in the first camp. I very seldom have remarked on who, if anybody, I think is in the second.