Finding God in The Shack, by Randal Rauser
Heaven in Our Hands: Living the Beatitudes, by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R.
Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett
So far this year: 11 books
Previously in this series:
January, February
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
ML King, Junior on that honorary degree for Obama
Francis Beckwith quotes the famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail to good effect.
Writing on the same subject, "Uncle Di" says the trouble at Notre Dame goes back 40 years, to the "Land O' Lakes rebellion" of 1967, which denied that Catholic universities have any allegiance to authority "external to the academic community itself," with the predictable result that "The Pope and the bishop have no teaching authority inside the school except that granted to them by the academic community itself."
That the assertion is demonstrably false doesn't matter, because it's at the heart of that never-repudiated "Land O'Lakes" declaration. "Arguably," adds Uncle Di with more than a little heat, that golden dome and chapel mean less than they should, because "God has no authority at Notre Dame—unless the academic community itself sees fit. To claim otherwise would be a violation of 'true autonomy.' "
For some people (and more than a few professors), it appears that autonomy means never having to say you're sorry.
Writing on the same subject, "Uncle Di" says the trouble at Notre Dame goes back 40 years, to the "Land O' Lakes rebellion" of 1967, which denied that Catholic universities have any allegiance to authority "external to the academic community itself," with the predictable result that "The Pope and the bishop have no teaching authority inside the school except that granted to them by the academic community itself."
That the assertion is demonstrably false doesn't matter, because it's at the heart of that never-repudiated "Land O'Lakes" declaration. "Arguably," adds Uncle Di with more than a little heat, that golden dome and chapel mean less than they should, because "God has no authority at Notre Dame—unless the academic community itself sees fit. To claim otherwise would be a violation of 'true autonomy.' "
For some people (and more than a few professors), it appears that autonomy means never having to say you're sorry.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The straw men are never safe
Mark Steyn is not the first to notice our president's favorite rhetorical trick (P.J. O'Rourke saw this same move in the stem cell research remarks), but Steyn is right to call attention to it again:
"Writing in the Chicago Tribune last week, President Obama fell back on one of his favorite rhetorical tics: “But I also know,” he wrote, “that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.”
Really? For the moment, it’s a “false choice” mainly in the sense that he’s not offering it: “a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is not on the menu, which leaves “an oppressive government-run economy” as pretty much the only game in town. How oppressive is yet to be determined: To be sure, the official position remains that only “the richest five percent” will have taxes increased. But you’ll be surprised at the percentage of Americans who wind up in the richest five percent."
"Writing in the Chicago Tribune last week, President Obama fell back on one of his favorite rhetorical tics: “But I also know,” he wrote, “that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.”
Really? For the moment, it’s a “false choice” mainly in the sense that he’s not offering it: “a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is not on the menu, which leaves “an oppressive government-run economy” as pretty much the only game in town. How oppressive is yet to be determined: To be sure, the official position remains that only “the richest five percent” will have taxes increased. But you’ll be surprised at the percentage of Americans who wind up in the richest five percent."
Friday, March 27, 2009
Beethoven for a Friday
From a recording of American pianist Van Cliburn performing in Moscow in 1962:
This news and advice also touches a deep chord.
This news and advice also touches a deep chord.
The rising of the Red River in North Dakota is another occasion for prayer, and also a reminder of singer/songwriter James Keelaghan's "Red River Rising."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Sacramone for two
On the lighter side-- Anthony Sacramone shoots and scores.
I like his squib on conspiracies, and his note about the upcoming über-stupid Angels and Demons movie.
This is pretty funny, also, although it's not from Mr. Sacramone.
I like his squib on conspiracies, and his note about the upcoming über-stupid Angels and Demons movie.
This is pretty funny, also, although it's not from Mr. Sacramone.
Means and Ends
Inside Catholic has a brace of fascinating and complementary essays up today. David Warren asks a question: Can we not act in such a way that even by our means, our ends are exemplified?
Lila Rose is one of the people answering that question affirmatively.
Related, in its own way: Mike Rowe's take on the AIG bonus controversy.
Lila Rose is one of the people answering that question affirmatively.
Related, in its own way: Mike Rowe's take on the AIG bonus controversy.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Celebrating the Annunciation with mixed metaphors
Ouside the element of surprise common to all of them, there would not seem to be much overlap between the Pearl Harbor attack, the recent firing of an amateur theologian from an administrative post in Wisconsin, and the Feast of the Annunciation of the Lord.
But perhaps there is more overlap than meets the casual glance.
I do recognize that "one of these things is not like the others, " in that the Annunciation changed the course of history, and the other two events are trivial by comparison.
Still, anyone as inclined to whimsy as I am can find a golden thread that links these disparate events. I think that thread is a phrase attributed to Howell Forgy.
Wikipedia says Forgy was a Navy chaplain at Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7, 1941. As a lieutenant (j.g.), Forgy served aboard the USS New Orleans, and is credited with rousing his shipmates to respond to the attack by coining the morale-boosting phrase, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
The attitude captured by that phrase, while too obviously and uncomfortably martial for some environments, must nevertheless be recommended to any Christian under attack.
It is hardly necessary to reiterate that attacks are not always with munitions and do not always come from prop-driven aircraft in Hawaiian skies, but I'm going to repeat that anyway, for the sake of a segue into spiritual warfare, and one contemporary bishop's response to teaching that was scandalizing some of the more vulnerable sheep in his flock.
The pundit "Diogenes" has a reputation for pondering Catholic controversy with the jaundiced eye of a bandolier-wearing bandito in a Spaghetti Western. Writing about the noticed-in-some-circles firing of a recalcitrant pastoral associate described as doctrinally "off base" by the bishop of Madison, Wisconsin, he makes an important and much larger point:
"To some Catholics, after all, it matters whether or not the Church is right about what she teaches -- in fact it matters more than whether the person who conveys the teaching is lovable or not -- and the same Church insists Catholics deserve sound teaching as a right, not as a favor bestowed according to the whim of their pastors. [Bishop] Morlino has defended this right."
A followup post about the dismissal of one Ruth Kolpack from her churchly employment sheds additional light on the subject: "After her firing, Kolpack protested that "the Scriptures are my foundation," but in her thesis for a Master's of Dvinity degree ["Inclusive Language for Naming God: Challenge for the Church"] she would have us remember that [in her opinion] the Scriptures include a "patriarchal bias and androcentric traditioning process that can fundamentally distort the revelatory good news of salvation." A fundamentally distorted foundation [!]. Any questions, class?"
(Fr. Z has answers)
Yes, that "Institutional Goliath Squashes Plucky Feminist David" storyline soothes like a lollipop when you're the one holding a pink slip and a slingshot. Metaphorically speaking, Kolpack probably thinks her difficulties with Catholic teaching and mainstream scriptural exegesis comprise a noble (not to say spirited) defense of women going back to Eve. "God is acting...to free God language from the captivity of patriarchy," she asserts, even while opining in the same thesis that claims to absolute truth can be manifestations of "religious evil." Her tolerance for irony is greater than my own. And there was more to Kolpack's dismissal than her misguided thesis (the Curt Jester offers a fine after-action report).
Still, the dominant narrative of Kolpack as victim deserves a closer look: As a pastoral associate and a pillar of her parish, Kolpack was in a position to influence other Catholics, especially youngsters who looked to people like her for religious instruction. Consequently, her views were public rather than private, and offered under cover or color of authority.
When, in response to complaints from several people, her bishop decided to "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition," that ammunition -- which consisted in part of her 52-page thesis -- was readily available. It was also defective. That Kolpack now complains because her bishop did not offer to debate her point-by-point marks her as a scholarship winner in the "Doug Kmiec School of Self-Important Discourse."
Hey, I can be as much of a Pharisee as the next person. I know the signs. But that pride stands in marked contrast to the humble attitude of the "Second Eve" -- Mary, mother of the Lord.
If you think of Christmas as a great feast that commemorates when God established a divine beachhead on what had become (since The Fall) "enemy-occupied territory," then the fiat with which Mary answered the Angel Gabriel ("Be it done unto me according to your word") can also be understood as a first-century version of "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition."
The metaphor only goes so far (Jesus as a round chambered in the womb of Mary? God the Father as a cosmic sniper drawing a bead on Satan? Please! A trip to the confessional is probably in order).
The caveat, then: There are good reasons why it makes more sense to be an unspecified "instrument," rather than a cartridge, a shell, or a bullet, for God. Overweening fondness for loosing the "fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword" can only end in tears, when all who presume martial purpose realize too late that God is also "trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored." Result: the grapes are juiced and the vintners are out of work.
The one stupid line in the Marines' Hymn is its assertion that if the Army, Navy, and Air Force ever look on heaven's scenes, they will find the streets are "guarded by United States Marines." Like heaven needs guards, or Michael the Archangel and his faithful legions didn't write the original book on How to Open a Can of Whoop-Ass.
Arms are for hugging, as the hippies used to say, although one hesitates to rely on that advice, either, seeing as how it came from a generation enamored with what Ben Wiker calls "Ten Books that Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help."
All that said, we must also remember that on this mortal coil where the default position of the church militant can only be described as "besieged," spiritual warfare is real. Moreover, Satan does not hesitate to use confusion as a weapon.
With that in mind, the best approach to controversy in the church (and elsewhere, too) can be found in the humility modeled for the rest of us by Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. "Do whatever he tells you," says Mary of her divine son, at the wedding in Cana and down through the centuries.
Humility, per the fathers of the Church, is key to the Feast of the Annunciation celebrated today, when (as a beautiful web site reminded me) "The Son of God became the Son of Man so that the sons of men might become the sons of God.”
Love gets all the press, and deservedly so, but if you think about the chain of events initiated by Mary's humble "yes" to the proposition relayed to her by the Angel Gabriel, you can make a better-than-fair case for humility as the hinge or linchpin of human history. With it, we live. Without it, we die.
Hence the words of a hymn called "Magnificat," as sung from Mary's point of view to the familiar tune of "Amazing Grace."
All nations now will share my joy;
For gifts God has outpoured,
This lowly one has been made great;
I magnify the Lord.
For those who fear the Holy One,
God's mercy will not die.
Whose strong right arm puts down the proud,
And lifts the lowly high.
Those stirring words provide more than a hint of why I'm with Howell Forgy (and also, I fervently hope, with Mary and Joseph and Jesus).
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!
But perhaps there is more overlap than meets the casual glance.
I do recognize that "one of these things is not like the others, " in that the Annunciation changed the course of history, and the other two events are trivial by comparison.
Still, anyone as inclined to whimsy as I am can find a golden thread that links these disparate events. I think that thread is a phrase attributed to Howell Forgy.
