|
"...you live in a nation where the vast majority of Americans are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar..." -Michelle Obama |
Aboot Reader's Rep Home RSS Feed Contributors The Elder: rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Saint Paul: saintp at excite.com JB Doubtless: abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com Atomizer: atomizer77 at yahoo.com
FEATURES ATOMIZER's A-LIST JB's SACK SITES SAINT PAUL'S SHOW STOPPERS ELDER's ELITE THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN AGGREGATE CENTER OF GRAVITY INVISIBLE AIRWAVES |
Friday, April 25, 2008
If you have any interest in the intersection of religion, politics, and public life (especially if you're of the Catholic persuasion), you really should consider subscribing to the magazine First Things. The issues are almost always chock full of insightful, thought-provoking, and intellectually challenging pieces. The first place I turn to upon receiving a new issue is Richard John Neuhaus' section called "The Public Square." Here's a sampling of Neuhaus nuggets from May (sub req):
Neuhaus writes on the return of the practice of ad orientem (facing the liturgical East of the rising sun, meaning the Rising Son) worship to the liturgy and quotes Father Jay Scott Newman's comments on the role of the priest: "Both of these are true because the primary meaning of active participation in the liturgy is worshipping the living God in Spirit and truth, and that in turn is an interior disposition of faith, hope, and love which cannot be measured by the presence or absence of physical activity. But this confusion about the role of the laity in the Church's worship was not the only misconception to follow the liturgical reforms; similar mistakes were made about the part of the priest. Because of the mistaken idea that the whole congregation had to be 'in motion' during the liturgy to be truly participating, the priest was gradually changed in the popular imagination from the celebrant of the Sacred Mysteries of salvation into the coordinator of the liturgical ministries of others. And this false understanding of the ministerial priesthood produced the ever-expanding role of the 'priest presider,' whose primary task was to make the congregation feel welcome and constantly engage them with eye contact and the embrace of his warm personality. Once these falsehoods were accepted, then the service of the priest in the liturgy became grotesquely misshapen, and instead of a humble steward of the mysteries whose only task was to draw back the veil between God and man and then hide himself in the folds, the priest became a ring-master or entertainer whose task was thought of as making the congregation feel good about itself." I immediately recognized the line that talked about "eye contact" and "embrace of his warm personality." Our priest (a known First Things reader himself) had referenced the same quote (and made a self-deprecating comment about his own warm personality) himself in his homily last Sunday. The next Neuhaus nugget touches on the subject of homilies: Catholics priests routinely claim that people today have a short attention span. Maybe they do--for the kind of preaching to which they're accustomed. They have a long enough attention span for many other things that interest them. I don't think we want to suggest that Protestants are genetically disposed to greater attentiveness. To preach interestingly does not mean to be theatrical but to provide something of intellectual substance. In my experience, people are intensely interested in what Christianity teaches, and why. Which is to say they are intensely interested in doctrine. I see from time to time Catholic homilies and homiletic aids on websites and elsewhere. I am sorry to say they are usually an embarrassment--moralistic tripe joined to vacuous uplift and a cute story. I do wish seminaries would stop teaching priests to lean on anecdotes and story illustrations. The really interesting stories, to be interestingly explicated, are in the biblical readings. Go read St. Augustine's homilies to see how that is done. Not everybody is going to be a great, or even a very good, preacher. Expectations are higher among Protestants. Catholics come to church chiefly for the Mass and, as often as not, put up with the homily. But priests should not take advantage of lower expectations by trying the patience and insulting the intelligence of their people. We don't need the priests to entertain us during the homily. But they should not be afraid to make an effort to engage and challenge us to think. Finally, Neuhaus on the notion--espoused in a recent Washington Post piece--that Americans have left the Church because its hierarchy has been too "authoritarian" and "overanxious": There is not a wisp of self-criticism in this wearily familiar complaint of adolescence coming on its sunset years in unrelenting resentment that its "creativity" in destabilizing, confusing, obfuscating, and undercutting Catholic faith and life has not received uncritical parental approval. Just imagine what might have been accomplished were it not for that authoritarian hierarchy and mean father figure in Rome. Don't be surprised to see "Mean churches suck" bumper stickers soon. Labels: Religion Monday, April 21, 2008
Figured that since the Pope was in country, I'd pull out this post that's been kicking around in the hopper. Oh, I got a hopper. A big hopper.
In a late-February article in the Wall Street Journal, Christine B. Whelan made note of a study showing that today's young Catholics are trying to marry tradition and modernity (sub req). Not surprisingly, the results are mixed at best. The study, based on an online survey of more than 1,000 adult Catholics, "paints a mixed picture," said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, chairman of the Subcommittee on Marriage and Family Life of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which commissioned the report. Catholic youth may have a more conservative outlook on life than their parents' generation but also an individualized idea of who should set the rules, said Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame. "Most younger Catholics have defined their inner self as the authority, and many freely distance themselves from church practices they don't believe in." Even the concept of "Catholic guilt" seems to have disappeared for younger generations: Catholic youth report no feelings of guilt overall, or about premarital sex or pornography, according to Mr. Smith's forthcoming article in the Review of Religious Research. The Georgetown study shows that some 69% of Catholics age 18 to 25 believe "marriage is whatever two people want it to be," while just over half of their parents' and grandparents' generation agreed with that statement. This comes as no surprise to researchers following American family trends. With looser social norms dictating appropriate behaviors for husbands and wives, each couple -- regardless of religious affiliation -- must settle on their own rules of conduct, argues Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History." But when more issues must be negotiated, she notes, there are more points where negotiations can break down. While research on other Christian denominations shows similar individualized attitudes about the role of faith in everyday life, the generational differences are more pronounced among Catholics. "Catholic teenagers are the most distanced from the church authorities," reports Mr. Smith, a fact he attributes to "largely ineffective" modern Catholic religious education. Nail meet head. I don't know exactly when the decline of modern Catholic religious education began, but I do know that the several years of it that I had (fourth grade through high school) definitely meet the "largely ineffective" standard. The education itself was largely fine, it was just the Catholic part of it that fell short. The tradition and history of the Church was for the most part ignored. We learned little of the intellectual, philosophical, and theological musings of the Church Fathers. We learned about Christianity in a general sense, but not much (or at least not enough) about the doctrine, dogma, and teachings of the Catholic Church. We learned about the rules and regulations, but not what their true purpose was and how they fit into the broader understanding of our faith. From what I've read and heard from other Catholics, this sort of squishy, feel-good Catholic-lite teaching that I received was not the exception, but rather the rule in the confused, wayward post-Vatican II years. A couple of generations of Catholics had no real foundation of faith when they reached adulthood and were often poorly equipped to deal with the pressures, temptations, and appeal of the secular world. To be sure, some caution is advisable when interpreting generational differences measured at different stages of life: The millennials are just at the beginning