I should have quit youuuu
A long time agoooo
I should have quit you baaabyyy
A long time agoooo
I should have quit you yeah
And went on to Mexico...{1}
It is official now, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will be spending Christmas this year in Mexico -roughly a week in the sun, surf, and other amenities. Last Christmas was simply awful in light of all the deaths that took place the previous two years - even worse than in 2001 which was the hardest hit year.{2} But the lifelong cycle was broken with the various traditional gathering holiday's in 2002{3} and Humpty Dumpty thus far has not been put together again. (Not that it ever will be the same again of course.)
An attempt will be made with Thanksgiving this year -which will be spent with a part of the family that I have never celebrated holidays with.{4} But this is a case of my sister and I deciding to placate my mother on this one. I have no idea what to talk about with people so diametrically opposite my views on practically every subject under the sun{5} but we are going for mom if you will. But Christmas will be in Mexico and only the immediate family will be going. How things will shape up in 2004 on this front is anyone's guess at this point.{6}
Anyway, I will probably not blog for about a week prior to the trip and about a week after it so I wanted to let the faithful readers know when they see a long gap from roughly December 15th through January 4th or so. I will update this site probably around the thirteenth of December and will begin the blog sabbatical on the fourteenth or so. I may even extend the sabbatical past January 4th but at this time I am not sure one way or the other.{7} But I will resume blogging sometime in January of the new year so worry not my friends, like General MacArthur, I shall return -after I leave of course. (And the interim period will not approximate Battan for you.)
[Note: An update on the Thanksgiving situation can be read HERE. -ISM (12/10/03)]
Notes:
{1} First verse from the song "Killing Floor" written by Chester Burnett.
{2} At least there was a family get together that year and several of us cooked the traditional Ukrainian Christmas food -though we did not have grandma's help that year -dying as she did the previous September.
{3} Referring to Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas -particularly the latter. Christmas of 2001 was spent at my Uncle Dave's place. Easter of 2002 was spent basically knowing that my Uncle Dave was going to die -as he did on May 19th. (Something that four months prior would have been inconceivable.) May he and the others rest in peace.
{4} People we used to see once a year at a large gathering of the McElhinney's, Kanski's and various related families. In its heyday -which was about 1978-1989- these were quite vigorous gatherings. But when someone on my mothers side of the family took over the coordinating from my dad around 1993, it ended up becoming just my mom's side of the family by default and I stopped going to these gatherings in 1997 for various reasons.
{5} Basically these are liberal Catholic social activist types (of the secular sort) who are big on travelling all over creation, heavily Democratic, members of "Washington Ceasefire" (think gun control), and an entire plethora of other subjects which do not resonate with me in the slightest. Almost no matter what I say an argument will ensue so it will really be fun if you know what I mean. But I digress...
{6} Neither my sister nor I have spouses or children -and the extended family situation has both of us at odds with various cousins and the like. And my sister is still going through the "mad at God" bit of the past few years so it is all up in the air after this Christmas.
{7} Though there is a slim chance that I will blog from Mexico, this is not likely.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is called arguing ad ignorantiam. Arguing to the other person's ignorance, and supposing that this suffices to win the debate. Just make the other person look like a fool, and save yourself the trouble of actually making a substantive argument. It's a logical fallacy.
It is correct that argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy. However, your utilization of this term is erroneous. It is not argumentum ad ignorantium to argue to another person's ignorance. Rather, argumentum ad ignorantium is an argument that asserts the truth of a proposition on the basis that it has not been proven to be false.
My appeal to your ignorance of certain points was of course (in part) to discredit the veracity of your arguments. But this policy does not ipso facto prove that my arguments are true.{1} The very fact that you think this is the case is actually a logical fallacy whether you know it or not.{2} And the fact that you are unaware of this does not in any way make my argument invalid any more than me arguing that something cannot come from nothing by natural means is invalidated simply because I may not be familiar with the latest fancy dancy secularist evolutionary theory. Indeed this very reasoning on your part is a non-sequitur in and of itself but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Nor have I ever argued in this fashion -at least not since high school anyway. (And my study of the writings of Senator Barry M. Goldwater, RIP.) I am quite clearly not deficient in the propounding of substantive argument department. And this is not a statement which lacks the possibility of falsification because it is one that anyone familiar with my writings is well aware. (Whether they agree with all of my arguments or not.)
