Not that Pope Benedict was exactly the darling of the MSM before, say, January of 2009; but has anyone else noticed that the attacks on him have really escalated over the past fifteen months or so?
An Irish journalist has an interesting take on this phenomenon:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-pope-replaces-george-bush-as-the-man-some-people-love-to-hate-2149358.html
You can draw your own conclusions...
26 April 2010
23 April 2010
Quo Vadis, America?
In his first fifteen months in office, President B. H. Obama has virtually nationalized two-thirds of the American auto industry, launched a government takeover of the world's best health-care system (and one-sixth of the nation's economy), and for good measure included a stealth absorption of the student-loan industry as part of the infamous "reconcilation" bill by which "Obamacare" passed the Senate. Next on his agenda: new regulation (and taxes) on the financial services sector, so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation - dubbed "cap-and-TAX" with good reason by it's critics, and "comprehensive immigration reform" a.k.a. "amnesty".
We are repeatedly told that Mr. Obama isn't a socialist, but what - exactly - would be different about his program if he were to identify himself as such? Certainly this isn't what he campaigned on, insofar as he committed to any specifics beyond "hope" and "change" his promises were blandly, moderately, centrist. An article I recently read commented that Mr. Obama would have gotten about 30% of the vote had he been up-front with the voting public. I'd have thought less, if correct it is itself a sad commentary on the electorate. For the first time in recent memory the party in opposition is almost completely unified on a platform of almost complete repeal of the present government's policies. At least thirty states have proposed amendments to their constitutions intended to curtail the impact of "Obamacare", and a further sixteen are in the process of changing state law toward that end.
At this point can anyone really believe his soft-pedaled demurrals regarding the looming specter of a European-style "Value-added Tax" (VAT) which would increase the costs of goods and services by 10, 15, or even 20% in order to sustain the federal behemoth and its trillions in new debt? One cannot, after all, have Euro-style socialism without Euro-style taxation; and it seems logical to me that we wouldn't be moving toward either unless the President, the Speaker of the House, and the leaders of the Senate wanted it to happen.
There is a better way - to see it in action we need only look at Texas, which would be the world's fifteenth-largest economy if it were an independent nation. Its prosperity and growth are no accident, they are a direct result of limited government and low taxes.
In a National Review article well worth reading it its entirety, Texas Governor Rick Perry summarizes the policies that have enabled his state's economy to thrive: "There are certain truths that have to be agreed to. One is that economies grow when they are free from over-taxation, over-regulation, over-litigation, and they have a skilled work force. Government isn't difficult in theory — don't spend all the money, keep taxes low, have a fair and predictable regulatory climate, keep frivolous lawsuits to a minimum, and fund an accountable education system so that you have a skilled work force available. Then get the hell out of the way and let the private sector do what the private sector does best. It's simple in theory, but it's difficult to accomplish. In Texas, we've implemented that theory, and it's produced an economy that has no match in America."
We can't all move to Texas. America needs to have a real choice in November 2010 and again in November 2012. If the soft socialist revolution in America is to be stopped before it gains a further toehold, the Republican party must once again embrace the conservative principles which brought great prosperity to America in the 1980's and 1990's.
We are repeatedly told that Mr. Obama isn't a socialist, but what - exactly - would be different about his program if he were to identify himself as such? Certainly this isn't what he campaigned on, insofar as he committed to any specifics beyond "hope" and "change" his promises were blandly, moderately, centrist. An article I recently read commented that Mr. Obama would have gotten about 30% of the vote had he been up-front with the voting public. I'd have thought less, if correct it is itself a sad commentary on the electorate. For the first time in recent memory the party in opposition is almost completely unified on a platform of almost complete repeal of the present government's policies. At least thirty states have proposed amendments to their constitutions intended to curtail the impact of "Obamacare", and a further sixteen are in the process of changing state law toward that end.
At this point can anyone really believe his soft-pedaled demurrals regarding the looming specter of a European-style "Value-added Tax" (VAT) which would increase the costs of goods and services by 10, 15, or even 20% in order to sustain the federal behemoth and its trillions in new debt? One cannot, after all, have Euro-style socialism without Euro-style taxation; and it seems logical to me that we wouldn't be moving toward either unless the President, the Speaker of the House, and the leaders of the Senate wanted it to happen.