of adulthood, so their optimistic and individual-focused opinions may change with their circumstances. "Some of this is useful idealism and some of it is just inexperience," said Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. Still, the cultural shift can't be ignored, Mr. Regnerus said. "We've been swamped by messages of romantic individualism. Those ideas can lead people to marry, but can lead you out of the marriage just as fast when things get tough." It's not as if most young Catholics knowingly abandon their values and tradition and succumb to the secular culture. It's usually a much more gradual process where they don't even realize that they are drifting further and further from the roots of their faith. When you hear the same themes again and again in the popular culture, you being to see them as normal and eventually accept them as such. The only way to prevent this sort of values drift is to have a steady hand on the wheel and a good compass to keep you on course. Unfortunately, the Church is not doing a good job equipping her young people for the task. In March, another article appeared in the WSJ that looked at The Changing Faiths of America (sub req) The Pew survey found that the Roman Catholic Church, which estimates its U.S. membership at 67 million, has lost more adherents than any other denomination. While nearly 1 in 3 U.S. adults was raised in the Catholic Church, fewer than 1 in 4 now describes himself or herself as Catholic. The church's U.S. membership remains steady because half of all immigrants are Catholic, Pew says. Christian Smith, a sociologist at the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, says he believes many adult Catholics leave the church because a decline in the number of nuns and priests has resulted in poorer religious instruction of baby boomers and their children. Bingo. Again one of the root causes of Catholics bailing has been inadequate religious teaching, this time connected to the dearth of vocations. However, the problem is not just that there aren't enough teachers. It's also with what has (or hasn't) been taught. In the April 21st edition of National Review, Michael Novak wrote about the Pope's visit to America and had more on the state of the Church (sub req): American Catholicism may be one of the two or three most vital national Catholic Churches in the world. Its network of more than 200 Catholic colleges and universities is unrivaled (Germany has only one), even though, over the last four decades, many have become visibly less ?Catholic.? The level of practice among lay American Catholics is one of the highest anywhere, and their habits of giving among the most generous. All the same, American Catholicism has sunk far below the vigor it showed just prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962?65). Then, religious orders of sisters, brothers, and priests were bursting at the seams and rushing to build new convents and seminaries of unprecedented size. Now most of these orders are in severe decline, and many of their seminaries have been forced to close or are only fractionally used for their original purposes. The number of sisters has shrunk from about 180,000 to 63,000. Thousands of priests have abandoned their ministries. The average age of both priests and nuns is far too high, and the number of new vocations (except in the most orthodox and self-disciplined communities) is below replacement level. Thus, the record of the Catholic Church in America since the Second Vatican Council is not altogether impressive. A notable laxity has crept in, along with a loss of self-confidence in being Catholic. Even at Catholic universities, it is surprising (in most places) how little graduates know about their faith and its intellectual traditions. Since 1965, secular culture has in many places choked off Catholic culture both in thought and in practice. The Catholic Church faces many challenges in America. One of the most serious is how to keep young Catholics from drifting away in the early years of adulthood. Teaching them the real history of the Church--its theology, traditions, and leaders--and what it really means to be Catholic won't magically make the problem go away, but it would be a heck of a lot better than what we've been doing the last forty years. The good news is that we appear to have a Pontiff who gets it. In Friday's WSJ, David Gibson wrote an article on how The Pope Was Working To Bring Back Catholic Culture: Thus it should come as no surprise that Benedict has made recovering a distinctive Catholic culture a principal theme of his first visit to the U.S., which concludes this weekend in New York. The theme has been evident in the liturgies, which stress Latin in the prayers and Roman styling in the vestments. But it has also been underscored in Benedict's remarks, calling for stronger Catholic education from parishes to universities and for a more powerful Catholic presence in the public square as a way of "cultivating a mindset, an intellectual 'culture'," as he said at Thursday's Mass in Washington, "which is genuinely Catholic." When asked during a Wednesday encounter with the nation's bishops how to redress a "a certain quiet attrition" by Catholics who drift away from practice, Benedict lamented "the passing away of a religious culture, sometimes disparagingly referred to as a 'ghetto,' which reinforced participation and identification with the Church." Labels: Religion Friday, April 18, 2008
David Harsanyi says enough Catholic bashing, already:
Talk show host Bill Maher last week accused Pope Benedict XVI of being a "Nazi" in his youth and heading up a "child-abusing religious cult"--or more precisely, "the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia." Now, undoubtedly, there is a treasure trove of amusement to be unearthed at the expense of fallen holy men. But Catholic bashing has gotten so obvious, so tedious, it seems only TV writers find it humorous anymore. But hey, it's a free country, of course, so feel free to ridicule any group you desire. * See disclaimer below. The thing is, the derision aimed at the Catholic Church, often using half-truths and over-the-top invective, unmasks a double standard. The hysterical critics of the Catholic Church are many of the same folks who lecture us endlessly about the need to "build bridges" and develop mutual "understanding" with theocrats and tyrants. They are the same folks who bristle at the very notion of labeling a nation "evil"--even if a nation happens to starve its people, threaten holy war, or allow death cults (like Hamas) to open embassies in their capitals. The Catholic Church, apparently, is so wicked that the pope is cut less slack than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Well, maybe if the Pope wasn't such an "old-fashioned" guy and wore some trendier clothes, the media would be a little friendlier. Harsayni's disclaimer is worth noting: * Except Scientologists. Muslims. And Jews. (Don't make us drag your name through the mud for 3,000 years.) Actually, to be safe, avoid mocking all religions other than Catholicism. Or any ethnic minority (other than the Irish, of course). Also, the gravitationally challenged, the elderly, polar bears, the underserved, Fidel Castro, etc... You also wonder how much of the Catholic bashing is driven by the fact that the "brave" critics know that there will be no consequences for their derisive actions. No one is going to get thrown off the air or have their head cut off for mocking the Pope. Labels: Religion Wednesday, April 16, 2008
At First Things, Mary Rose Rybak asks Who Will Save Catholic Schools?. She also wonders if the real mission of Catholic schools has been lost:
But it's worth noting that the men and women, religious and lay, who built America's Catholic schools did so not to educate the poor but to educate Catholics. Catholic schools were formed as a means of passing down the faith to Catholic children and were a self-conscious attempt in the early to mid-1900s to wall off children from a mainstream culture that was considered hostile to Catholics. Given this fact--and given that, contrary to Fordham's hopes, religious charter schools are not likely to become a reality anytime soon--perhaps it's not too ungenerous to ask whether it is entirely fair to ask Catholics to shoulder the burden of educating the urban poor? True, educating the poor has long been a part of the Church mission; but so too, and arguably stronger, does the Church have a mission to spread the truth to its own members. As evidenced by a New York Times poll from 1994 showing 70 percent of polled Catholics between the ages of 18 and 44 considered the consecrated host a mere "symbolic reminder" of Jesus, there's reason to believe Catholic schools could benefit from a return to the starting focus of educating Catholic children in the faith. The reformers at the Fordham Foundation see Catholic schools as one answer to the problem of urban education because they are good schools. But it is worth asking a few questions: To what extent are these schools excellent because they are Catholic, in the sense that they express a commonly held worldview, center a religious community, and participate in a shared faith life? And what effect will it have on their excellence if they cease to be Catholic, in the sense of primarily educating Catholics as Catholics? Will these schools still retain their excellence? Perhaps because they think of these schools first as good and only secondarily as Catholic, the Fordham Foundation hopefully assumes so and welcomes generous Catholics to do the same. But, especially on the occasion of Pope Benedict XVI's visit this week, it's worth considering his words from an address to the Congregation for Catholic Education this past January on the importance of keeping the Catholic identity in Catholic schools: "Schools should...question themselves on the role they must fulfill in the contemporary social context, marked by an evident educational crisis. The Catholic school...cannot fail to propose its own educational, human and Christian perspective." The focus of the Catholic schools that I attended in the Seventies and Eighties was not educating children in the faith. It was mostly about getting an education with some wishy-washy, feel-good, watered-down post-Vatican II Catholicism thrown in (especially in high school). It wasn't the fault of any individual teachers, administrators, or priests. It was more a result of the state of the Church in America at the time, when people seemed eager to move away from the two-thousand-year traditions and teachings of the Church, removing many of the distinctions and values that made one Catholic. Is it any wonder that so many Americans have left the Church, either because their faith has lapsed or they've found a more meaningful religious experience elsewhere? Some have found their way back later in life, but many--too many--have been lost along the way. The future of the Church in America depends a large part on the strength of Catholic schools. Catholic schools that understand their real mission. Labels: Religion Monday, March 24, 2008
On Wednesday, Osama bin Laden released an audiotape in which he accused Pope Benedict XVI of leading an Anti-Islam Crusade and warned of new attacks in Europe:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP)--Osama bin Laden accused Pope Benedict XVI of helping in a "new Crusade" against Islam and warned of a "severe" reaction to European publications of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that insulted many Muslims. Bin Laden's audiotape message Wednesday raised concerns al-Qaida was plotting new attacks in Europe. Some experts said bin Laden, believed to be in hiding in the Afghan-Pakistan border area, may be unable to organize an attack himself and instead is trying to fan anger and inspire his supporters to violence. The Pope received Bin Laden's message and responded by baptizing a Muslim Journalist at Easter Vigil: VATICAN CITY, MARCH 23, 2008--The day Magdi Allam became a Catholic was a beautiful one, according to the Muslim journalist who was baptized by Benedict XVI at Saturday's Easter Vigil Mass. The baptism was obviously planned well in advance, but the fact that the Pope carried through with it in spite of the threats shows he is a leader of strong will and courage, qualities often lacking in the Western World these days, especially in Europe. No appeasing Archbishop of Canterbury he. Thank God. Labels: Religion
Easter mass (wait, that is the right word is it not, Don from Blaine?) was naturally packed. The C&E'ers were out in force, many sporting brightly colored outfits so that God could more easily see them through the clouds (there is the matter of the roof I suppose as well).
Being a weekly goer myself I felt some degree of disdain for the entire charade of getting all fussied up to go to one or two masses (*checks again with Don*) a year. One family behind us even left after about 30 minutes. Hard to decipher that one. We learned yesterday that the brother of our young priest was killed in Iraq in 2005. He choked up as he told the story of getting the call from his mother in the middle of the night with the news. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/06/10_steilm_fasnachtobit/ Compelling story and it was a great way of personalizing the story of Jesus' death and resurrection. One thing I would like to hear in the future though is a call out to the C&E's to I don't know, maybe come to mass a little more often? You've got them right there and several may have even been listening. They know they are supposed to be going every week. They know they have no good reason for not going. Start working on what is written on their hearts. What was sad is there was an announcement at the end of mass thanking all the "new faces" and "visitors". Let's see if we can pack that jernt every Sunday and not just when the Yankees play. Labels: Religion Saturday, March 22, 2008
The Saturday night Easter Vigil
When we were kids, we would often spend Easter weekend at our grandparent's house in a small town in Iowa. Since the church was less than a block away and we didn't like having to get up and dressed up on Easter morning, we would often attend the Easter Vigil Unfortunately, the things that make the Easter Vigil so special are not conducive to attendance by families with young children. The late evening start time and length--to say nothing of the open flames--make it all but impossible for us to take part at this stage of our lives. Hopefully, when the boys are a little older (and more patient and less destructive), we'll be able to hit the Vigil UPDATE: Steve from St.Paul e-mails with a clarification: I enjoyed your post about the Easter Vigil, but I do have to point out a small error. You referred to the "Easter Vigil Mass" in your post. It actually is a service, not a mass. In the Catholic Church, there are no masses said between Holy Thursday and Easter. On both Good Friday and Holy Saturday, there are services, but the Eucharistic prayer isn't said. There is communion distributed, but the wafers that they use were consecrated at Holy Thursday mass. It's a common confusion. Labels: Religion Friday, March 21, 2008
Richard John Neuhaus reflects on Good Friday and the Easter Weekend at FIRST THINGS:
Let all the people say Amen. The church is dark now. The altar is stripped and bare. Some are getting up and leaving in silence. Others remain kneeling, looking into the darkness. Holy Saturday is ahead, the most quiet day of the year. The silence of that silent night, holy night, the night when God was born was broken by the sounds of a baby, a mother's words of comfort and angels in concert. Holy Saturday, by contrast, is the sound of prefect silence. Yesterday's mockery, the good thief's prayer, the cry of dereliction--all that is past now. Mary has dried her tears, and the whole creation is still, waiting for what will happen next. Some say that on Holy Saturday Jesus went to hell in triumph, to free the souls long imprisoned there. Others say he descended into a death deeper than death, to embrace in his love even the damned. We do not know. Scripture, tradition and pious writings provide hints and speculations, but about this most silent day it is perhaps best to observe the silence. One day I expect he will tell us all about it. When we are able to understand what we cannot now even understand why we cannot understand. Meanwhile, if we keep very still, there steals upon the silence a song of Easter that was always there. On the long mourners' bench of the eternal pity, we raise our heads, blink away our tears and exchange looks that dare to question, 'Could it be?' But of course. That is what it was about. That is what it is all about. O felix culpa! O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer! To prodigal children lost in a distant land, to disciples who forsook him and fled, to a thief who believed or maybe took pity and pretended to believe, to those who did not know that what they did they did to God, to the whole bedraggled company of humankind he had abandoned heaven to join, he says: 'Come. Everything is ready now. In your fears and your laughter, in your friendships and farewells, in your loves and losses, in what you have been able to do and in what you know you will never get done, come, follow me. We are going home to the waiting Father.' Labels: Religion Tuesday, March 18, 2008
While Obama's "pastor problems" have been dominating the news lately, some Democrats and left-wing bloggers (especially Joshua Micah Marshall) have been trying desperately to make an issue of John McCain receiving the endorsement of John Hagee, an evangelical pastor with a history of anti-Catholic bigotry. The comparison is not very apt to begin with given Obama's much closer association with Wright over a long period of years. More importantly, as the old cliché goes, elections are about choices.