Wikipedia says Forgy was a Navy chaplain at Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7, 1941. As a lieutenant (j.g.), Forgy served aboard the USS New Orleans, and is credited with rousing his shipmates to respond to the attack by coining the morale-boosting phrase, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
The attitude captured by that phrase, while too obviously and uncomfortably martial for some environments, must nevertheless be recommended to any Christian under attack.
It is hardly necessary to reiterate that attacks are not always with munitions and do not always come from prop-driven aircraft in Hawaiian skies, but I'm going to repeat that anyway, for the sake of a segue into spiritual warfare, and one contemporary bishop's response to teaching that was scandalizing some of the more vulnerable sheep in his flock.
The pundit "Diogenes" has a reputation for pondering Catholic controversy with the jaundiced eye of a bandolier-wearing bandito in a Spaghetti Western. Writing about the noticed-in-some-circles firing of a recalcitrant pastoral associate described as doctrinally "off base" by the bishop of Madison, Wisconsin, he makes an important and much larger point:
"To some Catholics, after all, it matters whether or not the Church is right about what she teaches -- in fact it matters more than whether the person who conveys the teaching is lovable or not -- and the same Church insists Catholics deserve sound teaching as a right, not as a favor bestowed according to the whim of their pastors. [Bishop] Morlino has defended this right."
A followup post about the dismissal of one Ruth Kolpack from her churchly employment sheds additional light on the subject: "After her firing, Kolpack protested that "the Scriptures are my foundation," but in her thesis for a Master's of Dvinity degree ["Inclusive Language for Naming God: Challenge for the Church"] she would have us remember that [in her opinion] the Scriptures include a "patriarchal bias and androcentric traditioning process that can fundamentally distort the revelatory good news of salvation." A fundamentally distorted foundation [!]. Any questions, class?"
(Fr. Z has answers)
Yes, that "Institutional Goliath Squashes Plucky Feminist David" storyline soothes like a lollipop when you're the one holding a pink slip and a slingshot. Metaphorically speaking, Kolpack probably thinks her difficulties with Catholic teaching and mainstream scriptural exegesis comprise a noble (not to say spirited) defense of women going back to Eve. "God is acting...to free God language from the captivity of patriarchy," she asserts, even while opining in the same thesis that claims to absolute truth can be manifestations of "religious evil." Her tolerance for irony is greater than my own. And there was more to Kolpack's dismissal than her misguided thesis (the Curt Jester offers a fine after-action report).
Still, the dominant narrative of Kolpack as victim deserves a closer look: As a pastoral associate and a pillar of her parish, Kolpack was in a position to influence other Catholics, especially youngsters who looked to people like her for religious instruction. Consequently, her views were public rather than private, and offered under cover or color of authority.
When, in response to complaints from several people, her bishop decided to "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition," that ammunition -- which consisted in part of her 52-page thesis -- was readily available. It was also defective. That Kolpack now complains because her bishop did not offer to debate her point-by-point marks her as a scholarship winner in the "Doug Kmiec School of Self-Important Discourse."
Hey, I can be as much of a Pharisee as the next person. I know the signs. But that pride stands in marked contrast to the humble attitude of the "Second Eve" -- Mary, mother of the Lord.
If you think of Christmas as a great feast that commemorates when God established a divine beachhead on what had become (since The Fall) "enemy-occupied territory," then the fiat with which Mary answered the Angel Gabriel ("Be it done unto me according to your word") can also be understood as a first-century version of "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition."
The metaphor only goes so far (Jesus as a round chambered in the womb of Mary? God the Father as a cosmic sniper drawing a bead on Satan? Please! A trip to the confessional is probably in order).
The caveat, then: There are good reasons why it makes more sense to be an unspecified "instrument," rather than a cartridge, a shell, or a bullet, for God. Overweening fondness for loosing the "fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword" can only end in tears, when all who presume martial purpose realize too late that God is also "trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored." Result: the grapes are juiced and the vintners are out of work.
The one stupid line in the Marines' Hymn is its assertion that if the Army, Navy, and Air Force ever look on heaven's scenes, they will find the streets are "guarded by United States Marines." Like heaven needs guards, or Michael the Archangel and his faithful legions didn't write the original book on How to Open a Can of Whoop-Ass.
Arms are for hugging, as the hippies used to say, although one hesitates to rely on that advice, either, seeing as how it came from a generation enamored with what Ben Wiker calls "Ten Books that Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help."
All that said, we must also remember that on this mortal coil where the default position of the church militant can only be described as "besieged," spiritual warfare is real. Moreover, Satan does not hesitate to use confusion as a weapon.
With that in mind, the best approach to controversy in the church (and elsewhere, too) can be found in the humility modeled for the rest of us by Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. "Do whatever he tells you," says Mary of her divine son, at the wedding in Cana and down through the centuries.
Humility, per the fathers of the Church, is key to the Feast of the Annunciation celebrated today, when (as a beautiful web site reminded me) "The Son of God became the Son of Man so that the sons of men might become the sons of God.”
Love gets all the press, and deservedly so, but if you think about the chain of events initiated by Mary's humble "yes" to the proposition relayed to her by the Angel Gabriel, you can make a better-than-fair case for humility as the hinge or linchpin of human history. With it, we live. Without it, we die.
Hence the words of a hymn called "Magnificat," as sung from Mary's point of view to the familiar tune of "Amazing Grace."
All nations now will share my joy;
For gifts God has outpoured,
This lowly one has been made great;
I magnify the Lord.
For those who fear the Holy One,
God's mercy will not die.
Whose strong right arm puts down the proud,
And lifts the lowly high.
Those stirring words provide more than a hint of why I'm with Howell Forgy (and also, I fervently hope, with Mary and Joseph and Jesus).
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Too late to rescind the invitation?
William McGurn writes the column of the day about the University of Notre Dame's misbegotten decision (Stephen Barr calls it a "Faustian bargain") to ask President Obama to give the commencement address there.
If you don't have time to read National Review's symposium on the issue, just read McGurn.
If you don't have time to read National Review's symposium on the issue, just read McGurn.
Press Conference prep and backstory
The president has a news conference scheduled for this evening. It's his first in six weeks (about on par for what he'd said to the New York Times about holding a news conference approximately once a month).
The history of presidential press conferences goes back to Woodrow Wilson in 1913, and it's moderately interesting. But even more interesting, I think, is the way that Chuck Todd of NBC approaches tonight's presser: his comments reminded me of how Judy Garland lost patience with the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz:
“The beauty of these press conferences for the president is that you look like you’re open and taking questions, when really it’s the most controlled setting you have for taking questions,” Todd said. “It’s more controlled than a sit-down interview because one-on-one, you get follow-ups. Here, you can move around and change topics.”
Bingo! The built-in "architecture" of a press conference is well-suited to most presidents, but especially this president, because, as David Warren notes, "He is a free soul, but he is also the product of environments in which even moderately conservative ideas are never considered; but where people on the further reaches of the left are automatically welcomed as 'avant-garde.' "
The history of presidential press conferences goes back to Woodrow Wilson in 1913, and it's moderately interesting. But even more interesting, I think, is the way that Chuck Todd of NBC approaches tonight's presser: his comments reminded me of how Judy Garland lost patience with the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz:
“The beauty of these press conferences for the president is that you look like you’re open and taking questions, when really it’s the most controlled setting you have for taking questions,” Todd said. “It’s more controlled than a sit-down interview because one-on-one, you get follow-ups. Here, you can move around and change topics.”
Bingo! The built-in "architecture" of a press conference is well-suited to most presidents, but especially this president, because, as David Warren notes, "He is a free soul, but he is also the product of environments in which even moderately conservative ideas are never considered; but where people on the further reaches of the left are automatically welcomed as 'avant-garde.' "
Except for his steadfast adherence to a progressive ideology that he'd rather the rest of us called "pragmatism" or "postpartisanship" because he fancies himself smart, centrist, and non-ideological, you could make a case that President Obama fits among those whom J.C. Ryle described as "legions of 'jelly-fish' young men annually turned out from our universities, armed with a few scraps of second-hand philosophy."
POSTSCRIPT: An observation after the fact, to go with a report from Andrew Malcolm.
Monday, March 23, 2009
A tale of two cities
In the earthly city, a bit of good news from Notre Dame, a sobering look at the price of Olympian detatchment, and a primer on the different types of government (especially valuable for anyone who takes liberty for granted or has not read Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn) that I found via the indispensable Bookworm:
In the heavenly city, some thoughts on how to be more light and less shadow from Jennifer, some handy bible verses from Julie, and a pertinent question from Charlie.
In the heavenly city, some thoughts on how to be more light and less shadow from Jennifer, some handy bible verses from Julie, and a pertinent question from Charlie.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Revisiting the twenty-third Psalm
If you ever wondered why a shpherd would carry both a rod and a staff, you can find the answer here.
Friday, March 20, 2009
With the pope in Africa
You probably heard about the "controversy" that ensued when the pope, in answer to a question from a French reporter on his plane to Africa, opined that as far as HIV/AIDS prevention is concerned, condoms are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
It's no surprise that Benedict XVI would say that, or that woefully misinformed commentators (like Jon Stewart of The Daily Show) would sieze on that remark in a lame attempt to portray Catholicism as out of touch with reality (Stewart took the low road: "The pope went on to say that smoking cures cancer, and that if you're looking for a quick morning pick-me-up, try heroin.")
What Stewart and his ilk won't mention is that even honest AIDS researchers (and health care administrators) say the pope was right. Moreover, the pope is not alone, not least because "This opinion is supported by local African AIDS activists who regularly complain that AIDS sufferers in their countries are being used in a massive international campaign both to reduce African populations and undermine traditional African family values."
Certainly Pope Benedict is no stranger to controversy. What's aggravating to those of us who are grateful for his leadership is that so many "controversies" warrant those quotation marks because they're just temper tantrums thrown by people with access to a microphone or a journalist's notebook. (UPDATE: That's not just me talking. Non-Catholic novelist Andrew Klavan implies as much in this fine defense of the pope.)
Hissy fits are counterproductive. "Holier-than-thou" hissy fits are especially counterproductive. Far better to listen to and think about what Pope Benedict actually says in his official capacity, as in this excerpt from a speech given this week in Cameroon (Deacon Greg Kandra has more):
"If discouragement overwhelms you, think of the faith of Joseph; if anxiety has its grip on you, think of the hope of Joseph, that descendant of Abraham who hoped against hope; if exasperation or hatred seizes you, think of the love of Joseph, who was the first man to set eyes on the human face of God in the person of the Infant conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Let us praise and thank Christ for having drawn so close to us, and for giving us Joseph as an example and model of love for him.
