CC LII

Catholic Carnival Fifty-Two is up here!

"Slouching Towards Miers: Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values"

That's the title of Robert Bork's op-ed at OpinionJournal today.

Ouch!

Theologically illiterate

It's deeply unfortunate and a bit embarassing when someone who thinks they know something about something doesn't know much about that something, but still takes up bully pulpits made available to them in order to (unintentionally) reveal their ignorance.

As with pretty much all somethings, this happens in matters theological and ecclesial, from all sorts of perspectives. Because of google news alert, today I found an example of this from a self-described progressive Catholic.

Writing in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, freelance writer Maureen Conners Badding explained why some "progressive Catholics" have spiritual fatigue.

It's all because of that oppressive and stuck-in-the-past hierarchy, you see. A hierarchy which (here comes the list of standard complaints):

• refuses to ordain married men or women;
• equates homosexuality with pedophilia;
• refuses to allow the use of condoms to try to prevent the spread of AIDS;
• prohibits birth control;
• migrates away from Vatican II;
• opposes yoga;
• prohibits most forms of fertility treatment.

Ms. Conners Badding at one point (with regard to the final complaint) states, "Frankly, I have no idea if this is a new policy, because I've never heard it discussed at Sunday Mass."

That pretty much says it all. Ms. Conners Badding doesn't appear to have spent much time investigating the Church's rationale for its teachings, apart from what she hears in Sunday morning homilies. And frankly, that's pretty evident from her complaints. In some cases, she makes straightforward mistakes (e.g. positing that the Church equates homosexuality and pedophilia). In others, she is more basically unaware of the respective theological argumentation and discussion. For instance, she makes the oft-repeated call for the ordination of married men and women, ostensibly to solve a clergy shortage. Now, those in the know know that the shortage is not universal, even in our country; there are many dioceses here (and in other nations) that are doing quite well in vocations. Furthermore, one need only have some basic awareness of the state of ministry in other communities to know that opening up the ministry in the manner Ms. Conners Badding would prefer has done nothing to alleviate their clergy shortage.

She also claims that the Church has moved away from Vatican II. Based on her editorial, I seriously doubt that she has ever read the conciliar texts, nor that she has much more than a rudimentary understanding of the Council. If she did, she would know that Pope Benedict was an important theologian at the Council, and that he (like his predecessor) have often called for a full and complete implementation of the Council's vision. To state that the Church is moving away from the Council simply betrays her ignorance of that momentous event.

Much more could be said about the specific errors in this article, but there are two broad comments I'd like to conclude with.

First, Ms. Conners Badding's article indicates that rather than form her conscience and faith according to the teachings of the Church in order to serve and evangelize our society (as Vatican II intended [cf. The Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity for starters]), she has formed her faith and conscience according to secular standards and has (attempted to) judge her church on that basis. That is, she's got it backwards. I've seen this far too often: people use their own standards of right and wrong (thinking that those standards are self-evident, when in fact that are profoundly problematic) to judge the Church. Such an attitude is many things, but Catholic it is not.

Second, Ms. Conners Badding evidently does not believe what the Church believes about its identity. The Catholic Church claims that it was founded by Jesus Himself, and that He has sent the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from teaching error. In other words, the Church's self-understanding is that her teachings are true, not because of the genius of the hiearchy, but because of the grace and mercy of God.

Ms. Conners Badding obviously does not believe this about the Church. My question to her would be simple: then why be Catholic? Why bother belonging to a religious community if its teachings are not God's teachings? Struggling with particular teachings is one thing; a Catholic failing to believe that the her own Church's teachings come from Jesus is something else entirely.

My prayer and request is that anyone who struggles with a particular church teaching do two things: first, remember and rejoice in the fact that the Church is protected by the Spirit from error; and two, spend some time in prayer and study to better understand whatever teaching bothers them.

New Permalink: Ressourcement ~ Restoration in Catholic Theology

Run by Justin Nickelsen, this blog focuses on the work of theologians like Henri de Lubac, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Jean Danielou, etc.

Justin's been around for a bit now, but I'm just getting around to reading him regularly and (finally) linking him.

SJV in St. Paul

There's a great article in the Star Tribune (yes, the Strib!) about St. John Vianney college seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. It's the place we send most of our college sems and it's great to see such an outstanding article.

"A treasure offered to us"

Today marks the 43rd anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, an event which Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI viewed as a providential event and a gift to the Church in our time.

Let us pray that all the people of the Church respond to the call of both popes for for the full and complete implementation of this Council.