And the choice between voting for a candidate who's supported by a fool who's said some nasty things about the Catholic Church and candidates who are supported by groups whose actions directly contravene the teachings of the Church seems like a fairly easy one for Catholics to make. Feddie delivers a perfect summation at Southern Appeal: To be sure, I would rather McCain completely disassociate himself from Hagee, but his failure to do so (no doubt as a matter of political prudence) is not nearly enough for me to sit out an election that may, among other things, decide who gets to fill as many as three Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years. I mean, seriously, do the dems really believe that faithful Catholics are just going to sit on the sidelines this November because one of McCain's high-profile supporters is a bigoted twit? Do they honestly think that this sort of thing matters more than Senator Obama's unwillingness to support legislation designed to provide basic medical care to babies who survive botched abortions? The bottom line is this: On the non-negotiable teachings of the Catholic Church, Senator McCain is the clear choice for faithful Catholics (even with his deeply troubling support of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research). And no amount of jeering by dems over Hagee's endorsement of McCain is going to change this fact. Besides, I would think Obama and Clinton supporters have plenty of other things to be concerned about. Amen. Labels: Religion Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Bob e-mails to highlight an upcoming event:
On Thursday March 13, Dr. Alveda King will be speaking at the St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, Mn. Dr. King is the niece of slain Civil Rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and she will be lecturing on the problems facing the Civil Rights Movement of today. Specifically how abortion is affecting the society, and taking a look at the how it is affecting the African American Community. You can find out more about Alveda King here. More details on the event are available here: Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., will give a speech about the ongoing challenges of the Civil Rights Movement, titled "How Can the Dream Survive If We Murder the Children?" from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Thursday, March 13, in the Schulze Grand Atrium of the University of St. Thomas School of Law in downtown Minneapolis. King's talk is free and open to the public. For more information, contact Thomas Mastroianni of the St. Thomas More Society, an organization for Catholic law students at the university, (518) 701-3362. Labels: Religion Thursday, February 28, 2008
At the First Things blog, Anthony Sacramone looks at the case of a Catholic bishop who refused to let a Catholic scholar speak at a college in the diocese because of the scholar's disagreements with the Church's teachings and speculates as to why such "rebels" remain with the Church:
I love the complaint uttered by one of the parents: that the kids should be able to "hear all sides." What sides? There are no sides when it comes to magisterial teaching. If Johnson wanted to make the case for a liberal, mainline view of marriage, sexual morality, and doctrine, then he should be doing so either in debate with an orthodox Catholic or in a different venue altogether. Does he really not understand the millennium-old theological underpinnings of these matters, as understood by his own church? Again, if he wanted to make the case as an advocate for another church, fine--fight it out in an open forum. But he is doing to the Catholic Church's defined teaching of the sacramental nature of marriage, ordination, etc. what the Jesus Seminarians did to the historical Jesus: refashioning it to fit the comfort zone of neo-gnostic academics. I have never understood why the dissenters within the Catholic Church--think Garry Wills, James Carroll, and members of Catholics for a Free Pass on Killing the Little Babies--remain within the church. It's a free country. Pick yourself up and walk over to a TEC or ELCA congregation: I promise, they would love to have you. My guess is, and it's just a guess, is that it would be no fun knowing that the old Catholic Church was still there, teaching all that hoary stuff they simply can't abide. In effect, Rome would have won by simply remaining unmoved. As mainline Prots, these guys and gals would lose their cachet as dissenters. An Episcopalian questioning the Virgin Birth, a male-only priesthood? Yawn... Time to grow the hell up... Labels: Religion Tuesday, February 19, 2008
JB has had his share of fun giving the egg-headed intellectual types at the Claremont Institute a hard time for their propensity to include wonkish writing in their quarterly review of books. It's not exactly what you would call approachable material for the Joe Six Packs out there.
Now, First Things is one of my favorite magazines and I greatly enjoy their articles on religion, politics, culture, and the arts. But, as I've mentioned in the past, from time to time they too are prone to publish pieces that beggar understanding for those who don't dwell in ivory towers. Consider a couple of graphs from a review of Counter-Experiences: Reading Jean-Luc Marion (no need for a link as no one who reads this blog would ever consider buying this book) by Thomas S. Hibbs that appeared in the magazine's most recent edition (sub req): If the formal and universal intelligibility of the Kantian project invites abstract vacancy, Marion's recourse to incommunicable individuality would seem to court nihilism in an opposite direction. Once again, discernment on the basis of analogous reasoning or prudential negotiation between universal and singular seems doomed. Obviously. (Of course, Heidegger's famous lectures on Aristotle's Ethics and on phronesis were crucial for the development of twentieth-century phenomenology, but the problems raised in Marion's recent thought on ethics need less to retrace the path of Heidegger than to recover an authentically premodern understanding of phronesis, an understanding untainted by Kantian dichotomies.) You know Atomizer said almost exactly the same thing to me the other night over beers. Or maybe he was just talking about how phenomenology has influenced his deconstructionist approach to analyzing how Ron Gardenhire manages the Twins pitching staff. When you read book reviews like this you have to wonder if the writer is really interested in enlightening his readers or merely impressing his academic colleagues. Labels: Religion Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Lent fast re-branded as "Christian Ramadan":
Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the "Christian Ramadan" in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity. The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation. "The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent," said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil. Well, whatever's popular with the kids these days I guess. It's not like you can use the tradition-rich two-thousand year history of the Church to get their attention. Maybe with a little more "polishing" and "re-branding" Dutch Catholics can get beyond the hangup with this whole Christianity thing altogether. (Via Ryan Anderson at First Things Blog.) Labels: Religion Thursday, February 07, 2008
It looks like the Jesuit St. Louis University is going to let its basketball coach Rick Majerus skate over his public activism in support of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. No disciplinary actions taken except for this press release:
In a statement released Jan. 22, St. Louis University said, "Majerus' comments were his own personal views and he was not speaking for St. Louis University. The comments were made at a nonuniversity event and he was not there as a university representative." In other words, while they may be personally opposed to his activities, they don't have the right to tell someone else what they can do. See how easy that is? It's a one size fits all excuse for any ethical dilemma. Meanwhile, another 1.2 million get thrown on the pile. Oh well, nothing you can do about that. As previously mentioned, it looks like SLU sold their soul to hire this million dollar man in order to generate the revenues necessary to profit on their new $80 million basketball arena. But that doesn't mean they're getting soft on morality over there. No, rigorous standards still exist, according the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The school will open its new Chaifetz Arena soon, which will be the home for its basketball teams and also will hold events and performances. Weixlmann said that because SLU is Jesuit, there are certain events the school would not be likely to book, such as a mud wrestling event. That's a relief. In the event that a National Mud Wrestling Association forms and grows in popularity to where it is holding events at 15,000 seat arenas, St. Louis University would not be likely to book it. Not likely, but .... you never know! It good to see they're leaving some wiggle room, just in case. It could be a good revenue generator. Plus, who are they to impose their values on people who want to watch people wrestle in mud? Isn't that a Constitutional right or something? BTW, for a disturbing profile of Rick Majerus, take a look at this recent article in Sports Illustrated. How this guy got hired by any college, let alone a religious one, is a mystery to me. Oh yeah, his career record is 423-147. Never mind. Labels: Religion Saturday, January 26, 2008
Regarding the pathetic Rick Majerus excuses from earlier this week, Sisyphus writes in with this question about the importance of obedience and loyalty to an organization:
I wonder what Majerus' response would be to a player who publicly said something like this: "I'm very respectful to Coach Majerus," A hypothetical St. Louis University basketball player said. "But I rely on my basketball judgments, thanks to my coaching at various elite high school and AAU basketball programs. And that elite basketball education led me to believe that I ought to shoot anytime a touch the ball. And my basketball judgment happens to differ from the coach's." "I do not speak for the team or Coach Majerus. These are my personal views. And I'm not letting him change my mind. I think a basketball team should be inclusive of many styles of play. I would hope that all people with differing basketball judgments would feel welcome on a basketball team, and that the team would serve to bring people with all styles together, even if the styles of play are incompatible." "These beliefs are ingrained in me," the hypothetical player told the paper. " And my First Amendment right to free speech supersedes anything that Coach Majerus would order me to do. My dad fought on Okinawa in World War II. My uncle died in World War II. I had classmates die in Vietnam. And it was to preserve our way of life, so people like me could chuck up a three whenever they touched the ball." Labels: Religion Friday, January 25, 2008
Following up on Chad's post yesterday about the absence of Catholic leadership at Catholic universities, I see basketball coach Rick Majerus opened his enormous yap this week while campaigning for Hillary Clinton:
The Catholic basketball coach for the Catholic St. Louis University looked into the TV camera at the Clinton rally last weekend and said, "I'm pro-choice, personally." "I'm very much an advocate for stem cell research," Majerus told KMOV-TV at the Saturday rally at McCluer North High School. The problem, screaming mimis of censorship, is that Majerus isn't just some multi-million dollar mercenary coach for Big State U spouting off on behalf of the fashionable political positions of the day. Nobody would have a legitimate objection to his words if that were the case. (At least beyond the natural loss of respect you'd feel for anyone campaigning for Hillary Clinton). The problem is that Majerus, for some reason, finds himself in a leadership position at a Catholic school. Someone his players and the wider student body would naturally admire and respect. So when he's advocating behavior the school believes it has a divine mandate to oppose, there will be consequences and ramifications. Or at least there should be. I'm pleasantly surprised the Catholic Church still has a few national leaders willing to speak the truth on these controversial issues. Archbishop Burke to the breech: "I'm confident (SLU) will deal with the question of a public representative making declarations that are inconsistent with the Catholic faith," Burke said. "When you take a position in a Catholic university, you don't have to embrace everything the Catholic church teaches. But you can't make statements which call into question that identity and mission of the Catholic church." Common sense. Something you wouldn't think you'd have to explain to a responsible adult. Burke goes on to say: "I'm concerned that a leader at a Catholic university made these comments. It can lead Catholics astray," Burke said Tuesday. " Bingo. What Majerus said in his position has the power to influence people, not only to misunderstand the teachings of the Church, but also to imperil their immortal souls. Kind of high stakes there. You don't have to believe that, but the institution educating these students and employing Majerus does. Since it's a relationship all parties entered into freely, the case for righteous dissent and victim status is laughable. That doesn't stop Majerus from trying. His reaction to Archbishop Burke's comments: "I'm very respectful to the archbishop," Majerus said. "But I rely on my value judgments, thanks to my education at Marquette, which is a Jesuit institution, just like St. Louis. And that Jesuit education led me to believe that I can make a value judgment. And my value judgment happens to differ from the archbishop's." "I do not speak for the university or the Catholic Church. These are my personal views. And I'm not letting him change my mind. I think religion should be inclusive. I would hope that all people would feel welcome inside a church, and that the church would serve to bring people together, even if they happen to disagree on certain things." You get the sense Majerus doesn't think beyond himself very much. Childish stubbornness and appeals to the secular church of tolerance above all. That is enough to get applause from liberal, blowhard sportswriters around the country, who are always looking for ways to exhibit their vast intelligence and judgment beyond the mere realm of sports. But it's not relevant. The argument is simple. You have Catholic teaching on morality according to the Archbishop, the Pope, and about 2,000 years of tradition. You have a different teaching according to Rick Majerus's value judgments. Which should a Catholic school feel compelled to impart to its students? Majerus goes on: "These beliefs are ingrained in me," Majerus told the paper. " And my First Amendment right to free speech supersedes anything that the archbishop would order me to do. My dad fought on Okinawa in World War II. My uncle died in World War II. I had classmates die in Vietnam. And it was to preserve our way of life, so people like me could have an opinion." I see his Jesuit education did about as good in teaching him Constitutional law as it did in teaching him Catholic doctrine. Regarding his appeal to the First Amendment in the matter of a private institution's ability to discipline its employees for inappropriate behavior, I quote a damning critique. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Really, those first five words are essential in understanding these rights. Until the White House signing ceremony of the bill to silence Rick Majerus, he needs to stop wrapping himself in the Constitution. Majerus's defense of himself is more damaging to his credibility than his original comments. You have to wonder how a man like this got hired by a Catholic university in the first place. Or by any university which values knowledge, wisdom, civility, composure, loyalty, sacrifice, etc. I suspect there was something valued more by St. Louis University than those characteristics. Something more important in the grand scheme of things. Majerus is an excellent basketball coach, a proven winner. He's paid one like too. This Catholic university is reportedly paying him an astonishing $1 million per year on a six year contract. How does a school with this mission statement: The Mission of Saint Louis University is the pursuit of truth for the greater glory of God and for the service of humanity. justify spending that much for a guy in charge coaching a sport, which should be nothing more than a distraction, a sideshow? This may have something to do with it: Athletic director Cheryl Levick wanted to give [the former coach] one more season but was overruled by [university president Father Lawrence Biondi], who envisioned the hiring of Majerus as a complement to the school?s new $85 million on-campus arena due to open in November 2008. You can't argue with the economics. You've got to spend money to make money. The bills for that $85 million arena need to be paid and it will be easier with a winning basketball team, the kind Rick Majerus can give you. So what's a little heresy between business partners, as long as you're in the black? The problem goes beyond Rick Majerus's values. It's the school's values that brought a guy like Majerus into a leadership role at a Catholic university in the first place. Labels: Religion Thursday, January 24, 2008
In January's First Things, Robert Louis Wilken comments on what Catholic students don't learn in college:
The absence of intellectual leadership on the part of Catholic faculty deprives students of models of well-educated Catholic laymen and laywomen who by their life and conversation display a mature and seasoned faith. Seldom will students find guides among the faculty who can deepen their understanding of Catholicism?suggesting a book here, an article there--as their studies present challenges to what they learned at home. Sadly, many Catholic students will go through four years of college to become reasonably well informed in some area of study--European history, American literature, international politics, biology--yet leave the university children spiritually. That rings all too true. And it usually doesn't matter if they attend a Catholic school like Notre Dame or not. Speaking of Golden Domers, ESPN co-host suspended for vulgar remarks: Dana Jacobson has been missing from ESPN2's 'First Take' but the co-host isn't on vacation. In a story first reported by the Chicago Tribune, Jacobson has been suspended for the week because of remarks she made at a Jan. 11 roast for ESPN Radio morning show hosts Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic in Atlantic City, N.J. Jacobson, a Michigan graduate, made vulgar comments about Notre Dame. Golic played football at the latter school. A newspaper account of the roast said Jacobson was booed by the crowd. An ESPN spokesperson would not confirm the suspension to the Star Tribune but the company did put out a statement that said, 'Her actions and comments were inappropriate and we have dealt with it and she has been disciplined.' Jacobson also issued her own statement. 'I am very sorry. My remarks about Notre Dame were foolish and insensitive,' she said. 'I respect all religions and did not mean anything derogatory by my poorly chosen words. I also deeply regret the embarrassment I have caused ESPN and Mike and Mike. 