{2} It is the fallacy of false dilemma often propounded in the form of "either/or" assertions where such a dilemma is treated as present whether it actually is or not.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is called arguing ad ignorantiam. Arguing to the other person's ignorance, and supposing that this suffices to win the debate. Just make the other person look like a fool, and save yourself the trouble of actually making a substantive argument. It's a logical fallacy.
It is correct that argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy. However, your utilization of this term is erroneous. It is not argumentum ad ignorantium to argue to another person's ignorance. Rather, argumentum ad ignorantium is an argument that asserts the truth of a proposition on the basis that it has not been proven to be false.
My appeal to your ignorance of certain points was of course (in part) to discredit the veracity of your arguments. But this policy does not ipso facto prove that my arguments are true.{1} The very fact that you think this is the case is actually a logical fallacy whether you know it or not.{2} And the fact that you are unaware of this does not in any way make my argument invalid any more than me arguing that something cannot come from nothing by natural means is invalidated simply because I may not be familiar with the latest fancy dancy secularist evolutionary theory. Indeed this very reasoning on your part is a non-sequitur in and of itself but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Nor have I ever argued in this fashion -at least not since high school anyway. (And my study of the writings of Senator Barry M. Goldwater, RIP.) I am quite clearly not deficient in the propounding of substantive argument department. And this is not a statement which lacks the possibility of falsification because it is one that anyone familiar with my writings is well aware. (Whether they agree with all of my arguments or not.)
{2} It is the fallacy of false dilemma often propounded in the form of "either/or" assertions where such a dilemma is treated as present whether it actually is or not.
"Ecumenical Jihad" Dept.
(Courtesy of TCR)
Here is the unsettling news from Stephen Hand's area of the country...
Mass SJC Decision Against Marriage, Natural Law Means Time for Ecumenical Action
Christians and Non-Christians can act together and also pray for those who would eliminate the Natural Law
The decision means that "within 180 days same sex marriage could be allowed in Massachusetts and that could lead to court cases throughout the country. This is the trigger we knew was coming so now is the time for action". This past summer the Vatican in a document, entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, set out a battle plan for politicians opposed to legislation permitting gay marriage and adoption by gay people. Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose such legislation and to vote against it in parliament, it says. "To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." Now we are all in it. Christians and Non-Christians must stand together.
In light of these developments; mindful of Our intentions to set forth fundamental principles solid enough to confute the forces of the culture of death{1} and also the need to affix these principles firmly into the psyche of those who believe in traditional principles{2}; aware of the necessity of upholding the public order of society in both religious contexts as well as contexts which are of the natural order; We declare anew this weblog's opposition to the Culture of Death and exhort Our readers to immerse themselves anew in the principles long enunciated and often inculcated on this weblog and in other mediums by your humble servant. (Supplemented with prayer and reflection of course.)
Even those of you who are not religious, I have through ressourcement set forth principles that are beneficial for maximizing freedom within the boundaries of societal order. So do not feel that my arguments cannot be applied by you. Indeed if there is any doubt that they can, I exhort you to look into the matter because trust me: this is as much in your interest as it is anyone else's if you truly care about upholding the fundamental tenants of civilization.{3} And that is the bottom line really...
Notes:
{1} And yet adaptable to changing circumstances as well.
{2} Whether they are Catholic Christians, are not Catholic Christians, or even if they are not Christian necessarily at all.
{3} Those who do not believe in religion, I exhort you to consider my defense of private property rights (see "Traditional Moral Principles") and how this defense ties solidly into a defense of the right to life (see the Terri Schiavo links). But this even involves such cherished natural principles as rights and free speech.
It all connects together my friends and as I have noted before: there are three fundamental rights which must be defended or all is lost.
Contingent to these rights -or any ancillaries derived from them which are proclaimed as "rights"- is a requirement for said rights to not be detrimental to the just public order of society as well as the common good of its citizenry. This is where same-sex marriage runs aground in the natural sphere: it erodes the public order of society and thus civilization. And for this reason, it is in your best interests to uphold traditional understanding of marriage (as between a man and a woman) for the preservation of civilization or in short: for the common good.