There is a better way - to see it in action we need only look at Texas, which would be the world's fifteenth-largest economy if it were an independent nation. Its prosperity and growth are no accident, they are a direct result of limited government and low taxes.
In a National Review article well worth reading it its entirety, Texas Governor Rick Perry summarizes the policies that have enabled his state's economy to thrive: "There are certain truths that have to be agreed to. One is that economies grow when they are free from over-taxation, over-regulation, over-litigation, and they have a skilled work force. Government isn't difficult in theory — don't spend all the money, keep taxes low, have a fair and predictable regulatory climate, keep frivolous lawsuits to a minimum, and fund an accountable education system so that you have a skilled work force available. Then get the hell out of the way and let the private sector do what the private sector does best. It's simple in theory, but it's difficult to accomplish. In Texas, we've implemented that theory, and it's produced an economy that has no match in America."
We can't all move to Texas. America needs to have a real choice in November 2010 and again in November 2012. If the soft socialist revolution in America is to be stopped before it gains a further toehold, the Republican party must once again embrace the conservative principles which brought great prosperity to America in the 1980's and 1990's.
19 April 2010
Someone's Got to Do It!
The lamentable New York Times saw fit to publish this op-ed piece by one Nicholas Kristof today. Once upon a time the so-called "paper of record" pubished opinion columns by individuals whose opinions were well-informed and whose arguments were well-reasoned and carefully considered. Even when one failed to agree with their premise or conclusions one could typically respect the honesty of the writer and the legitimacy of their opinions. That is no longer the case, and hasn't been for a few years now.
I thought one of the real pros on the web might give this piece a solemn high fisking but it seems that the task has fallen to this humble amateur. So, on to the show:
A Church Mary Can Love
I heard a joke the other day about a pious soul who dies, goes to heaven, and gains an audience with the Virgin Mary. The visitor asks Mary why, for all her blessings, she always appears in paintings as a bit sad, a bit wistful: Is everything O.K.?
Mary reassures her visitor: “Oh, everything’s great. No problems. It’s just ... it’s just that we had always wanted a daughter.” Really classy beginning. In addition to betraying his utter ignorance of Catholic dogma it immediately informs the reader that the author has already decided that the beliefs of Catholics are a proper subject of ridicule and not worthy of his respect.
That story comes to mind as the Vatican wrestles with the consequences of a patriarchal premodern mind-set: scandal, cover-up and the clumsiest self-defense since Watergate. That’s what happens with old boys’ clubs. You know the drill - patriarchal is bad, "premodern" [sic] is bad, etc.
It wasn’t inevitable that the Catholic Church would grow so addicted to male domination, celibacy and rigid hierarchies. Jesus himself focused on the needy rather than dogma, and went out of his way to engage women and treat them with respect. Three quick points: 1.) An organization which is faithful to its tenets is "addicted" to them? Do you suppose he feels the same way about, say, B'nai Brith or the N.A.A.C.P.? 2.) Caritas versus dogma is a classic false dichotomy. Having proposed it as fact, expect him to continue this theme. 3.) He implicitly accepts the notion here that Jesus founded the Catholic Church - do you suppose he really believes it?
The first-century church was inclusive and democratic, even including a proto-feminist wing and texts. Really? "Inclusive" as in "including" those who dissented from Her central beliefs? "Democratic" as in "majority rule"? A "proto-feminist wing"? What serious basis has he for these outlandish claims? Read on... The Gospel of Philip, a Gnostic text (if you don't know what Gnosticism is, look it up. There is a reason it's not called a "Christian" text, nor was it included in the Bible. Catholics call these texts "apocryphal" - 'nuff said) from the third century, declares of Mary Magdalene: “She is the one the Savior loved more than all the disciples.” Likewise, the Gospel of Mary (also Gnostic and apocryphal) (from the early second century) suggests that Jesus entrusted Mary Magdalene to instruct the disciples on his religious teachings. (So what? How many of us were taught the Catholic Faith by our mothers, or by the nuns? Nobody says a female cannot transmit the Faith!)