Dear brothers and sisters, I want to say to you once more from the bottom of my heart: like Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary into your home, that is to say do not be afraid to love the Church. Mary, Mother of the Church, will teach you to follow your pastors, to love your bishops, your priests, your deacons and your catechists; to heed what they teach you and to pray for their intentions. Husbands, look upon the love of Joseph for Mary and Jesus; those preparing for marriage, treat your future spouse as Joseph did; those of you who have given yourselves to God in celibacy, reflect upon the teaching of the Church, our Mother: “Virginity or celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God not only does not contradict the dignity of marriage but presupposes and confirms it. Marriage and virginity are two ways of expressing and living the one mystery of the Covenant of God with his people” (Redemptoris Custos, 20)."
In John Zmirak's typically felicitous phrase about our German Shepherd, "Insofar as he shows us (through smoked Bavarian glass) the Father he works for, Il Papa makes us positively long to embrace Big Daddy."
POSTSCRIPT: For background on why the church believes what it does with regard to contraception, there are a number of reliable sources, but George Sim Johnston's "The Bitter Pill" is a good place to start.
It's no surprise that Benedict XVI would say that, or that woefully misinformed commentators (like Jon Stewart of The Daily Show) would sieze on that remark in a lame attempt to portray Catholicism as out of touch with reality (Stewart took the low road: "The pope went on to say that smoking cures cancer, and that if you're looking for a quick morning pick-me-up, try heroin.")
What Stewart and his ilk won't mention is that even honest AIDS researchers (and health care administrators) say the pope was right. Moreover, the pope is not alone, not least because "This opinion is supported by local African AIDS activists who regularly complain that AIDS sufferers in their countries are being used in a massive international campaign both to reduce African populations and undermine traditional African family values."
Certainly Pope Benedict is no stranger to controversy. What's aggravating to those of us who are grateful for his leadership is that so many "controversies" warrant those quotation marks because they're just temper tantrums thrown by people with access to a microphone or a journalist's notebook. (UPDATE: That's not just me talking. Non-Catholic novelist Andrew Klavan implies as much in this fine defense of the pope.)
Hissy fits are counterproductive. "Holier-than-thou" hissy fits are especially counterproductive. Far better to listen to and think about what Pope Benedict actually says in his official capacity, as in this excerpt from a speech given this week in Cameroon (Deacon Greg Kandra has more):
"If discouragement overwhelms you, think of the faith of Joseph; if anxiety has its grip on you, think of the hope of Joseph, that descendant of Abraham who hoped against hope; if exasperation or hatred seizes you, think of the love of Joseph, who was the first man to set eyes on the human face of God in the person of the Infant conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Let us praise and thank Christ for having drawn so close to us, and for giving us Joseph as an example and model of love for him.
Dear brothers and sisters, I want to say to you once more from the bottom of my heart: like Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary into your home, that is to say do not be afraid to love the Church. Mary, Mother of the Church, will teach you to follow your pastors, to love your bishops, your priests, your deacons and your catechists; to heed what they teach you and to pray for their intentions. Husbands, look upon the love of Joseph for Mary and Jesus; those preparing for marriage, treat your future spouse as Joseph did; those of you who have given yourselves to God in celibacy, reflect upon the teaching of the Church, our Mother: “Virginity or celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God not only does not contradict the dignity of marriage but presupposes and confirms it. Marriage and virginity are two ways of expressing and living the one mystery of the Covenant of God with his people” (Redemptoris Custos, 20)."
In John Zmirak's typically felicitous phrase about our German Shepherd, "Insofar as he shows us (through smoked Bavarian glass) the Father he works for, Il Papa makes us positively long to embrace Big Daddy."
POSTSCRIPT: For background on why the church believes what it does with regard to contraception, there are a number of reliable sources, but George Sim Johnston's "The Bitter Pill" is a good place to start.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Hillyer on the reigning ethos
Quin Hillyer's scathing indictment of the administration for its demonstrably anti-life views makes a nice bookend to my own essay of yesterday, and not just because we both mention the Susan B. Anthony List.
A one-AIG omelet?
Making that omelet would be tough, writes Steve Priestap, even for an ethically-challenged administration, thanks to good reasons that some people in Congress would rather not think about.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
William Shakespeare, Foghorn Leghorn, and Barack Obama
Did that title get your attention?
Add cameo appearances by J.R.R. Tolkien, Cinderella, and George Orwell to the mix, then ponder the limits of victim culture and the joy buzzer shocks that pundits usually extend to politicians who misunderstand the nature of bipartisanship (Cassandra was so hilariously right: for some presidents, bipartisanship is exactly like going after honey with balloons).
Throw most of the aforementioned influences into a blender and puree the mixture as long as it takes to make sense of the launch party for the new White House Council on Women and Girls.
You may not get that "frozen concoction that helps me hang on," but you will get a carefully-crafted essay that goes down the hatch smoothly, if I do say so myself.
Add cameo appearances by J.R.R. Tolkien, Cinderella, and George Orwell to the mix, then ponder the limits of victim culture and the joy buzzer shocks that pundits usually extend to politicians who misunderstand the nature of bipartisanship (Cassandra was so hilariously right: for some presidents, bipartisanship is exactly like going after honey with balloons).
Throw most of the aforementioned influences into a blender and puree the mixture as long as it takes to make sense of the launch party for the new White House Council on Women and Girls.
You may not get that "frozen concoction that helps me hang on," but you will get a carefully-crafted essay that goes down the hatch smoothly, if I do say so myself.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Got his Irish up (do not mess with P.J.)
It's only fitting that a Saint Patrick's Day planting on the Paragraph Farm should honor one of my favorite writers, P.J. O'Rourke.
The Anchoress tipped me to P.J.'s current activity. The man rocks harder than Bono, and -- like Charles Krauthammer -- his rebuttal to President Obama's "stem cell sophistry" is devastating.
When I grow up, I want to write like him, but I don't think I'll ever be able to. O'Rourke's "compare and contrast" exercise between science and morality is the stuff of greatness.
The Anchoress tipped me to P.J.'s current activity. The man rocks harder than Bono, and -- like Charles Krauthammer -- his rebuttal to President Obama's "stem cell sophistry" is devastating.
When I grow up, I want to write like him, but I don't think I'll ever be able to. O'Rourke's "compare and contrast" exercise between science and morality is the stuff of greatness.
Walks among the Irish
G. Tracy Meehan III on Saint Patrick, complete with anecdotes I had not heard before, like one about Celts who jeered Patrick as "holy boy" before coming to a grudging respect for, and than admiration of, the man.
James M. Thunder's "Saint Patrick for Adults" is also worth reading.
James M. Thunder's "Saint Patrick for Adults" is also worth reading.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Recaptioning fine art
Artist Andy Thomas paints subjects ranging from Civil War battles to Western scenes to politicians. He calls this painting of Republican presidents "Grand Old Gang," but if my friend Ramon is a reliable guide, it's now going around parts of the Internet with a more pointedly political caption: "So I said to him, 'Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain't him."
Helpful spiritual advice
"Don't ever listen to anyone who tells you that spirituality is a matter of loving nothing but God. Rather, it is a matter of loving everything in God. Every saint possesses one reality in common: a great heart. The rest of us suffer from coronary disease of a spiritual nature, with hearts all clogged and cluttered with the junk we've accumulated along the way. Some of it is bad; some is no longer useful; some is just unrelated to the pure love of God."
-- Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Heaven in Our Hands: Living the Beatitudes (1994, Charis Books/Servant Publications)
Pope Gregory the Great (remembered March 12 in the church calendar) does not appear in Fr. Groeschel's book, but it's full of interesting anecdotes about such people as Fr. Damien of Molokai, Fr. Solanus Casey of Detroit, and Mother Henriette Delille of New Orleans.
-- Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Heaven in Our Hands: Living the Beatitudes (1994, Charis Books/Servant Publications)
Pope Gregory the Great (remembered March 12 in the church calendar) does not appear in Fr. Groeschel's book, but it's full of interesting anecdotes about such people as Fr. Damien of Molokai, Fr. Solanus Casey of Detroit, and Mother Henriette Delille of New Orleans.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Atypical reading for Lent
Christopher Johnson starts this essay with a clip from the quirky sitcom "Scrubs," so you know you're in for something different. What starts as a garden-variety autobiographical rant to which Augustine of Hippo might point as an example of a restless heart becomes a meditation on Romans 7:15 and "mustard-seedery" without ever tipping its hand.
UPDATE: Moral seriousness comes in different forms, but its absence is keenly felt.
UPDATE: Moral seriousness comes in different forms, but its absence is keenly felt.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
An interesting point of view
Another reason to think well of people who brew their own beer-- they tend to know at least a smattering of history. This "DerWolfanwalt" guy can turn a phrase, too:
"In the Middle Ages, the saying went that philosophy was the handmaid of theology. It might have been more accurate to say that theology kept borrowing pieces of philosophy’s wardrobe and forgetting to return them. There was some utility to this at the time -- describing God in terms of Aristotle’s prime mover, or making use of his distinction between substance and accidents to explicate what exactly goes on in the Eucharist, were extremely useful for expanding our understanding of God; but only to a point. Scripture and Tradition already informed Man that God was the Uncaused Cause, and the reality of the Eucharist was proclaimed unequivocally by every priest who raised the Host and said, “Ecce Agus Dei.” We didn’t really need the Greeks for that. Meanwhile, philosophy went out [and] bought a new wardrobe, making theology look a tad dated. The thinkers of the Enlightenment accused theology of doing nothing but answering the questions of metaphysics with the word “God” and an appeal to faith, and they were not altogether wrong.
Unfortunately, the Enlightenment not only tried to shame theology with the newer wardrobe philosophy had acquired, but took the unusual step of trying to destroy the old wardrobe by setting it on fire with theology still in it."
"In the Middle Ages, the saying went that philosophy was the handmaid of theology. It might have been more accurate to say that theology kept borrowing pieces of philosophy’s wardrobe and forgetting to return them. There was some utility to this at the time -- describing God in terms of Aristotle’s prime mover, or making use of his distinction between substance and accidents to explicate what exactly goes on in the Eucharist, were extremely useful for expanding our understanding of God; but only to a point. Scripture and Tradition already informed Man that God was the Uncaused Cause, and the reality of the Eucharist was proclaimed unequivocally by every priest who raised the Host and said, “Ecce Agus Dei.” We didn’t really need the Greeks for that. Meanwhile, philosophy went out [and] bought a new wardrobe, making theology look a tad dated. The thinkers of the Enlightenment accused theology of doing nothing but answering the questions of metaphysics with the word “God” and an appeal to faith, and they were not altogether wrong.
Unfortunately, the Enlightenment not only tried to shame theology with the newer wardrobe philosophy had acquired, but took the unusual step of trying to destroy the old wardrobe by setting it on fire with theology still in it."
Letter writing 101
The thoughtful style would not work for everybody, but when you have a lot of ground to cover and you're writing to bishops who profess the same faith that you do, it's hard to do better than what Pope Benedict does in this "master class" letter-writing exercise just translated into English.