(Courtesy of TCR)
Here is the unsettling news from Stephen Hand's area of the country...
Mass SJC Decision Against Marriage, Natural Law Means Time for Ecumenical Action
Christians and Non-Christians can act together and also pray for those who would eliminate the Natural Law
The decision means that "within 180 days same sex marriage could be allowed in Massachusetts and that could lead to court cases throughout the country. This is the trigger we knew was coming so now is the time for action". This past summer the Vatican in a document, entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, set out a battle plan for politicians opposed to legislation permitting gay marriage and adoption by gay people. Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose such legislation and to vote against it in parliament, it says. "To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." Now we are all in it. Christians and Non-Christians must stand together.
In light of these developments; mindful of Our intentions to set forth fundamental principles solid enough to confute the forces of the culture of death{1} and also the need to affix these principles firmly into the psyche of those who believe in traditional principles{2}; aware of the necessity of upholding the public order of society in both religious contexts as well as contexts which are of the natural order; We declare anew this weblog's opposition to the Culture of Death and exhort Our readers to immerse themselves anew in the principles long enunciated and often inculcated on this weblog and in other mediums by your humble servant. (Supplemented with prayer and reflection of course.)
Even those of you who are not religious, I have through ressourcement set forth principles that are beneficial for maximizing freedom within the boundaries of societal order. So do not feel that my arguments cannot be applied by you. Indeed if there is any doubt that they can, I exhort you to look into the matter because trust me: this is as much in your interest as it is anyone else's if you truly care about upholding the fundamental tenants of civilization.{3} And that is the bottom line really...
Notes:
{1} And yet adaptable to changing circumstances as well.
{2} Whether they are Catholic Christians, are not Catholic Christians, or even if they are not Christian necessarily at all.
{3} Those who do not believe in religion, I exhort you to consider my defense of private property rights (see "Traditional Moral Principles") and how this defense ties solidly into a defense of the right to life (see the Terri Schiavo links). But this even involves such cherished natural principles as rights and free speech.
It all connects together my friends and as I have noted before: there are three fundamental rights which must be defended or all is lost.
Contingent to these rights -or any ancillaries derived from them which are proclaimed as "rights"- is a requirement for said rights to not be detrimental to the just public order of society as well as the common good of its citizenry. This is where same-sex marriage runs aground in the natural sphere: it erodes the public order of society and thus civilization. And for this reason, it is in your best interests to uphold traditional understanding of marriage (as between a man and a woman) for the preservation of civilization or in short: for the common good.
Points to Ponder:
The trap of improper compromise differs from proper compromise, which is an approach taken to get half a loaf rather then none at all. The latter is used by those who are not in power or who do not have the power to get all of what they are seeking at the present time. (An example would be voting for a bill that restricted abortions — evil is thereby reduced — versus the purist who would vote against anything that is less than their ultimate agenda.) Unacceptable is the policy that insists on all or nothing when it comes to limiting evil. Politicians who are capable of realistically achieving their entire agenda improperly use this policy of half a loaf. When applied to areas that are either evil in and of themselves or which are conducive to opening or expanding a realm of greater evil, they move into the forefront of the improper compromise. [I. Shawn McElhinney: excerpt from Opening Pandora's Box, Yet Again (c. 2001)]
The trap of improper compromise differs from proper compromise, which is an approach taken to get half a loaf rather then none at all. The latter is used by those who are not in power or who do not have the power to get all of what they are seeking at the present time. (An example would be voting for a bill that restricted abortions — evil is thereby reduced — versus the purist who would vote against anything that is less than their ultimate agenda.) Unacceptable is the policy that insists on all or nothing when it comes to limiting evil. Politicians who are capable of realistically achieving their entire agenda improperly use this policy of half a loaf. When applied to areas that are either evil in and of themselves or which are conducive to opening or expanding a realm of greater evil, they move into the forefront of the improper compromise. [I. Shawn McElhinney: excerpt from Opening Pandora's Box, Yet Again (c. 2001)]
On the November First Things Issue:
(Musings of your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I added an extra footnote and a couple more links to this entry as well as making a couple of other modifications of a very minor nature. - ISM (11/20/03 4:17 pm)]
I readily admit to having a thrifty side to my nature - perhaps realized quite clearly in the fact that I have never prior to today actually been "caught up" on the issues of First Things.{1} But today when I was at a book store a few miles from home{2} checking up on books, the opportunity to "catch up" presented itself rather unexpectedly. For you see, before leaving the store, I stopped at the magazine rack to briefly look for one of the few magazines I read on occasion{3} and (when looking for it) spotted instead the latest issue of First Things on the rack. Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's article on the Holocaust caught my eye and after allowing myself to "sneek a quick peek", the devouring nature of reading the article{4} took over and I had to buy the issue -particularly after scanning the Public Square section and seeing the comments on a recent collection of writings by one Cardinal Walter Kasper.