CC LI

Catholic Carnival 51 is up! Check it out!

Cool!

Julius Erving joined Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) in urging the Senate to pass a bill that would speed research on umbilical cord blood stem cells.

Way to go, Dr. J!

Who is the god of this world?

I'm prepping for a presentation for next week's Theology on Tap; on a fit of insanity, I decided that I'd give a presentation called "Finding God in Katrina" in which I'd tackle the problem of evil and suffering insofar as it relates to and impacts on faith.

First and foremost, I don't feel equal to this task; please pray for me.

Second, part of my research is David Bentley Hart's excellent work The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? In the course of the text, he discusses the dual usage of "the world" in the New Testament, especially in John's Gospel. In so doing, he references 2 Corinthians 4:4, which refers to "ho theos tou aionos toutou": the god of this world. Guess who that is, according to Paul? Satan!

Just a helpful reminder that we live and participate in a constant struggle, a spiritual warfare.

"Alla tharseite, ego nenikeka tou kosmon": But take heart! [Jesus has] conquered the world!

Miers

Some people are wondering what I think about the Harriet Miers nomination.

With many (all?) conservatives, I'm disappointed. There were better candidates, and I wish the President was more willing to go outside his circle of comfort. My desire was for a serious intellectual candidate who could challenge the prevailing philosophies in the legal world. I don't think that's Harriet Miers.

But I do believe the President when he says she shares his judicial philosophy, and I am confident that she will properly judge the cases that come before the Court, even though her opinions may not be high-powered intellectual tomes.

So, I guess I tend to side more with Hugh Hewitt et al than Ramesh Ponnuru et al.

Iraq: A Just War?

As long-time readers of this blog know, I'm inclined to think that the Iraq War was (and is) just, especially in regard to the reasons for going to war. (To clarify, the question of "just war" touches on both why a war is fought and how it is fought; the focus here will be on the former.)

There are, of course, plenty of people who oppose the war, and for plenty of reasons. Some of those reasons are ridiculous, but some of them are at least plausible and understandable. I'm happy to see that most of those Catholics who view the war as unjust are in the latter camp.

Over the last week or so, I've been involved in a combox discussion with such a Catholic: Dr. J.P. Hubert, Jr., MD FACS at David Jones' blog (at this post). Dr. Hubert identifies himself as a Catholic ethicist, and although it does not appear that his formal education (at least at the graduate level) is in theology, his writing and argumentation indicates a good degree of familiarity and facility with Catholic moral theology.

I've decided to write a post on this discussion primarily for myself, that (hopefully) I might better lay out my position with regard to my discussion with Dr. Hubert.

As I've indicated in the most recent comments, the Schwerpunkt of our disagreement concerns this question: is the initiation of hostilities always immoral? That is, is it ever morally licit to actually attack another country first, before they attack us? Dr. Hubert believes the answers to those two questions are yes and no, respectively, while I take the opposite view.

In his recent comments, Dr. Hubert fleshes out his position in a number of ways. First, he argues that the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which addresses the issue of just war doctrine is entitled "Avoiding War". That is, the very fact that the CCC discusses just war under the section title "Avoiding War" indicates that the attacking first is always illicit.

Here, Dr. Hubert is giving far more weight to a section title than those titles merit. As with Scripture, Magisterial texts must be read with an awareness of the author's intention as well as the literary genre of the text. Section titles in the CCC do not serve as the basis for drawing doctrinal or dogmatic conclusions.

Dr. Hubert also notes that the Magisterium has never advocated initiating hostilities, and with that I agree, because it is true. Nonetheless, the lack of advocation is not the same as condemnation. For the Magisterium to not-assert that x is true is not to assert that x is false.

Dr. Hubert also notes that the CCC does not mention the initiation of hostilities in the section on just war doctrine, and again I agree. But again, I must note that this cannot be taken as an argument to prove that the Magisterium categorically and absolutely condemns the initiation of hostilities. The absence of an approving assertion is the not the same as a condemnation.

In one of my comments, I raised the issue of initiating an attack against a nation which is committing genocide against its own people. My argument was that if initiating hostilities was always wrong, then it would also always be wrong to attack such a nation. Dr. Hubert attempts to answer this argument as follows:

Genocide is a unique case which represents an "aggressive attack" on an entire race or ethnic group. The entity in question is morally justified in defending against it by the principles of the JWD. If a functional peace-keeping universal entity exists (such as the U.N) whose province it is to help defend against unjust aggression including Genocide, then such a defense is morally licit (by the second law of Christ) if the entity in question is unable to repel the aggressor without it. The Magisterium supports such an action if it is advocated by a properly responsible international body. This is supportable on the basis of mercy (love) if not in justice. Importantly, the defensive action is a response to the unjust aggression of Genocide. Any unilateral such action would be more problematic however but that is a fine-point not in question here.