'My actions at the roast were inappropriate and in no way represent who I really am. I have personally apologized to many of the people involved. I won't make excuses for my behavior but do hope that I can be forgiven for such a poor lack of judgment.' Paul e-mails to add: I have been following the DJ situation closely. According to the blog Deadspin.com, but unsubstantiated by major media or audio/video, Jacobson (who is Jewish) said quote: "F*** Notre Dame, F*** Touchdown Jesus, F*** Jesus." I don't know exactly what she said. Unless we see tape or hear interviews with multiple attendees, we may never know. The event was a roast and roasts sometimes get lewd. I don't think I'd feel comfortable attending a roast that was sponsored by my employer. It seems likely that the event would either be totally lame or potentially get out of hand and get people in serious trouble. As for what Jacobson allegedly said, I have no problems with her first two effs. Her eff of ND is just slamming a football rival. Her eff of Touchdown Jesus doesn't even bother me, since it is a specific piece of artwork/architecture that depicts a religious figure. Since TDJ appears to taunt the fans and players of opposing teams, it is a fair target for a roaster from a rival school. However, her eff of Jesus is deeply offensive to all Christians and the Catholic League should be commended for pressuring ESPN into punishing her. I am certain that ESPN executives know what she said. To suggest it was because she insulted Notre Dame seems to me to be an attempt to sweep her anti-Christian statements under the rug. Few care (or should) if she insulted Notre Dame, insulting Jesus is an affront to all Christians. So my position is no punishment for statements 1 or 2, and severe punishment for statement 3. Imagine if she said that about Muhammed! ESPN is pretty hypocritical. They didn't punish her for a week until the Catholic League started calling press conferences. Yet when Golf Channel commentator Kelly Tillman commented that the only way other golfers would win is if they lynched Tiger Woods, ESPN blasted that all over SportsCenter. Labels: Religion Monday, January 07, 2008
As the whirlwind of the political season threatens to sweep us up in a storm of polls, primaries, candidates, conventions, debates and demagoguery (yes, I was watching John Edwards on C-SPAN this weekend), it's important to occasionally step back and keep matters in perspective. In this month's issue of First Things, Robert P. George reminds us not be distracted from the moral truth (sub req):
Our task should be to understand the moral truth and speak it in season and out of season. We will be told by the pure pragmatists that the public is too far gone in moral relativism or even moral delinquency to be reached by moral argument. We will be advised to frame arguments in coded language so as not to scare off the soccer moms or whoever is playing their role in the next election cycle. All of this must be resisted. We must, to be sure, practice the much-neglected and badly underrated virtue of prudence. But we must have faith that truth is luminously powerful, so that if we bear witness to the truth about, say, marriage and the sanctity of human life--lovingly, civilly, but also passionately and with determination--and if we honor the truth in advancing our positions, then even many of our fellow citizens who now find themselves on the other side of these issues will come around. Labels: Religion Friday, January 04, 2008
Despite the somewhat Seinfeldian sounding title and a not so enthusiastic review in National Review (sub req) by David Klinghoffer, I found Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity? to be one of my favorite books of 2007. It's D'Souza's best work since The End Of Racism and a well-penned rebuttal to the spate of anti-religious (mostly anti-Christian) tracts penned by aggressive atheists such as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris (sounds like a law firm from hell--literally).
D'Souza's book is a good companion piece to Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens and like Vox, he uses reason--which aggressive atheists seem to believe is in their exclusive domain--to hammer gapping holes in the various arguments against the existence of God. In doing so, he examines the real reasons many atheists deny God (no moral code to follow sure makes life more fun) and the inherent problems with "I" centered morality. Sections of the book also focus on the impact Christianity has had on Western Civilization, the future of Christianity (D'Souza is mostly positive), why Christianity is unique among world religions, and the relationship between Christianity and science, philosophy, and morality. Very weighty subjects to be sure, but D'Souza covers them in an easy to understand and rather brisk manner (the book checks in at just over 300 pages). D'Souza will be joining us on the First Team of the NARN in a couple of weeks. Plenty of time to pick up a copy of "What's So Great About Christianity?" before the interview. Labels: Religion Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Father Robert A. Sirico writes on the promise of liberty (not liberation) theology for Latin America in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (sub req):
At least 100 years of evidence stands contrary to the claim that a more powerful state (and that is all liberation theology really offers) is the proper means to material advance. Nothing is to be gained for anyone but the state by smashing the rich. What society needs is not expropriation but ever widening opportunities for all classes to improve their living standards. There is only one way toward liberation, and that is a genuine liberalization of economic and political life, one that separates the state, not only from the Church, but also from the culture and the commercial life of the nation. In my travels in the region, I detect an honest reassessment taking place. Leaders and future leaders seem to be recognizing that if the middle class is to grow, there needs to be more vibrant understanding of how the market, where people make their livelihood, actually functions. There is also a need for a deeper understanding of the moral hazards and opportunities that the political economy presents. The Church, despite terrible blows to its credibility in recent years, is in as good a position as any institution to provide leadership and assume a teaching role in this. Pope Benedict's own writings provide a solid basis. He warns of the dangers of power and its morally corrupting effects, as well as the materially corrosive effects of socialist policies. Labels: Religion Wednesday, December 12, 2007
For a while, the crew at First Things went away from a standard blog to a more "article of the day" type feature. We're happy to report that the First Things blog is back and better than ever. And the daily On the Square feature remains. Tidings of good cheer all around.
Labels: Religion Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Actually, I don't love Mitt Romney. And I probably wouldn't vote for him in a GOP primary election. (Theoretical scenario, we don't have one of those in MN and for the sixth presidential election in a row, I'm quite sure I ain't caucusing.)
But Fr. John Neuhaus reminds us Catholics why Romney's religious beliefs shouldn't be as much of a barrier as it might be for some others: Few Catholics believe that a candidate is disqualified by being a Mormon. The reason is obvious: Catholics are accustomed to having heretics in the White House. Jews likewise are not offended that the president is not one of their own. This is and always has been a dominantly Protestant country. With the exception of JFK, who, sad to say, was not much of a Catholic, Catholics are accustomed to having presidents who are, in their view, religiously wrongheaded. Evangelicals, by way of contrast, are accustomed to thinking of America as a Christian nation, meaning a Protestant nation. For many who lack a fully developed ecclesiology, America is something very much like their church. You don?t want a heretic as the head of your church. It's true, we've had to put up with leaders espousing beliefs in various rebellious and schismatic interpretations of the Faith forever. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists. Egad, even some Unitarians, a Quaker and a Jehovah's Witness! A Mormon seems to fit right in with this crowd. I guess we should just be glad he isn't a Lutheran. The Elder Chides: For less-jaded residents of Minnesota with a sense of civic responsibility who are able to forgo watching a rerun of "Boston Legal" while eating a block of cheese in their underwear for ONE NIGHT (unlike Saint Paul), I would encourage you to turn out on February 5th, 2008 and attend your precinct caucus. Here's a handy guide with all the relevant details. It's easy, it's interesting, and your participation is a part of fulfilling your civic duty to this little democratic society we're trying to run here. By the way, my alternative title for this post would be "Saint Paul Thinks Romney's The Bomb." Labels: Religion Sunday, December 09, 2007
Interesting homily today at church. Our priest--not known for bombastic rhetoric--weighed in on the recent controversies involving Archbishop Nienstedt. Although he didn't get into the specific details, his message seems to be that we're heading toward a showdown of some sort and that it likely will not be pretty. He mentioned that most priests don't like to get publicly involved in such intra-Church disputes, but intimated that the time was coming when sides would have to be chosen. There isn't much doubt which side he is coming down on.