St. Paul refers in Romans 16 to a first-century woman named Junia as prominent among the early apostles (in addition to the doubt over the gender of Junia, there isn't even any degree of certainty as to whether Junia was personally an Apostle or simply well known to them...), and to a woman named Phoebe who served as a deacon. The word "deacon" comes from the Greek "diakonos" which means "to serve", i.e. "one who serves" It was applied in the primitive Church both to males who were ordained to serve and females who were entrusted with specific tasks such as preparing female catechumens for Baptism. "Deacon" and "deaconess" were neither equivalent nor interchangeable (except nowadays in the fantasies of the wymynchurch crowd) The Apostle Junia became a Christian before St. Paul did (which proves what? St. Paul was *personally* called by Jesus Christ to his Apostleship. Is Judas also greater because he became a Christian before St. Paul?) (chauvinist translators have sometimes rendered her name masculine, with no scholarly basis). And he knows they're "chavinist"... how exactly? By the same infallible intuition which yields the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with President Obama on matters of policy is ipso facto a racist? And how is he qualified to pronounce on their scholarship, other than by dint of his disdisdain for its conclusions?
Yet over the ensuing centuries, the church reverted to strong patriarchal attitudes, while also becoming increasingly uncomfortable with sexuality. This is absurd. The shift may have come with the move from house churches, where women were naturally accepted, to more public gatherings. How does Mr. Kristof - or anyone else - know what went on in these "house churches"? When the Church came out of the Catacombs, so to speak, much of the pattern of Her public worship followed the model of Jewish temple services in which the sexes were segregated to preserve modesty and maintain attention on the liturgy. Does promotion of modesty and protection of chastity equate to discomfort with "sexuality" or is he implying that the Church of Junia and Phoebe was libertine in morality?
The upshot is that (heretical) proto-feminist texts were not included when the Bible was compiled (and were mostly lost until modern times). "Compiled" as if it were a secular anthology, assembled by a committee of editors, as opposed to the Catholic teaching of Divine Inspiration. Tertullian, an early Christian leader, (neither a pope nor a bishop, a priest whose opinions were his own) denounced women as “the gateway to the devil,” (five words presented without a shred of context) while a contemporary account reports that the great Origen of Alexandria took his piety a step further and castrated himself. Which proves... what? Again, not a pope, not a bishop, and someone who at various times espoused some very strange ideas about the Christian Faith. I'll bet Mr. Kristof pooh-poohs Papal Infallibilty but he seems to accept uncritically some very dubious assumptions about two controversial priests from the Patristic Era (again - not popes, not bishops, not saints) about whom our knowledge is fragmentary.
The Catholic Church still seems stuck today in that patriarchal rut. Again, consistency is bad, now it's equivalent to a "rut" The same faith that was so pioneering that it had Junia as a female apostle way back in the first century can’t even have a woman as the lowliest parish priest. Female deacons, permitted for centuries, are banned today. Having floated the dubious "Junia/Pheobe" theories as if they were true, he now attempts to make them the foundations for his argument...
That old boys’ club in the Vatican became as self-absorbed as other old boys’ clubs, like Lehman Brothers, with similar results. And that is the reason the Vatican is floundering today. One could well substitute "The New York Times" and "Goldman Sachs" (Mr. Kristof would understand both references) for "the Vatican" and "Lehman Brothers"...
But there’s more to the picture than that. In my travels around the world, I encounter two Catholic Churches. How does he "encounter" them - is he a Catholic or a catechumen? One is the rigid all-male Vatican hierarchy that seems out of touch when it bans condoms even among married couples where one partner is H.I.V.-positive. We are called to accept the consequences of our previous acts, even though our sins may be forgiven. Mr. Kristof doesn't seem to know the difference. To me at least, (assuming that he is somehow qualified to judge an entity he doesn't understand which exists to propagate a faith which he does not espouse) this church — obsessed with dogma and rules and distracted from social justice — is a modern echo of the Pharisees whom Jesus criticized. "Social Justice" is very important to Mr. Kristof and his bien pensant friends, especially when they get to define it. "Dogma" and "rules", on the other hand, are the marks of "rigid", "patriarchal", "premodern" [sic] organizations "addicted" to their misbegotten beliefs and stuck in the "rut" of consistency...
Yet there’s another Catholic Church as well, one I admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Caritas, saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide needy children an escalator out of poverty. Organizations and schools founded by the "grass-roots Catholic Church", right?
This is the church of the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives. And if I were pope I'd send such priests to a monastery in the Antarctic. It does not appear to be the Will of God that either Father Rubbermaker or I become pope at this juncture...