Here is the problem: CCC 2309 states that a just war requires damage by the aggressor (in this case, the nation committing genocide) against another nation or nations. This does not obtain in this example. If one follows the hermeneutic indicated by Dr. Hubert in his analysis of the CCC, then one is forced to conclude that it would always and everywhere be immoral for one nation or nations to initiate hostilities against a genocidal nation which has never attacked another country. (NB: I think this is a mistaken hermeneutic; I am only demonstrating the consequences it entails.)

Dr. Hubert also argues that the Magisterium in fact has indicated positively that the Iraq War was unjust. He references Pio Cardinal Laghi's mission to President Bush prior to the war, at the direction and behest of Pope John Paul II (Cardinal Laghi then relayed the Holy Father's opposition to the war). He also quotes Cardinal Ratzinger's statement, “There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'.”

A few comments are in order. Primarily and paramount, neither of these examples constitute a direct and public teaching by the Magisterium. This is not deconstruction of language, but rather constitutes a close reading of Magisterial actions. Take the first example: a meeting whose contents are intended to remain private is de facto not a public teaching. The second example indicates the personal opinion of the Cardinal Prefect of the CDF (it's important to note that while the man who made "statement x" would later be elected pope, it is misleading to state that "the pope said 'statement x'"); now, I see Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict as one of the greatest theologians and church leaders of the last century. But on this point, I think he is wrong, and his views on the matter have never been communicated as the definitive teaching of the teaching office of the Catholic Church.

Finally -- and to return to an earlier point -- it is important in this discussion to keep in mind the genre of the CCC. Like every other catechism, it is intended as a basic summary of the essential teachings of the Church. This means many things, but one thing is does not mean is that it treats every issue in a completely thorough manner; that is simply not the raison d'être of a catechism. Take an issue on which I have probably the most familiarity: the theology of grace. The CCC offers the basic summary of the Catholic Church's teaching on grace, but it is in no way an exhaustive presentation of that theology. The same is true with its presentation of just war doctrine: it is a basic summary, not a thorough presentation. James Turner Johnson and others have powerfully argued that there is much, much more which can be said about this issue than is found in the CCC.

As Dr. Hurbert notes, the issue of the initiation of hostilities is not the only source of our disagreement, but as I noted at the opening of this post, I do believe that it is the focal point of that disagreement.

Finally, I want to note that Dr. Hurbert has been the epitome of a curteous interlocutor in our discussions, and I thank him for that.

I look forward to the continuation of this discussion.

Update: Stephen Hand of Traditional Catholic Reflections & Reports offers some thoughts (scroll down a bit) on the above post. Stephen is opposed to the war, and he has long argued his case with those who disagree. You can find his comments at the link provided; here is the response I emailed to him:

Stephen, I'm not sure why you offered the quote you did from my post, b/c the substance of your reply doesn't seem to relate to the particular issue I was discussing there, i.e. the problem of a genocidal regime as it relates to the morality of initiating hostilities against said regime.

In any case, that nations have alluded to alleged defensive motives in order to rationalize illicit first-strikes does not in and of itself invalidate the notion that the initiation of hostilities can be morally licit. Abusus non tollit usum: the abuse of something is not an argument against that thing.

I'll also grant that the CCC does not address preventive war, but as I said in my post, that is not the same thing as a condemnation of such a war. Again, I'll grant that Cardinal Ratzinger saw the war as most likely (and perhaps certainly) unjust. But he never proferred that view in his official capacity as Prefect of the CDF, and hence faithful Catholics can disagree with him.

I fully agree that the notion of disagreement with the CDF Prefect (let alone the Holy Father himself) requires careful thought and discernment. But it can be licit. It's well-known that Ratzinger looked askance at the Assissi meetings, even thought they were a "pet" of JPII's. I am not saying that my wisdom and intellect match Ratzinger's, but I do think that there are problems with the position he articulated.