Father Z. , who knows an effective letter when he reads one, offers helpful annotations to the pope's letter. It's also worth noting (and to his credit) that Father Z. filters out nothing that the pope wrote -- unlike some bishops.
FWIW, I think Peter helped guide Pope Benedict's pen while Jesus sipped from some heavenly vintage and made suggestions to them both. As one respected canon lawyer put it, "Commentaria bona in epistulam bonam. Tibi gratias, Pater!"
Fr. Edward T. Oakes offers followup meditations on this pope's approach to the Second Vatican Council that are also worth reading, albeit not for the faint of heart.
Father Z. , who knows an effective letter when he reads one, offers helpful annotations to the pope's letter. It's also worth noting (and to his credit) that Father Z. filters out nothing that the pope wrote -- unlike some bishops.
FWIW, I think Peter helped guide Pope Benedict's pen while Jesus sipped from some heavenly vintage and made suggestions to them both. As one respected canon lawyer put it, "Commentaria bona in epistulam bonam. Tibi gratias, Pater!"
Fr. Edward T. Oakes offers followup meditations on this pope's approach to the Second Vatican Council that are also worth reading, albeit not for the faint of heart.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Book Review: Finding God in The Shack
Randal Rauser realized that Christians wary of William Young’s bestselling novel might nevertheless be willing to listen to a defense of the book’s merits from a seeker-sensitive theologian whom they recognize as one of their own. The fruit of his insight is a 160-page book, Finding God in The Shack (c. 2009, Authentic, $10.19).
I remember The Shack as flawed but interesting. I do not feel threatened by Young’s departures from orthodoxy, and may not be in the demographic at which Rauser aims the “conversations” in his book (one conversation for each chapter, plus an introduction explaining why it’s good to have a theologian around when contemplating Mr. Young’s novel). Rauser seems gratified by William Young’s accomplishment as a first-time author, and impressed by the breadth of the questions that Young's work raises both implicitly and explicitly.
Rauser praises The Shack for several things, the most important of which is pushing the doctrine of the Trinity back into the spotlight of pop culture. It’s a fair point. Curiously, Rauser quotes Catholic theologian Karl Rahner (d. 1984) in support of the assertion that the Trinity is so rarely invoked among contemporary Christians that even those of us who believe in a triune God might almost be called “mere monotheists.”
Rahner said that, but the appeal to his authority is curious because of something Rauser does not mention, which is that the “pain point” involved has special resonance for Reformed Christian churches. A thought experiment shows why: If you are Catholic, recall the last time that you prayed with Baptist or Presbyterian friends. Chances are, the prayer leader waited for heads to bow and then said something like “Father God, we just want to thank you for this [game, gathering, person, intention, or day].”
Among Catholics, by contrast, prayers usually start with the words that accompany the sign of the cross (“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”). When that is said reverently, you can practically hear the capital letters.
One result of this divergent devotional practice is that Catholics are likely to be more familiar with Trinitarian thinking, even if only through osmosis, than people raised in “low church” or Congregationalist worship styles. Accordingly, a novel whose protagonist spends a weekend with all three persons of the Holy Trinity comes as less of a shock to Catholics than to other Christians.
Rauser takes pains to be fair with almost everything he addresses, except perhaps for the Calvinism that makes a cameo appearance in his chapter about how The Shack confronts the problem of evil. Neither William Young nor Randal Rauser is Calvinist, and while Rauser summarizes John Calvin’s austere theology, he also admits what his Calvinist readers probably figured out for themselves: that he finds Calvinism “not only unpalatable but nearly incomprehensible.”
Closer to his home turf, Rauser observes that some critics of The Shack raise their eyebrows at the book’s depiction of God “without ever acknowledging similar tensions in the bible’s depiction of God.” He does a fine job of describing those tensions and defending The Shack as “presenting a rich picture of God’s accommodation” to our own limitations. (“Shack Mack” might have had a heart attack had God initially appeared to him as anything more intimidating than a jovial African-American woman).
While noting that “one excellent reason to believe that the Spirit is a person is because Jesus did,” Rauser cheers Young’s depiction of the Spirit. He also defends The Shack against charges of “modalism,” the heresy that God is one person in three different guises, similar to the way water can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas, depending on its temperature.
Finding God in The Shack is not as comprehensive as it could have been. Rauser says nothing about The Shack’s weak Eucharistic scene, for example, most likely because differences in denominational outlook would color any commentary there. More frustrating for me is that even while defending a novel of which he is especially fond, Rauser tends to hedge his bets.
Were Rauser in a poker game with friends, he would be the player who describes the chips exceedingly well, but refuses to ante up. As a result, Finding God in the Shack has passages like: “Could it be that Sophia, the shadowy female figure who interrogates Mack in the cave as the personification of God’s wisdom, is actually Jesus appearing in female form? The Shack offers no final clarity on the point, but it is an intriguing speculation.”
Rauser’s chapter on hierarchy (“God with Nobody in Charge”) offers another milquetoast example: “Could it be that occasionally Christians have become so comfortable with God that as [atheist writer Barbara] Ehrenreich charges, they have walked into the dangerous waters of blasphemy?” Well, yes, it could. That is one of the charges leveled at The Shack by some of its fiercest critics. But Rauser demurs: “These are difficult questions and we certainly cannot resolve them here. As for The Shack, it may be that the appropriateness of the book’s description of God depends on who reads the book and what prior conception of deity they bring to it.”
When a Christian theologian appeals to relativism in a conversation about God, the notion of “core competency” gets knocked sideways for this particular reader. One wonders whether Rauser considered hierarchy a more intimidating issue than the questions of divine wrath and atonement that he addresses with greater aplomb. If nothing else, straight answers to questions about divine sovereignty and identity would have given perspective to Rauser’s later disappointment over how the harmony of (redeemed) creation in The Shack is “interrupted by the consumption of meat.”
Instead, Rauser and his editors let that “relatively minor quibble” (his words) muddy a conclusion meant to speak positively of The Shack while reminding Christians of the hope of renewal anchored in scripture.
What Randal Rauser has given the rest of us is a study guide. I have stubborn, armor-plated, hairy, ill-tempered problems with some of it, and the book could really use an index that it does not have.
Nevertheless, “Finding God in the Shack” is worthwhile for three reasons. First, Rauser provides an accurate snapshot of the debate over William Young’s novel in Christian circles. Second, where necessary, Rauser contrasts what scripture says with what The Shack says. Third, Rauser uses multiple sources, some of them surprising, to examine issues that continue to make The Shack a topic of fruitful discussion for many readers. Rauser writes from the assumption that those who complain about darkness ought to help dissipate it by lighting a candle, and “Finding God in the Shack” does an admirable job of that.
I remember The Shack as flawed but interesting. I do not feel threatened by Young’s departures from orthodoxy, and may not be in the demographic at which Rauser aims the “conversations” in his book (one conversation for each chapter, plus an introduction explaining why it’s good to have a theologian around when contemplating Mr. Young’s novel). Rauser seems gratified by William Young’s accomplishment as a first-time author, and impressed by the breadth of the questions that Young's work raises both implicitly and explicitly.
Rauser praises The Shack for several things, the most important of which is pushing the doctrine of the Trinity back into the spotlight of pop culture. It’s a fair point. Curiously, Rauser quotes Catholic theologian Karl Rahner (d. 1984) in support of the assertion that the Trinity is so rarely invoked among contemporary Christians that even those of us who believe in a triune God might almost be called “mere monotheists.”
Rahner said that, but the appeal to his authority is curious because of something Rauser does not mention, which is that the “pain point” involved has special resonance for Reformed Christian churches. A thought experiment shows why: If you are Catholic, recall the last time that you prayed with Baptist or Presbyterian friends. Chances are, the prayer leader waited for heads to bow and then said something like “Father God, we just want to thank you for this [game, gathering, person, intention, or day].”
Among Catholics, by contrast, prayers usually start with the words that accompany the sign of the cross (“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”). When that is said reverently, you can practically hear the capital letters.
One result of this divergent devotional practice is that Catholics are likely to be more familiar with Trinitarian thinking, even if only through osmosis, than people raised in “low church” or Congregationalist worship styles. Accordingly, a novel whose protagonist spends a weekend with all three persons of the Holy Trinity comes as less of a shock to Catholics than to other Christians.
Rauser takes pains to be fair with almost everything he addresses, except perhaps for the Calvinism that makes a cameo appearance in his chapter about how The Shack confronts the problem of evil. Neither William Young nor Randal Rauser is Calvinist, and while Rauser summarizes John Calvin’s austere theology, he also admits what his Calvinist readers probably figured out for themselves: that he finds Calvinism “not only unpalatable but nearly incomprehensible.”
Closer to his home turf, Rauser observes that some critics of The Shack raise their eyebrows at the book’s depiction of God “without ever acknowledging similar tensions in the bible’s depiction of God.” He does a fine job of describing those tensions and defending The Shack as “presenting a rich picture of God’s accommodation” to our own limitations. (“Shack Mack” might have had a heart attack had God initially appeared to him as anything more intimidating than a jovial African-American woman).
While noting that “one excellent reason to believe that the Spirit is a person is because Jesus did,” Rauser cheers Young’s depiction of the Spirit. He also defends The Shack against charges of “modalism,” the heresy that God is one person in three different guises, similar to the way water can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas, depending on its temperature.
Finding God in The Shack is not as comprehensive as it could have been. Rauser says nothing about The Shack’s weak Eucharistic scene, for example, most likely because differences in denominational outlook would color any commentary there. More frustrating for me is that even while defending a novel of which he is especially fond, Rauser tends to hedge his bets.
Were Rauser in a poker game with friends, he would be the player who describes the chips exceedingly well, but refuses to ante up. As a result, Finding God in the Shack has passages like: “Could it be that Sophia, the shadowy female figure who interrogates Mack in the cave as the personification of God’s wisdom, is actually Jesus appearing in female form? The Shack offers no final clarity on the point, but it is an intriguing speculation.”
Rauser’s chapter on hierarchy (“God with Nobody in Charge”) offers another milquetoast example: “Could it be that occasionally Christians have become so comfortable with God that as [atheist writer Barbara] Ehrenreich charges, they have walked into the dangerous waters of blasphemy?” Well, yes, it could. That is one of the charges leveled at The Shack by some of its fiercest critics. But Rauser demurs: “These are difficult questions and we certainly cannot resolve them here. As for The Shack, it may be that the appropriateness of the book’s description of God depends on who reads the book and what prior conception of deity they bring to it.”
When a Christian theologian appeals to relativism in a conversation about God, the notion of “core competency” gets knocked sideways for this particular reader. One wonders whether Rauser considered hierarchy a more intimidating issue than the questions of divine wrath and atonement that he addresses with greater aplomb. If nothing else, straight answers to questions about divine sovereignty and identity would have given perspective to Rauser’s later disappointment over how the harmony of (redeemed) creation in The Shack is “interrupted by the consumption of meat.”
