Ah'll be back

Some people have asked me if I've given up the blo(ghost) without a farewell.

Nah. Just been busy (and a bit lazy) this month. Had a long 4th vacation, a busy couple of weeks, and now I'm at a conference in Steubenville.

I shall return!

Site

He told me about it a couple of weeks ago, but I'm only now remembering to link the new website of Carl Olson, Catholic apologist, Envoy Magazine editor, and author of Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?

Check it out!

Blogs

Some more permalinks:

Peter Sean Bradley's Lex Communis

Nârwen's Quenta Nârwenion

Stuart Buck's The Buck Stops Here

All are well-worth regular visits.

And if anyone out there has permalinked me and I have yet to reciprocate, please let me know.

Ponnuru agrees with me!

It appears that NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru (one of my favorite writers over there) must have read my post on Andrew Sullivan's take on Justice Scalia's tone in his opinions, because he wrote a terrific article basically elaborating the thought I presented there.

Boy am I smart. ;-)

X2

I saw X-Men 2 last night in a cheap-seats theater, and I was very impressed. I thought the first movie was fairly entertaining, but nothing more. This movie, however, was very, very enjoyable, and had more levels than the first one.

I might have to get this on DVD. And I suppose that means I'll have to get the first one as well.

How long, O Lord!

Okay, so maybe the psalmist wasn't thinking of the trailer for The Return of the King, but wasn't The Two Towers trailer out last May? Speaking of which, I just rewatched it (the trailer), and it has to be one of the greatest movie trailers ever, IMHO. Even after having seen the movie three times, the trailer still gives me chills.

Conviction-free judges

Andrew Sullivan doesn't care for Scalia's passionate opinions, or in his words, "angry, sarcastic, bitter tone of [Scalia's] judgments." Now, if he had left it at that, I could understand, if I wouldn't agree in every case: sometimes I think a bit of strong, emotional language is useful.

But Sullivan proceeds to go too far afield, IMHO, when he states,

Ditto the arguments about the far right nominee, Bill Pryor, a man whose political language about abortion is so inflamed he has had to say to the Senate that he will simply lay it all aside if he is called to rule on the matter. No one can believe in this kind of psychological compartmentalization; and no one should trust anyone who promises it. The truth is: anyone whose views are that inflamed shouldn't be anywhere near a federal bench. A talk-show host or blogger, maybe. A politician surely. But not a judge.

It seems the implicit conclusion of Sullivan's words here is that a judge cannot be fervently passionate about issues which are topical to the day, and if this is in fact the meaning of his words, I passionately disagree -- why should judges be intellectual and emotional eunuchs on particular issues simply because they are controversial?

I don't get it. Perhaps I've misunderstood Mr. Sullivan -- in fact, I hope I have -- because the meaning I see is difficult to agree with.

Ecclesia in Europa

Last November I wondered when JPII's post-synodal apostolic exhortation for Europe would be released.

Well, here it is.

The theme? "Jesus Christ Alive in His Church, Source of Hope for Europe."

It's pretty long (54 pages at 8.5 x 11 format from the Zenit website), but that's typical of John Paul II.

I can't really offer any reflections yet, as I haven't had a chance to read it, but maybe I'll have something this week...

Getting more angry, not less...

I'm actually more angry today about SCOTUS's ruling in Lawrence than I was yesterday when it was released. My post last night pointed to the complete inconsistency of the Court, an inconsistency which galls me to practically no end, especially when it is applied in opposition to moral principles held dear by myself and millions of other Americans.

Why do the majority members of the Court find it necessary to take upon themselves the re-ordering of American society as they see fit? Why can't they simply allow the elected representatives of the people to change society according to the desires of the people, rather imposing upon all their own pet ideologies? Many people think sodomy laws are silly and ridiculous, because they are unenforceable. Fine. Then why can't the people's representatives take the necessary steps to repeal them? Why does the Court have to impose itself in the process and hand down a ruling which by its very nature is so broad as to legalize every form of consensual human activity?

The fact of the matter is, there is no constitutional basis for the Court's ruling, as the dissents make clear. It's nothing more than the imposition of the majority member's personal ideologies, disguised in legalease.

Here are some of the articles which probably initiated my blood pressure increase:

• A Roe v. Wade for gay rights.
  