For instance, in the same statement you are referring to, he doubted that just war was even possible today. In and of itself (i.e. prescinding from context which was perhaps not revealed), that is a difficult statement to make sense of. The Vatican itself publicly agreed that the US's actions against the Taliban were licit. (In fact, come to think of it, one might argue that the same arguments being employed against the justice of the Iraq War also obtain with regard to Afghanistan, in that that nation did not initiate hostilities against the US.) [This strikes me as an important point.] Furthermore, with the development of technologies that greatly reduce the danger to innocents, it seems that it's easier to be in accord with the tenets of that doctrine.

'Wow' is right!

I've come across a number of otherwise sane people who claim that George Bush is the "worst. president. ever.", or that his is the most inept administration ever, or that corruption dominates his presidency.

On the later, he has a surprising defender: Chris Matthews! The following is from JPod at The Corner:

Just now, Chris Matthews on "Hardball" went after New York leftist Mark Green for calling this a "corrupt" administration. To which Matthews shot back, "Any convictions? Can you name one conviction? One person in this administration who has been convicted of a crime?" To which Green mentions the indictments of DeLay and Jack Abramoff.

"They don't work for the administration," says Matthews. "Can you name a single instance of proven corruption?"

Green, as is his wont, hemmed and hawed and licked his lips. Ben Ginsburg, the Republican on the other side, just stayed silent. Props to Chris.

Indeed.

Cool!

Want a broadband connection in your bedroom? Kitchen? Living room? No need to wire every room in your home, nor set up a wireless network... just plug in to your electric outlet, and enjoy 170 Mbs/second!

Thanks, Matsushita!

Events in Iraq

If you're looking for thoughtful, detailed, and cogent analysis of ongoing military operations in Iraq (at least those ops that are public), I highly recommend Bill Roggio. Mr. Roggio is technically an amateur, in that he is a software analyst by trade, but he is also a veteran and -- most importantly -- indicates an acute ability to determine the nature of ongoing ops from publicly-released information.

Again, Bill is highly recommended.

Just in case you missed it...

Google news alerts are good ways of keeping track of people and/or institutions, etc. that are occasionally in the news. I have one set up for "Pope Benedict", and while Zenit and EWTN News keep me abreast of most details regarding the Holy Father, Google news alerts sometimes snags things not found in the Catholic news services.

For instance, I'll bet not many people saw the press releases (here and here) from one Dominic Sanchez Falar. Mr. Falar informs us that Pope Benedict is an "anti-Mary Pope," because he refuses to released the true Third Secret of Fatima.

Now, for many informed Catholics, this is an oft-heard claim; there are various individuals and organizations who claim that various aspects of Fatima are unfulfilled, or that there are parts of the third secret yet to be released, etc. etc.

But Mr. Falar has most definitely upped the ante. He helpfully informs us that the true Third Secret was revealed to him directly by Mary, and that it is this:

The Third Secret of Our Lady of Fatima states Mary’s divinity.
Mary is God, Mary is the Soul of the Holy Spirit.

Betcha didn't know that did ya?

At least Mr. Falar is honest (in a wierd way): the name of his group (no information available on number of members) is "Mary-Is-God Catholic Movement."

Oops!

I forgot to mention that this week's Catholic Carnival is up at Our Word And Welcome to It.

Check it out!

Benedict's style: "Radical continuity"

That's from Austen Ivereigh's Godspy article, "The Monk under the Mitre". It's an excellent, article, and if I were to quote all the gems in it, there'd barely be anything left unquoted. But here are a couple of the choicest of them:

In 1978 John Paul II inherited a Church that was unsure, after the battles under Paul VI, what it believed. In 2005 he left no one in doubt. It falls to Benedict to make clear why the Church believes what it believes, to show that what it teaches sets us free. Benedict's task is to convey the beauty of belief, and that believing must involve belonging.

[...]


Benedict, as his choice of name made clear, looks to the counter-culture of European monasticism in the early Middle Ages, which served society precisely by being quietly—but no less awkwardly—in contradiction to it. Hence his emphasis, in Cologne, on fostering vital cells of church life which emphasise quality not quantity ("Form communities of faith!" he urged). Gone is the triumphant city on the hill; Benedict's is the era of leaven in the mass, of small but vibrant faith groups in parishes, of movements and associations which operate like underground cells, attracting believers and supplying the vitality which the Church needs above the ground.

Pope Benedict has a style. And he has a strategy. If we find them hard to make out, it could be that our eyes need to adjust. We are so used to waiting for a flag-waving crusade that we fail to notice the flap, flap of a monk's cowl.

Praise God for this pope!