One of his most telling comments was that if you go to some of the various Catholic churches in the Twin Cities, you would scarcely be able to recognize them as the same religion. That state of affairs is not tenable. He also decried the media circus that's been going on for the last six months on this matter and appeared visibly upset about it. There appears to be a day of reckoning coming for the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. And not everyone is going to be happy about what that reckoning will be. Labels: Religion Monday, December 03, 2007
Richard John Neuhaus throws down in the December edition of FIRST THINGS (sub req):
"In this unconvincing book . . ." With those sniffingly dismissive opening words, Publishers Weekly reviews the forthcoming "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen (Doubleday). We are informed that the authors "argue that the embryo has the capacity to develop into a rational being." These questions, says the reviewer, "continue to provoke controversy in relation to abortion as well as embryo research." I doubt there is much controversy about whether the reviewer was once an embryo and is now a rational, albeit misguided, being. Body blow. The resistance to clear thinking about these questions no longer astonishes. The historian of American religion, Martin E. Marty, is impressed by Garry Wills' discussion in his new book "Head and Heart: American Christianities." (At the risk of spoiling the suspense, Mr. Wills' Christianity, in contrast to that of his conservative opponents, is one in which the heart is informed by the head.) Body blow. Wills triumphantly points out that the Bible does not mention abortion and Thomas Aquinas "denied that personhood arose at fertilization by the semen." Thomas hadn't mastered modern biology and obstetrics? This is deeply disillusioning. Left hook. People who claim to be pro-life are inconsistent, says Wills. "My hair is human life," he notes, yet nobody wants to protect it from the barber. Now why didn't I think of that? Another left. From such fatuities one turns with appreciation to "Embryo" by George and Tollefsen. The persuasiveness of their carefully, even scrupulously, reasoned case is enhanced by the generosity with which they engage counterarguments. And a right. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard has said that, after long thought, he has arrived at the conclusion that "everybody's position on abortion is the right position." Presumably, Mr. Dershowitz, who is known as a very smart lawyer, does not believe in the law of noncontradiction. The great difficulty is in getting people to really think about abortion. There is, for instance, this dreadful muddle about "consciousness." If only people would think through the fact, and the unavoidable implications of the fact, that the I that thinks and says I is the same I that once could not think and say I. He lands a big right. George and Tollefsen are models of rational exactitude in debunking every form of mind-body, soul-body dualism. They write: "So animalism?the view that we are, essentially, human beings, members of the species Homo sapiens?is not only true, but not really in tension with the view that we are also persons. The persons that we are, are not entities separated from our animal bodies; we are neither independent minds, spirits, nor brains. Rather these particular individuals . . . are themselves persons, have always been persons, and will cease being persons only when we cease to be, by dying." The authors assiduously avoid invoking explicitly theological or religious arguments. While their brief is informed by the history of philosophical reflection, their argument rests on the rational capacity of human beings to think clearly. "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" is a luminous achievement. Not that it will persuade Garry Wills, Alan Dershowitz, and others whose certitudes are protected by an insouciant relativism that excuses them from engaging in rational argument. And another right. They're calling it. It's over. Labels: Religion Monday, November 05, 2007
Next week, the Argument of the Month Club will debate the legacy of the Second Vatican Council:
Vatican II: The Greatest council Since Nicea? Dr. Pence Intense vs. Fr. Johnny Crash (Echert) Our in-house liberal will duke it out with our conservative traditionalist as they debate the issues surrounding Vatican II. Tuesday, November 13th Church of St. Augustine, South St. Paul, MN Social at 6:30pm (beverages and appetizers) Dinner at 7:00pm Total cost for the evening is $12 at the door There will be time for you to agree or disagree with our speaker during the Q&A, which starts immediately following dessert. But you are all encouraged to enjoy the good humor, food and fellowship. We enjoy the company of men from all different creeds and ages. Priests and seminarians get in for free but are not shown any partiality in debate. Fathers may bring their sons as long as they accompany them. Labels: Religion Tuesday, October 30, 2007
A couple of weeks ago, a friend asked if we had buried a statute of Saint Joseph in our yard to facilitate the sale of our home. I joked that we'd start sacrificing chickens if it would help us find a buyer. In today's Wall Street Journal, Sara Schaefer Munoz reports that more and more desperate sellers are turning to Saint Joseph for divine intervention (free for all!):
Cari Luna is Jewish by heritage and Buddhist by religion. She meditates regularly. Yet when she and her husband put their Brooklyn, N.Y., house on the market this year and offers kept falling through, Ms. Luna turned to an unlikely source for help: St. Joseph. The Catholic saint has long been believed to help with home-related matters. And according to lore now spreading on the Internet and among desperate home-sellers, burying St. Joseph in the yard of a home for sale promises a prompt bid. After Ms. Luna and her husband held five open houses, even baking cookies for one of them, she ordered a St. Joseph "real estate kit" online and buried the three-inch white statue in her yard. "I wasn't sure if it would be disrespectful for me, a Jewish Buddhist, to co-opt this saint for my real-estate purposes," says Ms. Luna, a writer. She figured, "Well, could it hurt?" With the worst housing market in recent years, St. Joseph is enjoying a flurry of attention. Some vendors of religious supplies say St. Joseph statues are flying off the shelves as an increasing number of skeptics and non-Catholics look for some saintly intervention to help them sell their houses. Some Realtors, too, swear by the practice. Ardell DellaLoggia, a Seattle-area Realtor, buried a statue beneath the "For Sale" sign on a property that she thought was overpriced. She didn't tell the owner until after it had sold. "He was an atheist," she explains. "But he thanked me." Woah, back it up, back it up. Beep, beep, beep. Non-Catholics and even atheists are getting help selling their homes from Saint Joseph? As a Catholic, I'm offended that people would cheapen and profane our religious traditions in such a way. As a Catholic trying to sell his home, I'm outraged that Saint Joseph is doing solids for people outside the Church. Whatever happened to taking care of your own first? Say it ain't so Saint Joe. Theologians say there's no official doctrine that calls for the statue's interment. The practice may have stemmed from medieval rites of land possession, in which conquerors claimed land by planting a cross or banner, says Jaime Lara, associate professor of Christian Art and Architecture at Yale Divinity School. Mr. Lara also suggests that the tradition may have gotten mixed up at some point with folklore surrounding St. Anthony. St. Anthony, known as a matchmaker, would often be held ransom, upside-down, until he found a husband for someone's daughter, he says. Some clergy aren't sure how St. Joseph would feel about his replica ending up on its head in the dirt, and suggest displaying it somewhere in the house instead. "I think it's much more respectful than burying the poor guy," says Msgr. Andrew Connell, the archdiocesan director of the Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith in Boston. Some retailers, such as Mr. Weigang, owner of www.catholicstore.com, also encourage buyers to put the statues in the house. "We don't advocate burying," he says. "Some of those statues are quite beautiful." Note to self: pick up Saint Joseph statue today. Don't bury it. Await redemption. Labels: Religion Monday, October 29, 2007
Vox Day--who has his own book "The Irrational Atheist" coming out soon--has a must-read interview with Dinesh D'Souza on the release of D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity. A sample:
When you point out that atheist leaders have killed several orders of magnitude more human beings than Christian leaders, the usual rebuttal is that the atheists didn't commit their murders "in the name of atheism". What is your response to that? This is Richard Dawkins and it clearly shows what happens when you let a biologist out of the lab. It shows a gross ignorance of history. Communism was an explicitly atheist ideology. Marx was very eager to establish a new Man and a new society liberated from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality. Marx called religion "the opiate of the people" and he very much wanted to see religion removed from the face of the Earth, and he predicted it would be in the Communist utopia. Every Communist regime targeted religion, closed the churches, persecuted the priests, harassed the believers. This was no accident. So, for Dawkins to say that this wasn't being done in the name of atheism just defies rational belief. It's hard for me to believe an intelligent individual would even try to say that. Vox also provides a link to the recent D'Souza-Hitchens Debate, where by most reliable accounts (and JB Doubtless), D'Souza batted the aggressive atheist around like a cat toying with a helpless mouse. Hitchens is no slouch when it comes to verbal sparring, but it sounds like he met his match with D'Souza's well-reasoned arguments. Labels: Religion Wednesday, October 24, 2007
From a review of Good News, Bad News: Evangelization, Conversion, and the Crisis of Faith by C. John McCloskey III and Russell Shaw in the November FIRST THINGS (sub req):
"Have you ever thought of becoming a Catholic?" That is the question more of us should be posing. Or so argue C. John McCloskey and Russell Shaw in their new book. McCloskey, a Wall Street analyst turned Roman Catholic priest (of Opus Dei), and Shaw, a Catholic journalist and former communications director for the U.S. bishops' conference, propose a plan for Catholic renewal based on the personal apostolate of the lay faithful. Drawing from his experience as Washington's "convert maker"--notably credited with the conversions of Bernard Nathanson, Sam Brownback, Lawrence Kudlow, Laura Ingraham, Alfred Regnery, and Robert Novak--McCloskey peppers the book with the first-person written conversion accounts of those he's led into the Church. The result is a how-to guide for a Catholic apostolate--a word, the authors fear, that many Catholics don't know. Not a bad recruiting class, eh? I wonder if McCloskey would be as effective in bringing wayward sheep back to the Church as he is at landing new talent. Labels: Religion Tuesday, October 23, 2007
A revealing look at the mindset of those making the decisions in our local media. For the second week in a row, Catholics promoting the beliefs of Catholicism in a Catholic Church is breaking news!
Last week, from the City Pages, the shocking tale of a church trying to expand despite the fact it features homilies with remonstrations against divorce! This week, from the Star Tribune, the scandalous story of Catholic Churches not allowing their facilities to be used to promote the gay lifestyle! What's next with these extremists? Banning abortions from being performed in Church basements? Preventing condoms from being distributed to the kids at Sunday School? Then what, death camps? I'm glad our local journalists are keeping a very close eye on these people. Incidentally, I have a hot tip for our diligent newshounds. According to anonymous sources, there's a Catholic Church in Eagan that would object to the Holy Water font being used as a Muslim foot bath. Discrimination! Hate mongers! I look forward to the special section devoted to this disturbing story on Sunday. UPDATE: A laughing Paul from Plymouth writes in with this observation: I clicked on your link to the Strib article and laughed out loud at this gem from "activist" Michael Bayly: "This understanding of church as an exclusive country club with a set of rules that everyone's got to follow -- I don't think that's reflective of the type of community that Jesus was all about," he said. Talk about laugh-out-loud funny. This guy crams a lot of idiocy into few words. Most obvious is that the church shouldn't follow a "set of rules". Anyone ever hear of the 10 commandments? I believe a few fringe religions actually respect them. I'm also glad to see that "country club" elitism now can be extrapolated to include any group that sets rules for conduct. That makes it a much more useful term to bludgeon with than when it just meant rich people. Labels: Religion Thursday, October 18, 2007
This week's award for outstanding achievement in the field of extreme emotional hyberbole is:
"It was as if I had given my baby up for adoption and found out it had been murdered by its new parents," she says. "I was sick." This from a woman who is relating her reaction when found out she sold her house to an organization that was planning to do some things of which she vehemently disapproved. Given her metaphor, you might guess it was an abortion clinic or something. No, ironically, it's a Catholic Church. Not just any Catholic Church, but the finest one in the west metro, Holy Family in St. Louis Park. Because of the efforts of the priests there and the olde tyme Catholic values they are endorsing, the Sunday masses are packed, the school is exceeding capacity (at a per pupil cost about half what the public schools spend), and more and more souls are no doubt on the way to be saved. They need more room and are looking to buy out some adjoining properties, by offering the owners prices well above market rate. The bastards! The preceding sentence, an emotional response in concert with the tone of this City Pages article on the subject. In fact, the editorial decision to run this article is the runner up for outstanding acheivement in hyperbole. Not sure what the point of it is. Something about how Catholic Churches shouldn't try to expand. Maybe market research shows this topic resonates with their core readership demographics. I did get a kick out of their reports from disgruntled "former parishioners" of what really goes on during a homily at Holy Family. Such nefarious things as the importance of Catholics marrying Catholics and not getting divorced. It seems the priests at Holy Family have the unmitigated gall to advocate Catholic teaching in this Catholic Church. Shut 'em down! Sorry, lapsed into City Pages mindset again. It looks like the stand off will continue, with the Church wanting the room for expansion and some homeowners holding out at even 60K above the market price. Of course, everyone has their price. Maybe those savvy dissidents around the Church think there is more largesse to be had from a parish with the popular appeal, and resulting financial support, of Holy Family. But if their faith in constricting this Church is stronger than their financial judgment, Holy Family may have no choice but to rely on the wisdom of people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. Yes, the Kelo decision, legitmizing the forced transfer of property from one private party to another. They would have to get the city on board, that whole "for the purposes of economic development" thing would have to worked out, as well as the yowls of protest about separation of church and state. But once those sticky wickets are traversed, Holy Family might as well take the whole block and the two adjoining ones as well. It appears business will be booming there for quite some time. BTW, if you suspect that City Pages characterizations of the homilies at Holy Family might not be entirely objective, this link provides the real deal, unfiltered. The Elder Amens: Speaking as someone who is now trying to sell a house literally just down the street from these maroons, their refusal to consider offers $60K over the appraised (good luck getting anywhere near that in today's market) value is pure insanity. I also wonder what angle the City Pages would have taken on this story if the religious institution that was seeking to expand was a mosque. I gotta hunch that the homeowners would not be portrayed as victims, but rather as narrow-minded bigots. Just a hunch. Labels: Religion Wednesday, October 17, 2007
In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Steven Malanga wrote (sub req) on the dangerous intermingling of religion and politics by radical extremists who aren't afraid to use the power of the pulpit in their theocratic efforts to undermine our democracy: The AFL-CIO launched "Labor in the Pulpits," a program that encouraged churches and synagogues to invite union leaders to preach the virtues of organized labor and tout its political agenda. Nearly 1,000 congregations in 100 cities nationwide now take part annually. Mr. Sweeney himself has preached from the pulpit of Washington, D.C.'s National Cathedral, urging congregants to join anti-globalization protests in the capital. Under the auspices of Labor in the Pulpits, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodi |
![[Powered by Blogger]](bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}