This is the church of the Maryknoll Sisters in Central America (best known for their embrace of "liberation theology" and support of Marxist regimes in Central and South America - the sort of nuns of which Mr. Kristof approves) and the Cabrini Sisters in Africa. There’s a stereotype (which expired about forty years ago) of nuns as stodgy Victorian traditionalists. Would that it were! I learned otherwise while hanging on for my life in a passenger seat as an American nun with a lead foot drove her jeep over ruts and through a creek in Swaziland to visit AIDS orphans. After a number of encounters like that, I’ve come to believe that the very coolest people in the world today may be nuns. "Cool" trumps fidelity to the actual teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I wonder if Sister Leadfoot was wearing a sweatshirt with an image of Che Guevara...
So when you read about the scandals, remember that the Vatican is not the same as the Catholic Church. And remember that what appears in the pages of The New York Times isn't the same as the truth. Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers may never see a cardinal, but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic Church in the form of priests, nuns and lay workers toiling to make a difference. The "Vatican" which Mr. Kristof wishes to implicate is the current leadership of the Church, men who have done much to rein-in the moral laxity which developed in the immediate post-Conciliar years. One senses that Mr. Kristof found much to admire in (his perception of) the "Vatican" of the Paul VI era, many of whom were directly responsible for that laxity which now gives him occasion to attack the Church...
It’s high time (Pope Nicholas of New York has spoken, the case is closed) for the Vatican to take inspiration from that sublime — even divine — side of the Catholic Church, from those church workers (Workers? As in "employees"... or "hirelings"? Has he the slightest idea what he's talking about?) whose magnificence lies not in their vestments, but in their selflessness. Again, the false dichotomy. They’re enough to make the Virgin Mary smile. Is it a sign of hubris or delusions of infallibility when a lefty reporter purports to know what "make[s] the Virgin Mary smile" Other than to bash the Church has he ever given the slightest thought to doing what "make[s] the Virgin Mary smile"?
To wrap-up: other than "the (institutional) Church sucks but Marxist nuns are cool" what's his premise? Where are his conclusions? This isn't a serious piece! He's denigrates "the Vatican" but can only muster ad hominem attacks rather than legitimate criticisms; and he seems to think that reversing two thousand years of doctrine on the flimsiest of "evidence", i.e. Junia and Phoebe, in order to permit the novelty of "women priests" would somehow solve all of the problems he ascribes to the Church? Rubbish!
Given that the NYT is hell-bent on attacking the Church one would think they'd at least make a better effort, but unfortunately legions of ignoramuses will eat it up anyway. If I were Mr. Kristof I would be embarrassed to have my name on this hackwork...
I thought one of the real pros on the web might give this piece a solemn high fisking but it seems that the task has fallen to this humble amateur. So, on to the show:
A Church Mary Can Love
I heard a joke the other day about a pious soul who dies, goes to heaven, and gains an audience with the Virgin Mary. The visitor asks Mary why, for all her blessings, she always appears in paintings as a bit sad, a bit wistful: Is everything O.K.?
Mary reassures her visitor: “Oh, everything’s great. No problems. It’s just ... it’s just that we had always wanted a daughter.” Really classy beginning. In addition to betraying his utter ignorance of Catholic dogma it immediately informs the reader that the author has already decided that the beliefs of Catholics are a proper subject of ridicule and not worthy of his respect.
That story comes to mind as the Vatican wrestles with the consequences of a patriarchal premodern mind-set: scandal, cover-up and the clumsiest self-defense since Watergate. That’s what happens with old boys’ clubs. You know the drill - patriarchal is bad, "premodern" [sic] is bad, etc.
It wasn’t inevitable that the Catholic Church would grow so addicted to male domination, celibacy and rigid hierarchies. Jesus himself focused on the needy rather than dogma, and went out of his way to engage women and treat them with respect. Three quick points: 1.) An organization which is faithful to its tenets is "addicted" to them? Do you suppose he feels the same way about, say, B'nai Brith or the N.A.A.C.P.? 2.) Caritas versus dogma is a classic false dichotomy. Having proposed it as fact, expect him to continue this theme. 3.) He implicitly accepts the notion here that Jesus founded the Catholic Church - do you suppose he really believes it?