I must note upfront an agreement with Fr. Neuhaus that at his best, [Kasper's] writing advances the goal of the Second Vatican Council, aggiornamento through ressourcement -renewal through a reappropriation of the fullness of the tradition. The problem is, I see much of a mixed bag in Kasper's stuff -at least what I have read which admittedly is not expansive enough to form a definitive judgment.
Further still, there are enough people who pontificate ignorantly on Kasper's statements publicly to give me a general disinclination to add to the criticisms{5} except of course for the occasional aside comment.{6}
I will simply note here that Kasper has a lot of general principles correct from what I can tell but often IMO draws conclusions from them that are of a questionable import. This is not to say that he makes bad arguments pe se only that (to quote Neuhaus) Kasper has a sympathetic appreciation of liberal "discontents" with church structures. It is true that Kasper (to again quote Neuhaus) [has a] conviction that a deeper understanding and living out of apostolic meaning of those structures is the path to renewal -and that this also touches on the ecumenical initiative. However, it would seem to this writer that Kasper's position (perhaps because of too much emphasis on the first point) leans noticeably more towards the Concilium school than towards the Communio school. And for those of us familiar with the personages that inform both sides of this division in approach, this leaves room for viable concerns.
Many people who are mildly aware of the history of the Council are aware that theologians on both sides of this divide were censured by the Curia or by the superiors of respective religious orders prior to the Council.{7}However, those who know their history of the Council properly -which alas is not many it seems- are aware that while the Concilium theologians (who leaned towards the aggiornamento principle as primary to ressourcement){8} received a lot of the headlines and were credited with a lot of the Council that they did not deserve. In reality, it was the Communio theologians -who placed the emphasis of the aggiornamento on ressourcement methodology-{9} who as periti to the bishops -or bishops- were the primary influences on the content of the Council's texts.
I am making a somewhat anachronistic division here admittedly{10} but it is necessary to properly understand the dynamics involved. More on this later on if I am inclined but for the moment hopefully these somewhat disjointed musings provide some points to ponder for you the reader.
Notes:
{1} As all issues except the most recent one are available at their website, I tend to wait and read them as they appear online -thus by default being "a month behind."
{2} Third Place Books for you Seattle (and vicinity) dwellers.
{3} My view of magazines for the most part is akin to the view of TV among the "kill your television" crowd.
{4} It is not exactly an alcoholic with his bottle but I have been admittedly a bit of a voracious reader all my life with a diversity of subjects. (Some more than others of course.)
{5} I will not name names at this time for the sake of not throwing fuel on the fires but will note it briefly to the discredit of those who frequently carp on Kasper.
{6} Or a thread formed as a result of the same or similar correspondences.
{7} I will avoid for the sake of brevity going into the politics involved in this. For a brief explanation see this entry blogged to Rerum Novarum about a year ago.
{8} To give some examples, the Concilium crowd included names such as Karl Rahner SJ, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx OP, and de Chardin. Their influence on the Council has always been exaggerated but that is another story altogether.
{9} The Communio crowd included Louis Bouyer, Christopher Butler OSB, Marie-Dominique Chenu OP, Yves M. Congar OP, Jean Danielou SJ, Henri de Lubac SJ, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthazar, and Karol Wojtyla. All of the above except Butler and Wojtyla were peritus to bishops at the Council rather than having a direct voice in things as the latter two (as bishops) did.