• The Constitution lives and mutates
  
• Lawrence does more than strike down an archaic law

Then go read the following posts by Mark Shea at his blog (he was on quite a roll yesterday):

• Doubtless Some People Will Think it Ridiculous to Say that the SCOTUS Just Declared Our Pervert Priests Out of Bounds for Prosecution
• Here, for your reading pleasure, is a bit of Scalia's Dissent
• Some final points

Pray for our country!!!

Scalila zings again

As the vast majority of you probably know, today the US Supreme Court overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law. You can go read the opinions and dissents here.

I just want to note one thing right now, and that's a zinger from Justice Scalia in his dissent. Here it is:

I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine. Today's opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish--or indeed, even bother to mention--the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today's majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it. ... Today, however, the widespread opposition to Bowers, a decision resolving an issue as "intensely divisive" as the issue in Roe, is offered as a reason in favor of overruling it.

In other words, in the Casey decision (whose opinion was also penned by Kennedy, along with O'Connor and Souter), the Court decided that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, not because it was good constitutional law (it wasn't), but because the importance of precedence had to be upheld in spite of and in the face of widespread criticism. In this Texas case, though, the widespread criticism of the prior Court decision (Bowers v. Hardwick) was cited as reason to over turn the prior decision. So in Casey, opposition to the prior decision demanded sticking by the prior decision. But in this case, opposition to the prior decision demands rejecting the prior decision.

Huh?

(Thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru's emailer for pointing this out.)

The Black Legend

Great post over at Ibidem on the Inquisition, the Black Legend, and Masons. In it, Jesus Gil points to the work of RW Thompson as the source for the "millions of people killed during the Inquisition" line that McCabe and Hunt use, and Mac Swift (and others) repeat. But he refers to other scholarship which shows that "in the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, only between 3,000 and 5,000 people were killed, while at the same time the rest of Europe burnt 150,000 women for witchcraft alone."

The entire post is well-worth a read.

The Seven Hills of Rome

One of the canards one often here's from people who deeply despise Catholicism is a reference to the Church as the great whore of Babylon who sits astride the city of seven hills, i.e. Rome.

The problem is, the Vatican isn't one of the seven hills! As any reference source will tell you, the seven hills of Rome are: the Palatine, the Capitoline, the Quirinale, the Viminale, the Esquiline, the Caelian, and the Aventine. While some of the people who make the claim about Catholicism and the seven hills seem to be aware of this and work around it, most of them erroneously define the Vaticanus as one of the seven, apparently unaware that the Vaticanus is on the other side of the Tiber from "downtown" Rome (it used to be outside the city of Rome), and has never been numbered among the seven hills.

But if history won't stand in their way, why should geography?

There's Mac, and then there's Barbara

While I strongly disagree with method and content on Mac's part, he's nothing compared to a certain Barbara who has been commenting and (primarily) exchanging emails with the folks at Encore. Here's the letter she wrote Pat Madrid (posted here):

Hello Mr Madrid, I have never heard of you. But recently I saw your name while surfing the web because I try my best to make catholics see the error of their beliefs.

I hate the RCC because it destroys lives. Need I tell you how? I can. I am interested in why you apologize for the RCC. You could never apologize enough for your pagan system and your idolatrous daily consumption of your wafer god. I am a christian, but, of course not a catholic. You can serve God and mammon.

I have also studied religion and ancient history and I can tell you that the RCC is not the church of the living God. It is a religious money making machine that manufactures 'priests' like a factory makes puppets. The pope is not holy, nuns aren't either, the wafer is not the Body of Christ, confession is unscriptural also.

As a matter of fact, the RCC is the great whore that sits on seven hills and is mentioned specifically in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John on Patmos. Jesus told his servant John to send seven letters to the seven churches in Asia. Rome was not one of them. That should tell you something.

A sister in our church was a cloistered nun for 25 years until God had mercy and saved her. In Mexico one can go to see the old convents where dead bodies of babies were found buried behind walls.A guide will take you through.

I marvel that you are so amazingly ignorant of the Bible, but that is typical of a catholic. South and Central America are steeped in poverty and ignorance. Why? because some of my ancestors, the Conquistadores brought with them only priests and soldiers, but they did not bring Jesus.