The first-century church was inclusive and democratic, even including a proto-feminist wing and texts. Really? "Inclusive" as in "including" those who dissented from Her central beliefs? "Democratic" as in "majority rule"? A "proto-feminist wing"? What serious basis has he for these outlandish claims? Read on... The Gospel of Philip, a Gnostic text (if you don't know what Gnosticism is, look it up. There is a reason it's not called a "Christian" text, nor was it included in the Bible. Catholics call these texts "apocryphal" - 'nuff said) from the third century, declares of Mary Magdalene: “She is the one the Savior loved more than all the disciples.” Likewise, the Gospel of Mary (also Gnostic and apocryphal) (from the early second century) suggests that Jesus entrusted Mary Magdalene to instruct the disciples on his religious teachings. (So what? How many of us were taught the Catholic Faith by our mothers, or by the nuns? Nobody says a female cannot transmit the Faith!)
St. Paul refers in Romans 16 to a first-century woman named Junia as prominent among the early apostles (in addition to the doubt over the gender of Junia, there isn't even any degree of certainty as to whether Junia was personally an Apostle or simply well known to them...), and to a woman named Phoebe who served as a deacon. The word "deacon" comes from the Greek "diakonos" which means "to serve", i.e. "one who serves" It was applied in the primitive Church both to males who were ordained to serve and females who were entrusted with specific tasks such as preparing female catechumens for Baptism. "Deacon" and "deaconess" were neither equivalent nor interchangeable (except nowadays in the fantasies of the wymynchurch crowd) The Apostle Junia became a Christian before St. Paul did (which proves what? St. Paul was *personally* called by Jesus Christ to his Apostleship. Is Judas also greater because he became a Christian before St. Paul?) (chauvinist translators have sometimes rendered her name masculine, with no scholarly basis). And he knows they're "chavinist"... how exactly? By the same infallible intuition which yields the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with President Obama on matters of policy is ipso facto a racist? And how is he qualified to pronounce on their scholarship, other than by dint of his disdisdain for its conclusions?
Yet over the ensuing centuries, the church reverted to strong patriarchal attitudes, while also becoming increasingly uncomfortable with sexuality. This is absurd. The shift may have come with the move from house churches, where women were naturally accepted, to more public gatherings. How does Mr. Kristof - or anyone else - know what went on in these "house churches"? When the Church came out of the Catacombs, so to speak, much of the pattern of Her public worship followed the model of Jewish temple services in which the sexes were segregated to preserve modesty and maintain attention on the liturgy. Does promotion of modesty and protection of chastity equate to discomfort with "sexuality" or is he implying that the Church of Junia and Phoebe was libertine in morality?
The upshot is that (heretical) proto-feminist texts were not included when the Bible was compiled (and were mostly lost until modern times). "Compiled" as if it were a secular anthology, assembled by a committee of editors, as opposed to the Catholic teaching of Divine Inspiration. Tertullian, an early Christian leader, (neither a pope nor a bishop, a priest whose opinions were his own) denounced women as “the gateway to the devil,” (five words presented without a shred of context) while a contemporary account reports that the great Origen of Alexandria took his piety a step further and castrated himself. Which proves... what? Again, not a pope, not a bishop, and someone who at various times espoused some very strange ideas about the Christian Faith. I'll bet Mr. Kristof pooh-poohs Papal Infallibilty but he seems to accept uncritically some very dubious assumptions about two controversial priests from the Patristic Era (again - not popes, not bishops, not saints) about whom our knowledge is fragmentary.
The Catholic Church still seems stuck today in that patriarchal rut. Again, consistency is bad, now it's equivalent to a "rut" The same faith that was so pioneering that it had Junia as a female apostle way back in the first century can’t even have a woman as the lowliest parish priest. Female deacons, permitted for centuries, are banned today. Having floated the dubious "Junia/Pheobe" theories as if they were true, he now attempts to make them the foundations for his argument...
That old boys’ club in the Vatican became as self-absorbed as other old boys’ clubs, like Lehman Brothers, with similar results. And that is the reason the Vatican is floundering today. One could well substitute "The New York Times" and "Goldman Sachs" (Mr. Kristof would understand both references) for "the Vatican" and "Lehman Brothers"...