{10} I say "anachronistic" in that the journals that bear these names -while attesting to the division in the outlooks now- were not the case initially. After all, those who founded Communio (in 1972) originally were also contributors to Concilium before the latter (founded in 1965) was essentially dominated by the aggiornamento primary people. Hence, the word "anachronistic" applies here but not in a negative way.
(Musings of your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I added an extra footnote and a couple more links to this entry as well as making a couple of other modifications of a very minor nature. - ISM (11/20/03 4:17 pm)]
I readily admit to having a thrifty side to my nature - perhaps realized quite clearly in the fact that I have never prior to today actually been "caught up" on the issues of First Things.{1} But today when I was at a book store a few miles from home{2} checking up on books, the opportunity to "catch up" presented itself rather unexpectedly. For you see, before leaving the store, I stopped at the magazine rack to briefly look for one of the few magazines I read on occasion{3} and (when looking for it) spotted instead the latest issue of First Things on the rack. Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's article on the Holocaust caught my eye and after allowing myself to "sneek a quick peek", the devouring nature of reading the article{4} took over and I had to buy the issue -particularly after scanning the Public Square section and seeing the comments on a recent collection of writings by one Cardinal Walter Kasper.
I must note upfront an agreement with Fr. Neuhaus that at his best, [Kasper's] writing advances the goal of the Second Vatican Council, aggiornamento through ressourcement -renewal through a reappropriation of the fullness of the tradition. The problem is, I see much of a mixed bag in Kasper's stuff -at least what I have read which admittedly is not expansive enough to form a definitive judgment.
Further still, there are enough people who pontificate ignorantly on Kasper's statements publicly to give me a general disinclination to add to the criticisms{5} except of course for the occasional aside comment.{6}
I will simply note here that Kasper has a lot of general principles correct from what I can tell but often IMO draws conclusions from them that are of a questionable import. This is not to say that he makes bad arguments pe se only that (to quote Neuhaus) Kasper has a sympathetic appreciation of liberal "discontents" with church structures. It is true that Kasper (to again quote Neuhaus) [has a] conviction that a deeper understanding and living out of apostolic meaning of those structures is the path to renewal -and that this also touches on the ecumenical initiative. However, it would seem to this writer that Kasper's position (perhaps because of too much emphasis on the first point) leans noticeably more towards the Concilium school than towards the Communio school. And for those of us familiar with the personages that inform both sides of this division in approach, this leaves room for viable concerns.
Many people who are mildly aware of the history of the Council are aware that theologians on both sides of this divide were censured by the Curia or by the superiors of respective religious orders prior to the Council.{7}However, those who know their history of the Council properly -which alas is not many it seems- are aware that while the Concilium theologians (who leaned towards the aggiornamento principle as primary to ressourcement){8} received a lot of the headlines and were credited with a lot of the Council that they did not deserve. In reality, it was the Communio theologians -who placed the emphasis of the aggiornamento on ressourcement methodology-{9} who as periti to the bishops -or bishops- were the primary influences on the content of the Council's texts.
I am making a somewhat anachronistic division here admittedly{10} but it is necessary to properly understand the dynamics involved. More on this later on if I am inclined but for the moment hopefully these somewhat disjointed musings provide some points to ponder for you the reader.
Notes:
{1} As all issues except the most recent one are available at their website, I tend to wait and read them as they appear online -thus by default being "a month behind."
{2} Third Place Books for you Seattle (and vicinity) dwellers.
{3} My view of magazines for the most part is akin to the view of TV among the "kill your television" crowd.
{4} It is not exactly an alcoholic with his bottle but I have been admittedly a bit of a voracious reader all my life with a diversity of subjects. (Some more than others of course.)
{5} I will not name names at this time for the sake of not throwing fuel on the fires but will note it briefly to the discredit of those who frequently carp on Kasper.
{6} Or a thread formed as a result of the same or similar correspondences.
{7} I will avoid for the sake of brevity going into the politics involved in this. For a brief explanation see this entry blogged to Rerum Novarum about a year ago.
{8} To give some examples, the Concilium crowd included names such as Karl Rahner SJ, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx OP, and de Chardin. Their influence on the Council has always been exaggerated but that is another story altogether.