America is the greatest nation on earth .Why? It is founded on Protestanism. Protestant children fare better than catholic children. and I could go on and on, but I think you get my message. I watch TBN and know many ministers personally and minister myself through prophesy, evangelism and teaching the Bible. I also am a Gospel singer. I see clearly that the faces of the preachers and christians are radiant with joy and EWTN makes me sad to see the dead faces of those poor "priests" and nuns and how the RCC is desperately trying to be like the Protestants.

Yes, God is able to save catholics and he is doing it, praise his Name, but when he does, he removes them from their paganism and idolatry. I owe Martin Luther nothing and I owe the RCC nothing. I owe all to Christ who died for me.

In closing, let me say that the RCC will be brought into judgement by God for all the lives that have been destroyed by it's pagan teachings and it's idolatrous behaviour.

Sincerely, Barbara

Read the comments.

Carl was next to take up the baton. In response to his request that Barbara explain where she got her Bible (and he doesn't mean what bookstore), she wrote (posted here):

Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition initiated by Ferdinand and Isabella?
Are you aware how many millions were burned by the Spaniard catholics at the stake because they refused to recognize the pope as vicar of Christ and the teachings of the RCC? That is against the love of God which is taught by the apostles.
How about the Lateran Pacts of 1929?
Ever hear of Eugenio Pacelli (aka) Pope Pius Xll who with Mussolini signed the concordat in July 20, 1933?
Are you aware the pope was in full agreement with the Nazis and it is documented history?
Are you aware that Central and South America are steeped in ignorance and poverty thanks to catholic teachings brought by the Spaniard priests in the early 16th century?
Have you ever heard of any greatness come from those countries which are catholic? No.
Are you aware that Latinos fare poorly and they are all catholic?
Are you aware the Protestant children do much better in education and do not committ the crimes the catholics do?
Want me to give you statistics?
Are you aware that the United States of America is the greatest nation on earth because it was founded on Protestant teachings?
Are you aware that RCC priests by the hundreds have molested innocent boys, yet were moved to another perish to keep the cash flowing?
Are you aware of the dead babies bones found btween walls of convents?
Are you aware that in Latino towns crime there is higher among catholics than Protestants?
I could tell you the whole bloody history of the RCC, but it will matter nothing to you as long as you are well and fed and happy while millions are lost in catholicism.
A RCC bishop recently hit and killed a father of four and fled the scene? Why? Because Christ was not in him or he would not have fled.
Love doesn't behave that way.
There are no church fathers as you think, but the apostles gave us the NT and your boasting is vain.
The RCC is the Great Whore that sits on seven hills and if you don't know that is Rome, then I don't know what to tell you.
JESUS CHRIST, BY HIS SERVANT JOHN ON PATMOS SENT SEVEN LETTERS TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN ASIA. ROME WAS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Wow. Wowy wow wow.

How NOT to evangelize

Mac Swift has been having a running dialogue with myself and other Christians over the Christian nature of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Because Mac has a fun writing style, I was looking forward to an invigorating discussion about the nature of Catholicism. I knew Mac saw the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, but I still believed that we'd be able to talk together and strive for the truth, whatever it may be. Disagreement and critiques of arguments were sure to be part of it, but there's nothing wrong with that, as long as a common zeal for truth and love of others is present.

Unfortunately, it has become clear to me (and others) that Mac has no interest in such a dialogue. Now, I've met others with whom I've taken issue with their discussion/argument style. But Mac... well, he's a first.

First on my list -- and that which is prompting this post -- is this: yesterday Mac posted some comments at a Catholic board which uncharitably slammed him. And today, he posted on Catholic censorship [sic]. And later today, he posted on his first hate mail. And now, Mac has shut off further commenting on all three posts! Talk about censorship... not only that, but if you read the comments, you'll find first that he editted the comments of one person (in the hate mail post), and then that the turn of the other two comments discussions was not in his favor. In the censorship discussion, I pointed out that David Hunt's work is full of myth, not history, and I cited a couple of examples. Mac--who rejects out of hand any history presented by Catholics or Orthodox--responded by quoting a Catholic priest who became an atheist! He then deleted shut off the comments. Now, his blog is his own, and he can do what he wants. But these actions sure don't help his case.