Human Tragedies

That's the title of this post by Leon at RedState, which reads in part,

the pro-choice movement panders to all that is deplorable about our society. It is the glorification of selfishness, it is the deification of one's own personal agenda, it is the callous disregard for those in lower positions. The pro-choice movement encourages the path of least resistance, never caring that the path is paved with the corpses of the defenseless and needy. It conjures images in my mind of those who would loot during lawlessness created through tragedy, of those who callously and shamelessly profit from the misery of others - who seek to take advantage of a system that will not or cannot punish them for their wrongdoing. It is everything that was wrong with Enron and the technology bubble of the late 90s, when personal greed run amok devastated the finances of millions.

Conversely, the pro-life movement seeks to encourage all that is good and noble about humanity. It encourages those facets of our human nature that make us proud when we witness them surface in our society. Love for others. Heroic self-sacrifice. Giving of one's own means to provide sustenance for the defenseless and the weak. Every time parents make a choice to keep a child they didn't plan for, it conjures images in my mind of firemen running into burning buildings, of families opening their homes to complete strangers in times of crisis, of everything that is good about the existence of the Salvation Army and the Red Cross.

Powerful words.

Well done, Leon.

It pays to ask people who know

It recently dawned on me out divergent the latin original and english translations of the Gloria of the Mass are; I memorized the latin version a few years ago, and of course in so doing I noticed some differences. But some things escaped me. Before elaborating, let me present the latin, a literal translation thereof, and finally the approved english translation:

Gloria in excelsis Deo,
et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.
Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te.
Gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam.
Domine Deus, Rex coelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens.
Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe.
Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris,
Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris, miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus.
Tu solus Dominus.
To solus Altissimus, Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris. Amen.

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will.
We praise You. We bless You. We worship You. We glorify You.
We give you thanks for your great glory.
Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty.
Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son.
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father.
You who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
You who take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.
You who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For You alone are holy.
You alone are Lord.
You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit, in the Glory of God the Father. Amen.

Glory to God in the highest,
and peace to his people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father.
We worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father.
Lord God, Lamb of God,
you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Now, there are obviously some substantial changes from the latin to the approved english translation. "We praise You. We bless You. We worship You. We glorify You.
We give you thanks for your great glory" becomes "We worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory."And other examples are apparent.

But what most struck me was this: in the latin, "We praise You. We bless You. We worship You. We glorify You. We give you thanks for your great glory" comes after "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will," but in the approved english version, the translated (and truncated) equivalent comes after "Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father" instead. So the praise, blessing, worship, glorification, and thanksgiving is no longer addressed to God (in the highest), but is now addressed to the Father (in particular).

So it seemed to me that where the official latin directs the praise, blessing, worship, etc. to all three persons of the Most Holy Trinity (because the referent is simple "God"), the approved english translation directs that praise, etc. to the Father in particular. And that seems to be a pretty significant change.

However...

I mentioned this to a number of people and they all agreed with me. But then I met someone who is an expert in these things, and he was able to explain it for me (and remind me of something I knew once, but had forgotten).

In Catholic liturgical prayer, Deus is used to refer to the Father. Even though it is literally translated as God, and even though one might presume (as I did recently) that God always means all Three Persons, that is not the case in liturgical prayer. Instead, the implication is that the Father in particular is being addressed.

This is seen in a number of places; for instance, many of the introductory prayers of the Mass read Deus in latin but are translated Father in english, and rightly so, based on the fact that our prayer is made to God (the Father) through the Son and in the Spirit. I knew this once, but had forgotten it.

So while there many be other problems with the approved english translation, this is an instance in which ICEL got it right.

Like the title of the post says, it pays to ask people who know.

A completely off-topic post

When I moved from Minnesota to Steubenville in the Ohio Valley, I soon realized that Ohio Vallians (from Steubenville to Pittsburgh) aren't very good at using their turn signals; they are at best intermittent.

Needless to say, one thing I was looking forward to when I moved to Sioux Falls and returned to the upper Midwest was the basic considerate nature of folks in these parts, which includes signalling their turns.

Boy was I wrong.

As hard as it was for me to believe, Sioux Fallsians are actually worse at signalling than Ohio Vallians! It's as if they don't know what that little stick on the left side of their steering column is even for! And its not just people in this city, or even the state: on Sunday I drove down to Omaha, and plenty of Iowegians decided signalling was optional (at best). For goodness sake: Romans have better driving etiquette that a lot of the people in my new home! And if you've been to Rome, you know that that's quite a statement!

No wonder people call Minnesota the Promised Land. We actually know how to drive.