Instead, Rauser and his editors let that “relatively minor quibble” (his words) muddy a conclusion meant to speak positively of The Shack while reminding Christians of the hope of renewal anchored in scripture.
What Randal Rauser has given the rest of us is a study guide. I have stubborn, armor-plated, hairy, ill-tempered problems with some of it, and the book could really use an index that it does not have.
Nevertheless, “Finding God in the Shack” is worthwhile for three reasons. First, Rauser provides an accurate snapshot of the debate over William Young’s novel in Christian circles. Second, where necessary, Rauser contrasts what scripture says with what The Shack says. Third, Rauser uses multiple sources, some of them surprising, to examine issues that continue to make The Shack a topic of fruitful discussion for many readers. Rauser writes from the assumption that those who complain about darkness ought to help dissipate it by lighting a candle, and “Finding God in the Shack” does an admirable job of that.
Fulsome praise
Seven weeks into his presidency, and the MSN Careers editor greenlighted a laudatory pile of porridge called "How to 'Obamafy' Your Career."
We can stipulate that anyone whose first executive job is the presidency is a role model, and still ask (rhetorically, of course) whether MSN ever greenlighted an article about how to "Bushify" your career.
We can stipulate that anyone whose first executive job is the presidency is a role model, and still ask (rhetorically, of course) whether MSN ever greenlighted an article about how to "Bushify" your career.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Loaded for bear
Russ from Winterset with a field guide to the way that "mainstream" American media adjusts to the political affiliation of its various subjects (he has more at the link):
If you're a conservative, then you can be 99.7% sure that the media is made up of Polar bears. You're nothing more than meat to them, and they'll keep coming until one of you is dead.
If you're a moderate Republican who thinks that bipartisanship is the best thing since sliced bread, then the media is a Brown bear. They'll mess you up bad, and they might even eat you if they need a meal, but they won't actively stalk you unless you do something to provoke them.....like running for President or voting against the Porkulus package.
If you're a Democrat or a liberal Republican, then the media is a Black bear. Attacks will be rare, but when they DO happen they'll be fatal.
If you're a conservative, then you can be 99.7% sure that the media is made up of Polar bears. You're nothing more than meat to them, and they'll keep coming until one of you is dead.
If you're a moderate Republican who thinks that bipartisanship is the best thing since sliced bread, then the media is a Brown bear. They'll mess you up bad, and they might even eat you if they need a meal, but they won't actively stalk you unless you do something to provoke them.....like running for President or voting against the Porkulus package.
If you're a Democrat or a liberal Republican, then the media is a Black bear. Attacks will be rare, but when they DO happen they'll be fatal.
Unexpected allies
William Saletan in Slate:
"Embryos are the beginnings of people. They're not parts of people. They're the whole thing, in very early form. Harvesting them, whether for research or medicine, is different from harvesting other kinds of cells. It's the difference between using an object and using a subject.
[snip]
The danger of seeing the stem-cell war as a contest between science and ideology is that...You forget the moral problem."
Saletan paraphrases what wiser scientists have also said. As Ryan Anderson reported in an essay I linked earlier today, the moral objections to embryonic stem cell research have consequences. What people cheerleading the president's latest diktat (or reading deeply silly accounts of same) fail to admit is that those consequences have been good even for science:
"In 2007, when the great breakthrough of induced pluripotent stem cell technology was announced, both of the scientists behind the new technique explained the moral concerns that drove their research. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka told the New York Times: "When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters. I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way." At the same time, Dr. James Thomson, the original discoverer of embryonic stem cells, told the Times: "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough. I thought long and hard about whether I would do it."
[UPDATE: Earlier today, the White House web site did not have updated links to executive orders, but that usability issue has since been resolved. The embryonic stem cell research order is now linkable.
Meanwhile, Peter Sean Bradley has good stuff from IBD on the debate the Obama administration did not have, Charlie hammers skillfully at the moral angle, and Wesley J. Smith points to another little-known-but-pernicious effect of the most recent executive order]
"Embryos are the beginnings of people. They're not parts of people. They're the whole thing, in very early form. Harvesting them, whether for research or medicine, is different from harvesting other kinds of cells. It's the difference between using an object and using a subject.
[snip]
The danger of seeing the stem-cell war as a contest between science and ideology is that...You forget the moral problem."
Saletan paraphrases what wiser scientists have also said. As Ryan Anderson reported in an essay I linked earlier today, the moral objections to embryonic stem cell research have consequences. What people cheerleading the president's latest diktat (or reading deeply silly accounts of same) fail to admit is that those consequences have been good even for science:
"In 2007, when the great breakthrough of induced pluripotent stem cell technology was announced, both of the scientists behind the new technique explained the moral concerns that drove their research. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka told the New York Times: "When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters. I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way." At the same time, Dr. James Thomson, the original discoverer of embryonic stem cells, told the Times: "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough. I thought long and hard about whether I would do it."
[UPDATE: Earlier today, the White House web site did not have updated links to executive orders, but that usability issue has since been resolved. The embryonic stem cell research order is now linkable.
Meanwhile, Peter Sean Bradley has good stuff from IBD on the debate the Obama administration did not have, Charlie hammers skillfully at the moral angle, and Wesley J. Smith points to another little-known-but-pernicious effect of the most recent executive order]
Evil in and out of Connecticut
Lisa Fabrizio on State Bill 1098, which seeks to remove financial control of Catholic parishes from the Church itself. See also Deal Hudson and Laura Ingraham.
A public hearing on that bill -- which threatens to take win, place, and show in my current "weasel word watch" -- is scheduled for March 11 in Hartford. Per one attorney: "In more than forty years as a constitutional law teacher and practitioner, I cannot recall a single piece of proposed legislation at any level of government that more patently runs afoul of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment [than] does this bill."
UPDATE: The hearing has been postponed indefinately, because legislators belatedly realized that they have no business telling any church how to run itself. Anchoress is in one-stop-shopping mode on this issue, but you might also want to read the fascinating comments from "Get Religion" readers.
Further south, in Washington, D.C., President Obama just lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. At least one friend of mine is huzzahing that, but he suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Me, I'm with "Bad Lizzie"-- it's the sort of action that deserves an Irish smack at the very least.
Yuval Levin explains the "technocratic temptation" for which Obama has fallen: "If (as modern biology informs us) conception initiates a human life, and if (as the Declaration of Independence asserts) every human life is equally deserving of some minimal protections, government support for the destruction of human embryos for research raises profound moral problems...[What the president's overweening faith in the breadth and competence of science without ethics fails to grasp is that] science policy questions do often require a grasp of complex details, which scientists can help to clarify. But at their core they are questions of priorities and worldviews, just like other difficult policy judgments."
Ryan Anderson calls the new executive order a hat trick of sorts ("bad ethics, bad science, bad politics").
Robert George and Eric Cohen have more, as does Ed Peters ("fallacy of the mean," anyone?).
A public hearing on that bill -- which threatens to take win, place, and show in my current "weasel word watch" -- is scheduled for March 11 in Hartford. Per one attorney: "In more than forty years as a constitutional law teacher and practitioner, I cannot recall a single piece of proposed legislation at any level of government that more patently runs afoul of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment [than] does this bill."
UPDATE: The hearing has been postponed indefinately, because legislators belatedly realized that they have no business telling any church how to run itself. Anchoress is in one-stop-shopping mode on this issue, but you might also want to read the fascinating comments from "Get Religion" readers.
Further south, in Washington, D.C., President Obama just lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. At least one friend of mine is huzzahing that, but he suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Me, I'm with "Bad Lizzie"-- it's the sort of action that deserves an Irish smack at the very least.
Yuval Levin explains the "technocratic temptation" for which Obama has fallen: "If (as modern biology informs us) conception initiates a human life, and if (as the Declaration of Independence asserts) every human life is equally deserving of some minimal protections, government support for the destruction of human embryos for research raises profound moral problems...[What the president's overweening faith in the breadth and competence of science without ethics fails to grasp is that] science policy questions do often require a grasp of complex details, which scientists can help to clarify. But at their core they are questions of priorities and worldviews, just like other difficult policy judgments."
Ryan Anderson calls the new executive order a hat trick of sorts ("bad ethics, bad science, bad politics").
Robert George and Eric Cohen have more, as does Ed Peters ("fallacy of the mean," anyone?).
Monday, March 09, 2009
Four musketeers on dogma and relationship
Members of the bible study and prayer group of which I am part had a lively discussion about the failings of the church via email recently. We're Catholics ourselves, but I think the points raised in our discussion are also interesting to Christians of other confessions.
What started the conversation was one member's forwarding an MSNBC account of "sit-ins" at closed Catholic churches in New England to everyone else on his distribution list. I'll call the guy who was the catalyst for the ensuing discussion "d'Artagnan."
What follows is a lightly-edited summary of our email thread as it was shaped by the fellows with the most to say (me included). With a tip of the hat to John Zmirak, from whom I borrowed the phrase, names have been "changed to protect the immanent."
Athos:
Where there is no vision people perished; where there is no faith, church closes...Have you ever asked yourself why Evangelical churches have grace and resources flowing in them but the Catholic Church...is closing churches all over America? Simple answer: Our Church leaders don't have a clue about Jesus Christ and the amazing work He has done for us and for His Church...Instead of preaching the Gospel, they teach doctrine. Instead of leading people to Christ, The Redeemer, they lead them to Church documents...It is very shameful to see a church close down just because there [are] no resources...we are saying to the world that Jesus Christ is not a provider and cannot be trusted to maintain His own Church. I am angry! Feel free to comment."
Porthos:
"The closing of any parish due to the lack of financial resources and clergy is a shame. This shame is compounded in New England and other areas where closings are the direct result of legal monetary settlements associated with priests physically abusing children and the subsequent attempts, led by [forcibly retired] Cardinal Law, to cover up these actions.
"However, the resource issue isn’t solely due to the immoral actions of the clergy. Read the bulletins of the local churches and note the participation of the parish members regarding the offertory...
"My personal opinion is that Catholics tend to vote with their wallets. This is how we express our satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the homilies of our pastor and the state of the global Catholic Church. We want services, but we do not want to pay for them. We want more say in how the money is spent. How many of us volunteer to sit on the parish council? True, the Catholic Church is not a democracy, but intelligent input is given consideration.
"Athos, I hope your comments are an expression of frustration rather than true belief...The Catholic Church is not perfect, but I cannot agree with your general theme that the Church is so clueless. If that were truly the case, the doors of every Catholic Church would be padlocked and anarchy would be much closer than some of us already fear."
Aramis:
"I think the reason the protestants are doing so much better financially has more to do with the fact that they are taught to tithe rather than with any spiritual superiority. I also have to disagree with Athos on the Church not knowing Jesus: the only reason any Christian church knows anything about Jesus is because the Catholic Church passed on His teaching, preserving it from being twisted, generation after generation.