But there’s more to the picture than that. In my travels around the world, I encounter two Catholic Churches. How does he "encounter" them - is he a Catholic or a catechumen? One is the rigid all-male Vatican hierarchy that seems out of touch when it bans condoms even among married couples where one partner is H.I.V.-positive. We are called to accept the consequences of our previous acts, even though our sins may be forgiven. Mr. Kristof doesn't seem to know the difference. To me at least, (assuming that he is somehow qualified to judge an entity he doesn't understand which exists to propagate a faith which he does not espouse) this church — obsessed with dogma and rules and distracted from social justice — is a modern echo of the Pharisees whom Jesus criticized. "Social Justice" is very important to Mr. Kristof and his bien pensant friends, especially when they get to define it. "Dogma" and "rules", on the other hand, are the marks of "rigid", "patriarchal", "premodern" [sic] organizations "addicted" to their misbegotten beliefs and stuck in the "rut" of consistency...
Yet there’s another Catholic Church as well, one I admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Caritas, saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide needy children an escalator out of poverty. Organizations and schools founded by the "grass-roots Catholic Church", right?
This is the church of the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives. And if I were pope I'd send such priests to a monastery in the Antarctic. It does not appear to be the Will of God that either Father Rubbermaker or I become pope at this juncture...
This is the church of the Maryknoll Sisters in Central America (best known for their embrace of "liberation theology" and support of Marxist regimes in Central and South America - the sort of nuns of which Mr. Kristof approves) and the Cabrini Sisters in Africa. There’s a stereotype (which expired about forty years ago) of nuns as stodgy Victorian traditionalists. Would that it were! I learned otherwise while hanging on for my life in a passenger seat as an American nun with a lead foot drove her jeep over ruts and through a creek in Swaziland to visit AIDS orphans. After a number of encounters like that, I’ve come to believe that the very coolest people in the world today may be nuns. "Cool" trumps fidelity to the actual teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I wonder if Sister Leadfoot was wearing a sweatshirt with an image of Che Guevara...
So when you read about the scandals, remember that the Vatican is not the same as the Catholic Church. And remember that what appears in the pages of The New York Times isn't the same as the truth. Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers may never see a cardinal, but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic Church in the form of priests, nuns and lay workers toiling to make a difference. The "Vatican" which Mr. Kristof wishes to implicate is the current leadership of the Church, men who have done much to rein-in the moral laxity which developed in the immediate post-Conciliar years. One senses that Mr. Kristof found much to admire in (his perception of) the "Vatican" of the Paul VI era, many of whom were directly responsible for that laxity which now gives him occasion to attack the Church...
It’s high time (Pope Nicholas of New York has spoken, the case is closed) for the Vatican to take inspiration from that sublime — even divine — side of the Catholic Church, from those church workers (Workers? As in "employees"... or "hirelings"? Has he the slightest idea what he's talking about?) whose magnificence lies not in their vestments, but in their selflessness. Again, the false dichotomy. They’re enough to make the Virgin Mary smile. Is it a sign of hubris or delusions of infallibility when a lefty reporter purports to know what "make[s] the Virgin Mary smile" Other than to bash the Church has he ever given the slightest thought to doing what "make[s] the Virgin Mary smile"?
To wrap-up: other than "the (institutional) Church sucks but Marxist nuns are cool" what's his premise? Where are his conclusions? This isn't a serious piece! He's denigrates "the Vatican" but can only muster ad hominem attacks rather than legitimate criticisms; and he seems to think that reversing two thousand years of doctrine on the flimsiest of "evidence", i.e. Junia and Phoebe, in order to permit the novelty of "women priests" would somehow solve all of the problems he ascribes to the Church? Rubbish!
Given that the NYT is hell-bent on attacking the Church one would think they'd at least make a better effort, but unfortunately legions of ignoramuses will eat it up anyway. If I were Mr. Kristof I would be embarrassed to have my name on this hackwork...
18 April 2010
16 April 2010
Birthday Prayers
My mother and the Pope share the same birthday - 16 April. The Holy Father is a few years older but in much better health. However, he is under unprecendented attack by the media at this time. This must weigh heavily on any pope, especially a man of 83.
In all likelihood, both of them are much closer to the day of their judgment than most of us are. In certainty they will benefit by your prayers. In your charity please pray for both of them.
Thank you.
In all likelihood, both of them are much closer to the day of their judgment than most of us are. In certainty they will benefit by your prayers. In your charity please pray for both of them.
Thank you.
14 April 2010
I don't have writer's block...
...it's just that I have been so darned busy at work and at home for the past few weeks that I have had little time for leisure (which this blog most assuredly is!)