With the post on comments made at the Catholic board, Mac gratuitously asserted that the Catholic Church was anti-semitic, and to prove it he linked a book. I noted negative reviews of the book by non-Catholics, and posted a comment against anti-semitism made by Pope Benedict XV, and in response, Mac replied about Pius XI (wrong pope). At this point, I asked Mac the following:

What is your motive with your posts on Catholicism and your choice of language therein? Once upon a time I thought you desired to convert Catholics out of Catholicism, a desire which I would disagree with, but yet respect.

Over the past week, or so, I've changed my mind on this, because it seems that your approach to such a desire is, well, not very conducive to its success. What do I mean? Well, if you want to convert anyone, honey always works better than vinegar. Belligerantly attacking their current religion is going to fail 99% of the time, because people's natural reaction is to defend what they believe when it is stridently attacked.

A better course of action would be to engage Catholics in friendly dialogue, avoiding terms or language likely to alienate the person with whom you are talking. Once a certain rapport has been established, you might use questions to lead the person to the truth.

Such an avenue has a much greater chance of success, and I'd ask you to consider employing it, for your own good and for the good of your interlocutors.

He replied thus:

As for my intentions, I think you mistake the purpose of this blog. This is not an apologia blog, but a personal one, where the current subject happens to be catholicism. Eventually it will die down, and I'll write about other topics depending on which way the wind blows.

I could argue till I'm blue in the face about catholicism, but the truth is only a Holy Spirit involved awakening will free a Catholic from the bondage of Rome. I may engage in argumentative dialogue but I expect no converts, and I'm really not out to make any. If people are persuaded by what I write, God bless them, but if not, what is that to you? And life goes on...

Orthodox blogger Karl Thienes responded,

This is just a hpothetical question, but what if you are the instrument by which God wants to "awaken the Catholics from bondage?" What if your strident and saracastic tone is thwarting the will of God?

In other words, you may not have planned on using the blog to defend "the truth" but this is where God has placed you. This is the responsibility inherent with owning a public blog. Public statements are *de facto* apologia. Unless your blog is nothing more than "I had a tuna sandwhich for lunch" kind of writing, you are entering into the world of debate, discussion, and apologia.

I would consider Chris' words again carefully, and prayerfully if I were you. Chris and I totally disagree with you in regards to many things....but if you are convinced that your views are closer to the truth and need to be heard, you might want to seriously consider changing your tone and approach.

Just some advice from an "idol-worshipping pagan" who so far is neither convinced by your rational arguments, nor your approach.

Mac's response? He said,

"...instrument by which God wants to "awaken the Catholics from bondage?"

Whoa, I make no such claims, and if I were such an instrument, I think God would tell me first.

Really, I'm not out to convince anyone. Honest!

You'll have your say and I'll have mine, and we'll both go on believing what we choose to believe.

And Karl replied again:

"You'll have your say and I'll have mine, and we'll both go on believing what we choose to believe"

That may well be true. But if this is already your conclusion, why talk at all about anything important?

If we care about knowing the truth at all, we need to have the hope that all parties involved with "come to the knowledge of the truth."

Thus, we need to take care to make sure of the accuracy of our comments, as well as the tone in which they are delivered. I think my earlier comment still stands.

At this point, Mac turned off the comments at the thread, and so my own response is not available. But I'll summarize it here...

Basically, I'm fascinated by Mac's approach. As I told him, I've never met a Christian who believes that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, yet has a "live and let live" attitude. Mac has no desire to convict me of the truth, as he understands it, which is a first (for me) among Christians who believe as he does about Catholicism. Usually, that type of Christian believes strongly in the need to evangelize and bring others (especially Catholics) to Jesus. Mac, though, has no such interest. It's an interesting combination of the zealous Fundamentalist and the apathetic Christian... his views of Catholicism mirror the former, while his disinterest in converting Catholics mirrors the latter.

Interesting.

I've also never met a Christian who believes atheists over Catholics. I personally try to discern the truth wherever it may be found, whether it's an atheist, fellow Christian, another Catholic, or Buddhist. But I can certainly understand why one might take what others say with a grain of salt. But for a Christian to automatically discount what a Catholic says and simultaneously give credence to an atheist... again, something I've never seen.

I'm also disappointed that Mac turned off the comments... it makes it look like he's picking up his marbles and running home. I really wanted (and still want) to engage in a discussion with Mac, in which we both strive for truth, with humility and charity, and concern for one another. Based on his recent comments--and again, much to my surprise--Mac doesn't seem to share that interest.