"The problem is that all you hear from the pulpit is some humanized 70's Jesus love preached.
"The problem is that [priests] DO NOT preach doctrine and dogma, and they allow every Catholic to go [his or her] own way regarding the Faith, and they don't correct erroneous understanding; they allow it to fester and spread. That is the true failing of the Church.
"With regards to [not reaching] Hispanics and other immigrant communities, blame it on the Novus Ordo Mass that causes us to be segregated...The failing is not that [many bishops] don't know Jesus, but that they refuse to stand by Him regardless of human opinion. Unfortunately, so do many of us."
d'Artagnan:
"Teaching, living by, and tightly following the Ten Commandments (of which the most important - - see Matthew 22 - - is LOVE) and the Beatitudes will do more for us than anything else we’ve discussed in this email string thus far (my opinion)....The Latin Mass may be fine for you, Aramis -- but [it] wouldn’t do anything for me or my family. "
Monsieur de Tréville:
"I'm mostly with Porthos on this question. I hope you're frustrated, Athos -- but frustrated in a good way. One touchstone for me is what Ignatius of Antioch said in A.D. 110: “For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop.”
"One could argue that we had better bishops back then-- Ignatius was personally acquainted with John the Apostle, after all. But that wasn't his point, and that wouldn't explain why the church has lasted as long as it has. I think Athos means to indict "middle management," as it were. Anyone who thinks Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope John Paul II before him, is or was unaccaquainted with Jesus hasn't read either of those popes.
"So let's talk middle management. There are a fair number of mediocre bishops and, inevitably, mediocre priests as well. Yet the Holy Spirit works with them and with us-- that whole "building straight with crooked timbers" thing.
"I think it's a mistake to think that church leadership means only the people we deal with today. In old-school terminology, we're the church militant, but we can't count out the church triumphant, and would not want to. As for the ordained folk who seem not to be on fire for the Lord, who are we to say whether they are or not? By their fruits we shall judge them -- and we do -- but we could also look at mediocre leadership as the penance imposed on stubborn believers by a merciful God.
"I don't envy our protestant bretheren. [One local megachurch] was last month talking about its plans to become a "multi-site" church, with satellite campuses where the pastor's Sunday message would be streamed on live video to congregations at opposite ends of town. Good for them that they're expanding and bringing Jesus to more people. But the pastor spent more than 20 minutes explaining the multi-site concept to worshippers at one Sunday service. It was all I could do not to chuckle, because, as a Catholic, I'm part of the original "multi-site church" -- and we don't need any stinking video feed to stay "on message."
"To put Jesus on one side and dogma or doctrine on the other is, I think, to set up a straw man. Often we know Jesus through dogma, not in spite of dogma. Doesn't mean we can't know Jesus in other ways, too. But let's not trash dogma. That's not a straightjacket, it's a guardrail on the highway of faith.
"I went back to an essay I wrote in 2004 and found this: "Catholic clerics are called “priests” rather than “ministers” because although he ministers to people, a priest’s main duty is to offer sacrifice. Custom reflects theology (the idea that Mass is a sacrifice), which in turn is anchored by dogma (that when Jesus said of blessed bread, “this is My body,” and of blessed wine, “this is My blood,” He was speaking literally rather than metaphorically). Each element complements the others, and all are meant to illuminate rather than obscure the work of God. To dismiss this chain of reasoning as an unwieldy superstructure welded to some simpler faith is to deny the capacity for making logical inferences, and to miss the organic relationship of each element to the others."
"Hope that helps. In any case, it's my two cents. Thanks for the soap box. You guys are great. All y'all. And when bishops and priests fall down -- hell, even when they don't -- we gots to do catechesis our own selves. That's what we were confirmed for."
POSTSCRIPT the first: d'Artagnan to Monsieur de Tréville:
"You piss me off when you’re logical...I owe you an elbow for this..."
POSTSCRIPT the second: Aramis to all the Musketeers:
What started the conversation was one member's forwarding an MSNBC account of "sit-ins" at closed Catholic churches in New England to everyone else on his distribution list. I'll call the guy who was the catalyst for the ensuing discussion "d'Artagnan."
What follows is a lightly-edited summary of our email thread as it was shaped by the fellows with the most to say (me included). With a tip of the hat to John Zmirak, from whom I borrowed the phrase, names have been "changed to protect the immanent."
Athos:
Where there is no vision people perished; where there is no faith, church closes...Have you ever asked yourself why Evangelical churches have grace and resources flowing in them but the Catholic Church...is closing churches all over America? Simple answer: Our Church leaders don't have a clue about Jesus Christ and the amazing work He has done for us and for His Church...Instead of preaching the Gospel, they teach doctrine. Instead of leading people to Christ, The Redeemer, they lead them to Church documents...It is very shameful to see a church close down just because there [are] no resources...we are saying to the world that Jesus Christ is not a provider and cannot be trusted to maintain His own Church. I am angry! Feel free to comment."
Porthos:
"The closing of any parish due to the lack of financial resources and clergy is a shame. This shame is compounded in New England and other areas where closings are the direct result of legal monetary settlements associated with priests physically abusing children and the subsequent attempts, led by [forcibly retired] Cardinal Law, to cover up these actions.
"However, the resource issue isn’t solely due to the immoral actions of the clergy. Read the bulletins of the local churches and note the participation of the parish members regarding the offertory...
"My personal opinion is that Catholics tend to vote with their wallets. This is how we express our satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the homilies of our pastor and the state of the global Catholic Church. We want services, but we do not want to pay for them. We want more say in how the money is spent. How many of us volunteer to sit on the parish council? True, the Catholic Church is not a democracy, but intelligent input is given consideration.
"Athos, I hope your comments are an expression of frustration rather than true belief...The Catholic Church is not perfect, but I cannot agree with your general theme that the Church is so clueless. If that were truly the case, the doors of every Catholic Church would be padlocked and anarchy would be much closer than some of us already fear."
Aramis:
"I think the reason the protestants are doing so much better financially has more to do with the fact that they are taught to tithe rather than with any spiritual superiority. I also have to disagree with Athos on the Church not knowing Jesus: the only reason any Christian church knows anything about Jesus is because the Catholic Church passed on His teaching, preserving it from being twisted, generation after generation.
"The problem is that all you hear from the pulpit is some humanized 70's Jesus love preached.
"The problem is that [priests] DO NOT preach doctrine and dogma, and they allow every Catholic to go [his or her] own way regarding the Faith, and they don't correct erroneous understanding; they allow it to fester and spread. That is the true failing of the Church.
"With regards to [not reaching] Hispanics and other immigrant communities, blame it on the Novus Ordo Mass that causes us to be segregated...The failing is not that [many bishops] don't know Jesus, but that they refuse to stand by Him regardless of human opinion. Unfortunately, so do many of us."
d'Artagnan:
"Teaching, living by, and tightly following the Ten Commandments (of which the most important - - see Matthew 22 - - is LOVE) and the Beatitudes will do more for us than anything else we’ve discussed in this email string thus far (my opinion)....The Latin Mass may be fine for you, Aramis -- but [it] wouldn’t do anything for me or my family. "
Monsieur de Tréville:
"I'm mostly with Porthos on this question. I hope you're frustrated, Athos -- but frustrated in a good way. One touchstone for me is what Ignatius of Antioch said in A.D. 110: “For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop.”
"One could argue that we had better bishops back then-- Ignatius was personally acquainted with John the Apostle, after all. But that wasn't his point, and that wouldn't explain why the church has lasted as long as it has. I think Athos means to indict "middle management," as it were. Anyone who thinks Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope John Paul II before him, is or was unaccaquainted with Jesus hasn't read either of those popes.
"So let's talk middle management. There are a fair number of mediocre bishops and, inevitably, mediocre priests as well. Yet the Holy Spirit works with them and with us-- that whole "building straight with crooked timbers" thing.
"I think it's a mistake to think that church leadership means only the people we deal with today. In old-school terminology, we're the church militant, but we can't count out the church triumphant, and would not want to. As for the ordained folk who seem not to be on fire for the Lord, who are we to say whether they are or not? By their fruits we shall judge them -- and we do -- but we could also look at mediocre leadership as the penance imposed on stubborn believers by a merciful God.
"I don't envy our protestant bretheren. [One local megachurch] was last month talking about its plans to become a "multi-site" church, with satellite campuses where the pastor's Sunday message would be streamed on live video to congregations at opposite ends of town. Good for them that they're expanding and bringing Jesus to more people. But the pastor spent more than 20 minutes explaining the multi-site concept to worshippers at one Sunday service. It was all I could do not to chuckle, because, as a Catholic, I'm part of the original "multi-site church" -- and we don't need any stinking video feed to stay "on message."
"To put Jesus on one side and dogma or doctrine on the other is, I think, to set up a straw man. Often we know Jesus through dogma, not in spite of dogma. Doesn't mean we can't know Jesus in other ways, too. But let's not trash dogma. That's not a straightjacket, it's a guardrail on the highway of faith.
"I went back to an essay I wrote in 2004 and found this: "Catholic clerics are called “priests” rather than “ministers” because although he ministers to people, a priest’s main duty is to offer sacrifice. Custom reflects theology (the idea that Mass is a sacrifice), which in turn is anchored by dogma (that when Jesus said of blessed bread, “this is My body,” and of blessed wine, “this is My blood,” He was speaking literally rather than metaphorically). Each element complements the others, and all are meant to illuminate rather than obscure the work of God. To dismiss this chain of reasoning as an unwieldy superstructure welded to some simpler faith is to deny the capacity for making logical inferences, and to miss the organic relationship of each element to the others."
"Hope that helps. In any case, it's my two cents. Thanks for the soap box. You guys are great. All y'all. And when bishops and priests fall down -- hell, even when they don't -- we gots to do catechesis our own selves. That's what we were confirmed for."
POSTSCRIPT the first: d'Artagnan to Monsieur de Tréville:
"You piss me off when you’re logical...I owe you an elbow for this..."
POSTSCRIPT the second: Aramis to all the Musketeers:
"I think some folks misunderstood the context with which I mentioned 70's love. This is the touchy-feely kind of emotionally-driven earthly human love. By contrast, I wanted to elevate sacrificial, charitable, perfect love-- the kind of love that we can only attain to through God's grace and our humility. One type of love is tolerant and accepting of sin. The other is tolerant, loving and accepting of sinners but despises sin and is not afraid to call it out.
"Hope this clarifies things. Peace of Christ be with you."
Antoine who followed the thread none too closely:
"I may have missed the original intent of this discussion, but I gather it was something about Catholic versus Protestant ... not sure we really need to worry about this. Thankfully, it's not up to us! I still contend we are going to be surprised by who we meet in heaven!! Our job is to see that we get there and help as many others as we can in their faith journey ... whatever church they use to get there."