I've been trying to find time to write part 2 of the post I started two weeks ago, but it takes a little bit of time and no little thought to write so personally and about such conseqential matters. I have this odd idea that someone might find my thoughts in the realm of personal faith useful or at least interesting, so that they ought to be correctly expressed.
Meanwhile, I commend for your attention a most interesting interview with Martin Mosebach, the author of one of the most important Catholic books of the 21st century: The Heresy of Formlessness. (If you haven't read it, you should!)
Martin Mosebach Interview - Part I
Martin Mosebach Interview - Part II
h/t to Rorate Caeli
Enjoy!
I've been trying to find time to write part 2 of the post I started two weeks ago, but it takes a little bit of time and no little thought to write so personally and about such conseqential matters. I have this odd idea that someone might find my thoughts in the realm of personal faith useful or at least interesting, so that they ought to be correctly expressed.
Meanwhile, I commend for your attention a most interesting interview with Martin Mosebach, the author of one of the most important Catholic books of the 21st century: The Heresy of Formlessness. (If you haven't read it, you should!)
Martin Mosebach Interview - Part I
Martin Mosebach Interview - Part II
h/t to Rorate Caeli
Enjoy!
08 April 2010
On Various Matters..
- We were blessed to be able to attend two-thirds of the Triduum in the traditional rite this year, Holy Thursday in the basement, er, "lower church" of the Cathedral in Boston; and Good Friday at Holy Name in Providence. Good Friday was especially moving and evocative, the three Deacons of the Passion did a magnificent job: one, a Trappist priest who's now in the Diocese of Fall River, the second a priest who serves on the tribunal in Providence who came to us from Nigeria by way of Italy, and the third a Dominican who teaches at P.C. And Father Santos of Holy Name is a Rhode Island native who spent nearly two decades in the Archdiocese of Braga in Portugal. Talk about the Universal Church! And the schola - all amateur, all volunteer, was utterly magnificent. They sang Tomás Luis de Victoria's setting of the Improperia which literally brought tears to my eyes.
- On baseball, it was very odd - disconcerting, even - to have the Sox opening at night - a Sunday night - Easter Sunday - all for the sake of the ESPN contract. They lucked out with the weather, part of me was hoping that the last torrential downpours of the last three weeks would return at gametime just because of the incongruity of it all. Monday we were treated to the spectacle of the President throwing out the first pitch for the home opener in D.C. No matter what you think of his politics (you probably know my opinion) you have to admit it's embarrassing to have a president who throws like a girl! (excuse the expression - actually I've known girls who threw better!)
- For years I was forced to endure* ham for Easter. I'm really not sure where that "tradition" originated. Perhaps it was a way to differentiate ourselves from our elder brothers in the Faith, whose paschal meal was a lamb; or even a bit of epicurian triumphialism at their expense: "nyah, nyah, we can eat ham!" No matter the cause, as long as the Archlady and I have hosted Easter dinner we've had lamb. And to me there's nothing better than a leg of lamb cooked properly, with some spring vegetables, and a good red wine. We did the Easter lamb with garlic and rosemary, and it was perfect with the superb claret which one of our guests brought. And last night we had some leftovers, equally tasty with a $5.99 petite syrah from Trader Joe's.
- The MSM has taken curiously little note of it, but Pope Benedict has appointed a coadjutor Archbishop of Los Angeles, Archbishop Jose Gomez, most recently of San Antonio, Texas. Unlike an auxiliary, a coadjutor has the right of succession, which means that Abp. Gomez will become the Archbishop of Los Angeles when Cardinal Mahony (finally!) reaches the age of 75 next year. To the extent that the media has covered it they've focused on it as the appointment of a Hispanic archbishop in Los Angeles, which is incidentally the most populous archdiocese in the U.S. Some stories have noted that Abp. Gomez belongs to Opus Dei and as such ought to be considered "conservative", but the real story here is that this huge archdiocese is getting an solid, orthodox archbishop whose thinking in inline with the pope's. Sadly, that has not been able to be said during Cardinal Mahony's archepiscopacy, which had endured for nearly 25 years. One might see it as a pointed repudiation of Mahony, but I prefer to see it as another gift from Pope Benedict, not only to the long-suffering Catholics of Los Angeles, not only to Americans of Hispanic extraction, but to the Church in the entire United States...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)