Hopefully we can continue with this discussion... we'll see what happens.

Catholicism and Republicanism

Mark at Minute Particulars recentlyposted on the lack of dissonance at many Catholic blogs which discuss matters of faith and politics:

I would think that blogs that espouse Catholic thought and a pretty clear political leaning would grind a few gears on occasion when trying to get everything to mesh. Does the Republican Party or Bush Administration really jibe so well with Catholic Teaching? Does the Democratic Party really resonate so perfectly with Catholic Teaching? I often come away with that impression. Where's the dissonance?

Tom at Disputations also posted.

I think both make good points. As I commented at Tom's blog, I know that my blog probably often looks like the kind of thing which Mark is talking about, although I decidedly believe that there "Republicanism" is not close to Catholic social teaching on a number of very important issues. It simply happens that on the political issues of the day which I've decided to post on, I do see such a harmony.

Again, though, I don't think that harmony always obtains. For instance, I don't see just wage as a very high priority for Republicans. I don't mean that they aren't pushing for laws enacting just wages... I don't even see it as a major public policy issue for discussion on their part. And I differ with the typical Republican stance on the death penalty as well. Those are a couple of areas in which I differ with the Republican party line; perhaps at some point I'll expound more on them.

New link

Another blog I need to link is Dave Pawlak's Improvised.

Check it out.

The Communal Dimension of Christianity

In the newest issue of Traces, the magazine of the Catholic religious movement Communion and Liberation, there is a series of articles concerning a conference held in April at Georgetown University in Washington DC on Msgr. Luigi Giussani's book, The Risk of Education. One of the articles conisists of an interview with Protestant theologian Stanley Hauerwas, who was one of three speakers at the event. In the interview, Hauerwas spoke about how American culture is far more secularized than most people think, stating that "the Christianity in America is not thick in practices that actually form bodies to understand better what it means to be Christian." His explanation of this is very interesting:

That has everything to do with the kind of Protestantism that shaped American society, which both produced and has then been reproduced by a certain understanding of the relationship with God that is gnostic in character. By that I mean people in America that are religious think that they have a relationship with God, which they go to church to have expressed. It doesn't occur to them that the only relationship with God that you can have--at least the God that we Christians worship--is through the mediation of the Church. So it simply becomes unthinkable for Americans to think that outside the church there's no salvation when in fact that's true: outside the church there is no salvation. The mediated character of Christianity is simply unknown and that means your educational task is not surrounded by the kind of thick practices that are necessary to sustain it (as any serious business).[Emphasis added]

To be a Christian means (among other things) to belong to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. You cannot be a Christian and not be a part of the Church: to state otherwise is to assert an ontological contradiction. As Hauerwas states, we do not go to church to celebrate and express our already-existing relationship with God... that relationship with God is given in, by, and through the Church.

Embracing the Mystery of Suffering

This issue of Traces also has a letter written by an Italian woman who wonderfully expresses the Christian response to real suffering:

certain things happen because they are part of the Father's mysterious plan, and the problem for us is not to insist on trying to understand the mystery, but to experience that it is good. The greatness of the humanity of Christ, who calls his betrayer "Friend," or the testimony of real men like Fr. Kolbe, who led his executioner to affirm the good, or like you [Msgr. Giussani] who explain life and its meaning to us... confirms me, without a shadow of a doubt, in this certainty of a good and positive destiny.

In my mind, real suffering cannot be overcome by seeking an intellectually-satisfying answer, but only by looking to Christ and Him Crucified, and embracing Him.

The Northern Front

Turkey will shortly have a new prime minister: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who supports the deployment of US troops in his country. Beside the VOA story linked above, this AP story gives the details.

Diversity, past and present

Curious to see what Rush Limbaugh had to say about today's Supreme Court ruling on the University of Michigan's race-based admittance policy, I cruised on over to his website, where one finds his great rhetorical point from today:

I ask people this question all the time: “Do you think diversity made this country great?” Many liberals will say, “Oh yes” like the caller in the audio link below. Well then, a little intellectual exercise for you, my friends. If diversity has made America great, then where's the problem? Why do we need any at all? Why do we need more? If diversity has made us so great, then where's the problem? I don't see it.

Good one, Rush.