POSTSCRIPT the last: Monsieur de Tréville to all the Musketeers:
"The original thread was NOT Catholic vs. Protestant, and I wasn't trying to turn it that way. But Catholic/Protestant contrast sprang to mind as shorthand for the "personal relationship vs. dogma" tack that the discussion had threatened to take. I hoped to torpedo that ship by observing that personal relationship with Jesus and dogma are not mutually exclusive if properly understood.
"Really short version: the bumper sticker that says "Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship" is misleading, I think, because, short of the union with God for which we all long, Christianity is (of necessity) BOTH religion and relationship."
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Word choice
I keep thinking of that advice from The Music Man ("you watch your phraseology!"), because, well, ya gotta know the territory-- or at least, have help who does.
The AP ran a story ("Analysis: Obama's economic style is unnerving") with this curious formulation:
"But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama's bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars."
"Despite?"
How about "because of"?
(This, by the way, is what one trillion dollars looks like)
The AP ran a story ("Analysis: Obama's economic style is unnerving") with this curious formulation:
"But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama's bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars."
"Despite?"
How about "because of"?
(This, by the way, is what one trillion dollars looks like)
Friday, March 06, 2009
Semper Fi
Peggy Noonan finally writes a "compare and contrast" column I can recommend wholeheartedly. It contrasts marines with politicians and political operatives (obviously not a fair match, but important for the sake of the point she's making).
Paint by numbers
Writing a novel? You can look around the way Frederick Forsyth does, or consult John C. Wright's "Periodic Table of Awesoments."
Three notes of historical interest
- Davy Crockett and 186 other defenders of the Alamo died on March 6, 1836. The "History Buff" web site has an impressively dispassionate summary of their last stand at the link.
- Did you know that "The Declaration of Independence is a striking example of government promotion of a particular theology"? I'd forgotten that, so it's nice to see that Thomas G. West does a good job of reminding people why in the context of an essay about the much-misunderstood separation of church and state.
- Meanwhile, "HMS Gannet" brings welcome context to current events, but only Theodore Brummel has written about what the pen holder made from part of the timber in that nineteenth-century British warship might teach President Obama.
- LATE ADDITION: Because Iowahawk's satirical history of modern American conservatism is too good to ignore.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Crossfit bible stories?
You don’t have to believe in anything other than the value of exercise to work up a good sweat, but lots of us observe the season of Lent this time of year, and my ongoing attempt to live a life whose parts are more connected to each other got me thinking that looking for Crossfit stories in the bible is either a fools’ errand or a fun exercise for Christians with chalk dust and callouses on their hands.
I can be counted among both groups. On the one hand, I realize that Crossfit is a core strength and conditioning program pieced together in the late 1980s by a former gymnast. In what I take to be evidence for God's sense of humor, Crossfit was introduced to the world after gaining popularity in Santa Cruz, a city whose Spanish-to -English translation means "Holy Cross." Given the timeline involved, it's easy to assume that there are no Crossfit stories in the bible.
On the other hand, I also know that from a certain point of view, if you think in terms of definitions that are older than Coach Glassman, the whole bible is a “Crossfit” story. That point is easier to explain when you set aside ten physical skills to think in terms of the “training” that God gave twelve Jewish tribes and then twelve apostles before franchising his message out to other people.
Crazy stuff? Maybe. But exercise, at least, is in the bible like a song that you only hear part of when you’re close to your maximum number of sets and feel like you’re going to fall over. I like to think of biblical exercise as a kind of Crossfit prototype, even if my reasons seem ridiculous. After all, Jesus said that anyone who follows him must be ready to “take up his cross.” Then he showed us how to do what we cannot do without him. Let’s call that “coaching.”
By now you’re probably thinking either “okaaaay” or “Dude, Are you sure you didn’t inhale too much incense the last time they burned that in church?” Let me come back down out of the clouds with a few examples taken mostly from two people, Arthur Blessit and “Prodigal Jon.”
Blessit has been carrying a cross on hikes around the world for years. By his calculations, Jesus did more walking than most of us realize. Blessit’s “conservative estimate” is that Jesus walked south to north (Egypt to Lebanon) about 436 miles, and from the Mediterranean Sea inland “at least as far as 100 miles (160 km).” A web page explains how Blessit figured this out. His numbers are probably too exact, but they are plausible, and that’s a lot of exercise, not counting the carpentry without power tools that Jesus learned from Joseph.
“Prodigal Jon” is a blogger who looked through the bible in search of “the greatest exercise-focused bible verse ever.” Jon says that verse is Isaiah 40:31, because it includes the first reference to “God’s triathlon” of “walking,” “running,” and (I kid you not) “hang gliding.”
Other people proposed favorite verses of their own, like 2 Samuel 22:33-37 (“It’s got weight lifting, extreme hiking, street fighting, world’s-strongest-man-style bar or bow bending, and running.”). One person nominated the hard-working woman in Proverbs 31 with the comment that “sista’s calves must have been rockin’!”
I also like some of the New Testament verses, such as 2 Timothy 2:5, which puts an emphasis on good form (in the NIV translation, “Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules.”).
Sometimes the usefulness of exercise is implied, because it isn’t the point of a story but leaves traces there anyway. Think of John 21, when a mixed group of apostles and disciples catches so many fish that they cannot haul their nets into shore or their boats without help.
How about this one: in first-century Jewish culture, adults did not climb trees, so when a tax collector named Zaccheus climbed a tree to see Jesus, he was humbled at least as much as some of us are at the end of a “Waiter’s Walk” with a 35# barbell. But he climbed the tree anyway.
The story of Easter Sunday morning, when “the other disciple outran Peter” while both were hurrying toward the (empty) tomb of Jesus, is another favorite.
How about a hand for the people who carried the paralyzed man in Mark 2:1-12? There were four of them and only one of him, so this was not a case of unusual strength, but it certainly counts as “functional fitness.” The best part is that when they couldn’t get their friend through the door of the house where Jesus was preaching, they lowered him through the roof. Talk about "improvise, adapt, and overcome."
It’s great stuff. And maybe – just maybe – Crossfit stuff.
I can be counted among both groups. On the one hand, I realize that Crossfit is a core strength and conditioning program pieced together in the late 1980s by a former gymnast. In what I take to be evidence for God's sense of humor, Crossfit was introduced to the world after gaining popularity in Santa Cruz, a city whose Spanish-to -English translation means "Holy Cross." Given the timeline involved, it's easy to assume that there are no Crossfit stories in the bible.
On the other hand, I also know that from a certain point of view, if you think in terms of definitions that are older than Coach Glassman, the whole bible is a “Crossfit” story. That point is easier to explain when you set aside ten physical skills to think in terms of the “training” that God gave twelve Jewish tribes and then twelve apostles before franchising his message out to other people.
Crazy stuff? Maybe. But exercise, at least, is in the bible like a song that you only hear part of when you’re close to your maximum number of sets and feel like you’re going to fall over. I like to think of biblical exercise as a kind of Crossfit prototype, even if my reasons seem ridiculous. After all, Jesus said that anyone who follows him must be ready to “take up his cross.” Then he showed us how to do what we cannot do without him. Let’s call that “coaching.”
By now you’re probably thinking either “okaaaay” or “Dude, Are you sure you didn’t inhale too much incense the last time they burned that in church?” Let me come back down out of the clouds with a few examples taken mostly from two people, Arthur Blessit and “Prodigal Jon.”
Blessit has been carrying a cross on hikes around the world for years. By his calculations, Jesus did more walking than most of us realize. Blessit’s “conservative estimate” is that Jesus walked south to north (Egypt to Lebanon) about 436 miles, and from the Mediterranean Sea inland “at least as far as 100 miles (160 km).” A web page explains how Blessit figured this out. His numbers are probably too exact, but they are plausible, and that’s a lot of exercise, not counting the carpentry without power tools that Jesus learned from Joseph.
“Prodigal Jon” is a blogger who looked through the bible in search of “the greatest exercise-focused bible verse ever.” Jon says that verse is Isaiah 40:31, because it includes the first reference to “God’s triathlon” of “walking,” “running,” and (I kid you not) “hang gliding.”
Other people proposed favorite verses of their own, like 2 Samuel 22:33-37 (“It’s got weight lifting, extreme hiking, street fighting, world’s-strongest-man-style bar or bow bending, and running.”). One person nominated the hard-working woman in Proverbs 31 with the comment that “sista’s calves must have been rockin’!”
I also like some of the New Testament verses, such as 2 Timothy 2:5, which puts an emphasis on good form (in the NIV translation, “Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules.”).
Sometimes the usefulness of exercise is implied, because it isn’t the point of a story but leaves traces there anyway. Think of John 21, when a mixed group of apostles and disciples catches so many fish that they cannot haul their nets into shore or their boats without help.
How about this one: in first-century Jewish culture, adults did not climb trees, so when a tax collector named Zaccheus climbed a tree to see Jesus, he was humbled at least as much as some of us are at the end of a “Waiter’s Walk” with a 35# barbell. But he climbed the tree anyway.
The story of Easter Sunday morning, when “the other disciple outran Peter” while both were hurrying toward the (empty) tomb of Jesus, is another favorite.
How about a hand for the people who carried the paralyzed man in Mark 2:1-12? There were four of them and only one of him, so this was not a case of unusual strength, but it certainly counts as “functional fitness.” The best part is that when they couldn’t get their friend through the door of the house where Jesus was preaching, they lowered him through the roof. Talk about "improvise, adapt, and overcome."
It’s great stuff. And maybe – just maybe – Crossfit stuff.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Stuck in 1972
Elizabeth Scalia scores Sister Sandra M. Schneiders, a professor of New Testament Studies and Christian Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, CA, for her outdated and predictable response to the impending visit of a fact-finding delegation from the Vatican that is studying the challenges and triumphs of women vowed to Catholic religious life in the United States.
In true 1972 fashion, Schneiders seems to think she might have to beg for justice from people who do not realize that in her own mind, she "refused to be a fool dancing on the strings held by all of those big shots." More than that, Schneiders thinks that her congregation of religious sisters and others like it has "given birth to a new form of religious life."
As Scalia points out, that conceit (often rendered in non-religious circles as "only uppity women make history") would be more defensible if Schneiders hadn't characterized the upcoming visit as another battle in "a fake war being stirred up by the Vatican at the instigation of the frightened." And if you guessed that what Schneiders calls "frightened" is what many others call "devout" or "orthodox," then you get to ride shotgun in the VW microbus.
You'd think an appreciation for the parable of the tenant farmers would excite a greater feeling of hospitality in field office personnel when representatives of the home office come calling. Perhaps some of the less hospitable nuns haven't been "birthing new forms of religious life" so much as burying their talents in the ground.
All about access to sources
"Beat sweetener" stories are bad for journalism because they're not journalism; they're public relations and marketing copy.
Fortunately, writers like Lisa Fabrizio and Sam Schulman have never deigned to stoop so low in their coverage of politicians, even in the Obama administration.
Fortunately, writers like Lisa Fabrizio and Sam Schulman have never deigned to stoop so low in their coverage of politicians, even in the Obama administration.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
A few words from a priest and a physicist
Stanley Jaki is both:
"Nothing irks the secular world so much as a hint, let alone a scholarly demonstration, that supernatural revelation, as registered in the Bible, is germane to science. Yet biblical revelation is not only germane to science -- it made the only viable birth of science possible."
"Nothing irks the secular world so much as a hint, let alone a scholarly demonstration, that supernatural revelation, as registered in the Bible, is germane to science. Yet biblical revelation is not only germane to science -- it made the only viable birth of science possible."
What light through yonder window breaks?
In an essay by Tom Bethell on the pretensions of postmodern poetry and its practitioners:
Joseph Epstein, in his great essay "Who Killed Poetry?" (Commentary, 1988), quotes Kingsley Amis as saying that everything that has gone wrong with the world since World War II can be summed up in the word "workshop."
As Bethel makes clear, Elizabeth (who dat?) Alexander and her ilk can't compare to real poets, even those real poets-- like Seamus Heaney -- who are still with us.
Joseph Epstein, in his great essay "Who Killed Poetry?" (Commentary, 1988), quotes Kingsley Amis as saying that everything that has gone wrong with the world since World War II can be summed up in the word "workshop."
As Bethel makes clear, Elizabeth (who dat?) Alexander and her ilk can't compare to real poets, even those real poets-- like Seamus Heaney -- who are still with us.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Old school acoustic blues
Sonny and Brownie and Pete around a kitchen table:
I've never heard of Ben Hewlett -- Dave Gage is my harmonica guru -- but Hewlett pays fitting tribute to Sonny Terry in this instructional video about how to play in the Sonny style:
I've never heard of Ben Hewlett -- Dave Gage is my harmonica guru -- but Hewlett pays fitting tribute to Sonny Terry in this instructional video about how to play in the Sonny style:
Thomas Sowell on the power of words
One of his better columns -- and that's saying something!
"Unfortunately, people on the make seem to have a keener appreciation of the power of words, as the magic road to other power, than do people defending values that seem to them too obvious to require words.
The expression "It goes without saying . . . " is a fatal trap. Few things go without saying. Some of the most valuable things in life may go away without saying — whether loved ones in one's personal life or the freedom or survival of a nation."
Sister Toldjah has more on the power of words.
"Unfortunately, people on the make seem to have a keener appreciation of the power of words, as the magic road to other power, than do people defending values that seem to them too obvious to require words.
The expression "It goes without saying . . . " is a fatal trap. Few things go without saying. Some of the most valuable things in life may go away without saying — whether loved ones in one's personal life or the freedom or survival of a nation."
Sister Toldjah has more on the power of words.
A league of their own
Everything old is new again: Baylor University students picked a fight with Catholic bishops assembled in council at Trent, and the bishops won.
I guess the kids are still trying to get the hang of apologetics. You can't be called up from AA baseball into the major leagues without doing that, right? Unfortunately, they wrote an ill-informed editorial denouncing a practice -- indulgences -- that they don't themselves believe in. It is, they said, "outdated." Worse (in their minds), it is "medieval."
What they had not anticipated is that Baylor University faculty member Francis Beckwith would call their bluff in a charitable but authoritative response.
I hope the kids don't take their comeuppance too hard. I've been in their shoes. When I was in college, a faculty member once called me out on a wrongheaded editorial in the student newspaper. I deserved the humiliation, because the editorial had been poorly sourced. My wonderful advisor (one Judy Puckett-Borunda) had come to academia from real-world journalism, and she set me straight on the apology that I owed the faculty member, which I then made. It was a tough but educational day.
(Thanks to Peter Sean Bradley for the links. He's also got a great anecdote about Fr. Damien posted to "the most respected blog in all of North-Central Fresno (CA) County").
I guess the kids are still trying to get the hang of apologetics. You can't be called up from AA baseball into the major leagues without doing that, right? Unfortunately, they wrote an ill-informed editorial denouncing a practice -- indulgences -- that they don't themselves believe in. It is, they said, "outdated." Worse (in their minds), it is "medieval."
What they had not anticipated is that Baylor University faculty member Francis Beckwith would call their bluff in a charitable but authoritative response.
I hope the kids don't take their comeuppance too hard. I've been in their shoes. When I was in college, a faculty member once called me out on a wrongheaded editorial in the student newspaper. I deserved the humiliation, because the editorial had been poorly sourced. My wonderful advisor (one Judy Puckett-Borunda) had come to academia from real-world journalism, and she set me straight on the apology that I owed the faculty member, which I then made. It was a tough but educational day.
(Thanks to Peter Sean Bradley for the links. He's also got a great anecdote about Fr. Damien posted to "the most respected blog in all of North-Central Fresno (CA) County").
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Misreading a challenge from Christ
The Anglican Church of Canada offers a perfect example of what happens when the Volkswagen Beetle of scriptural exegesis collides with the tractor-trailer of ignorant "inculturation" on a rainy night along the Highway of Political Correctness.
Not surprisingly, this development has Chris Johnson asking why some people bother to go to church ("To worship what? A first-century rabbi who could turn an artful phrase now and then? A prejudiced Jewish guy who 'grows' when called out on his racism? A guy who undergoes a moment of 'self-discovery' when instructed by some Canaanite woman? What in the world is so inspiring about that?
"Either Jesus was God Incarnate, Who came into the world to pay for the sins of the world, or He was not. And if He was not, then you might as well order your 'worship' around readings from Plato or Aristotle or any other 'great teacher' you like for all the good it would do you.")
That said, some may wonder why I link to a story like this one. Might this be seen as contrary to the spirit of the prayer that Julie shared with the rest of us? It might.
With your kind permission, then, a thought or two in my own defense: I'm of Irish-Mexican ancestry and I love wordplay, which is another way of saying that I "snark" as well as anyone I know. The temptation to reach for a cudgel at any provocation is real, as is the danger in doing so.
But I don't highlight the problem with a bankrupt set of Lenten devotions for the sake of drawing a bead on separated bretheren in Canada or anywhere else. The Anchoress -- who does not traffic in snark-- also posted some fine sharp thoughts (linked above) about this. I can't speak to her motives, but I'm highlighting this particular instance of heresy for my own edification, as another tentative step toward exercising the spiritual leadership that Christian husbands and fathers are called to exercise.
It comes to this: I have children old enough to ask religious questions. I have friends who said over dinner last night that while they were raised Catholic, they have serious issues with the Catholic Church and much prefer a local megachurch instead. They mentioned the Catholic insistence on priestly celibacy and the Catholic attitude toward homosexual behavior (as opposed to orientation) as particular irritants. I did not argue with them, because we were not in the proper venue, and because my own darling wife has those same reservations. Someone who thinks Mass is boring can only be nudged into a less cynical view by books like Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper, because -- short of an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus or Emmaus -- insight is most often incremental rather than dramatic.
With that as context, it may perhaps be easier to see that misguided devotions are worth remembering as cautionary examples. This is why we need spiritual guardrails, people. Yes, Jesus loves us all. But this is why doctrine matters. This is why "sola scriptura" is a non-starter (or should be) even among literate Christians (because it's impossible, for one thing).
We sheep, although created in the image and likeness of God, are not autonomous to the point of being self-shepherding.
Not surprisingly, this development has Chris Johnson asking why some people bother to go to church ("To worship what? A first-century rabbi who could turn an artful phrase now and then? A prejudiced Jewish guy who 'grows' when called out on his racism? A guy who undergoes a moment of 'self-discovery' when instructed by some Canaanite woman? What in the world is so inspiring about that?
"Either Jesus was God Incarnate, Who came into the world to pay for the sins of the world, or He was not. And if He was not, then you might as well order your 'worship' around readings from Plato or Aristotle or any other 'great teacher' you like for all the good it would do you.")
That said, some may wonder why I link to a story like this one. Might this be seen as contrary to the spirit of the prayer that Julie shared with the rest of us? It might.
With your kind permission, then, a thought or two in my own defense: I'm of Irish-Mexican ancestry and I love wordplay, which is another way of saying that I "snark" as well as anyone I know. The temptation to reach for a cudgel at any provocation is real, as is the danger in doing so.
But I don't highlight the problem with a bankrupt set of Lenten devotions for the sake of drawing a bead on separated bretheren in Canada or anywhere else. The Anchoress -- who does not traffic in snark-- also posted some fine sharp thoughts (linked above) about this. I can't speak to her motives, but I'm highlighting this particular instance of heresy for my own edification, as another tentative step toward exercising the spiritual leadership that Christian husbands and fathers are called to exercise.
It comes to this: I have children old enough to ask religious questions. I have friends who said over dinner last night that while they were raised Catholic, they have serious issues with the Catholic Church and much prefer a local megachurch instead. They mentioned the Catholic insistence on priestly celibacy and the Catholic attitude toward homosexual behavior (as opposed to orientation) as particular irritants. I did not argue with them, because we were not in the proper venue, and because my own darling wife has those same reservations. Someone who thinks Mass is boring can only be nudged into a less cynical view by books like Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper, because -- short of an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus or Emmaus -- insight is most often incremental rather than dramatic.
With that as context, it may perhaps be easier to see that misguided devotions are worth remembering as cautionary examples. This is why we need spiritual guardrails, people. Yes, Jesus loves us all. But this is why doctrine matters. This is why "sola scriptura" is a non-starter (or should be) even among literate Christians (because it's impossible, for one thing).
We sheep, although created in the image and likeness of God, are not autonomous to the point of being self-shepherding.
Weasel Wording Watch 2
Previously in this series: "Create or save" (President Obama)
Today's entry: "incalculable" rather than "ambiguous," "uncertain," or "ephemeral" value (the New York Times via Tom Maguire), which narrowly beats a lie of omission about "earmarks."
UPDATE: "Transparency," "accountability," and "bipartisanship" are not yet weasel words, but they're well on the way to becoming so. Even prayers are being sanitized these days.
Today's entry: "incalculable" rather than "ambiguous," "uncertain," or "ephemeral" value (the New York Times via Tom Maguire), which narrowly beats a lie of omission about "earmarks."
UPDATE: "Transparency," "accountability," and "bipartisanship" are not yet weasel words, but they're well on the way to becoming so. Even prayers are being sanitized these days.
Higgs boson hopery
Leon Lederman's nickname for the elusive subatomic particle otherwise known as the Higgs boson is just plain silly, but the science involved is interesting, and the search for it is now concentrated in the land of Lincoln.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