{9} The Communio crowd included Louis Bouyer, Christopher Butler OSB, Marie-Dominique Chenu OP, Yves M. Congar OP, Jean Danielou SJ, Henri de Lubac SJ, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthazar, and Karol Wojtyla. All of the above except Butler and Wojtyla were peritus to bishops at the Council rather than having a direct voice in things as the latter two (as bishops) did.
{10} I say "anachronistic" in that the journals that bear these names -while attesting to the division in the outlooks now- were not the case initially. After all, those who founded Communio (in 1972) originally were also contributors to Concilium before the latter (founded in 1965) was essentially dominated by the aggiornamento primary people. Hence, the word "anachronistic" applies here but not in a negative way.
Miscellaneous Musings:
(On Church Architecture)
It is impossible these days to do virtually anything without a permit or some kind of license. Why therefore would this not apply to the building of churches and shrines???
Please tell me I am not the only one that believes that any proposed architect for a church building should have to pass an "aesthetics test" and be given some certification indicating that they understand the importance of art, architecture, and the like before they are allowed to renovate any churches. (Or have a hand in their design or building.)
(On Church Architecture)
It is impossible these days to do virtually anything without a permit or some kind of license. Why therefore would this not apply to the building of churches and shrines???
Please tell me I am not the only one that believes that any proposed architect for a church building should have to pass an "aesthetics test" and be given some certification indicating that they understand the importance of art, architecture, and the like before they are allowed to renovate any churches. (Or have a hand in their design or building.)
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
For the first time I can ever recall it,{1} I constructed a blog post and right before posting it deleted the text. The main reason was in rereading it I noticed that one could much too easily read things into what I was saying that were not my intentions. There was also criticism of a rather prominent member of the blogosphere - a name that I believe has never crossed the pages of this humble weblog before. Just as the post itself could have too easily (in retrospect) have been misconstrued, my criticisms of the personage in the piece{2} might be construed incorrectly as some form of envy.
Thus to avoid these misperceptions, a blog entry for the first time that I can recall in a long time (if ever){3} was deleted. Hopefully this will not become a pattern.
Notes:
{1} The first time with the weblogs that is. I did do this on rare occasions with message board posts in the past but very rarely.
{2} Who admittedly does not impress me an iota.
{3} I have postponed entries, updated entries previously posted at times, and even slightly revised entries previously posted at times. But I cannot ever recall deleting a planned blog entry -particularly moments before publishing it. I hope I am not reading too much into this action but I digress...
Thus to avoid these misperceptions, a blog entry for the first time that I can recall in a long time (if ever){3} was deleted. Hopefully this will not become a pattern.
Notes:
{1} The first time with the weblogs that is. I did do this on rare occasions with message board posts in the past but very rarely.
{2} Who admittedly does not impress me an iota.
{3} I have postponed entries, updated entries previously posted at times, and even slightly revised entries previously posted at times. But I cannot ever recall deleting a planned blog entry -particularly moments before publishing it. I hope I am not reading too much into this action but I digress...
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Responsum ad Palmum
[Update: Subsequent to this post it was determined that this writer wronged David Palm on the subject matter pertaining to what was once referred to as the "Palm Desert Dept." post. For this reason, an apology was issued which can be read here. - ISM (12/22/03 12am)]
The following is a response to David Palm. His words in all three emails will be in light red font. His quoting of my previous words from either previous emails or a discussion list will be in blue font italicized. His words from the same list will be in blue initalicized font. My quotes of his previous words (from another source) will be in purple font. My sources (if any are used) will be in dark blue font.
Hi Shawn (et al.):
Hello David:
I decided to exercise the Welborn Protocol with this series of emails since (i) everyone you emailed the first time was a member of the Inquisition and (ii) nothing in the email you sent me privately is requiring of confidentiality.
Email #1 (circa 10/27/03):
Thanks for writing.
You are welcome.
I'd like to address some of the points in your post, but there is one central one that needs resolution before anything else.
Okay.
You wrote:
In the meantime, I responded some time ago on Rerum Novarum to your assertion that Vatican II"did not address the errors [outlined in Humani Generis] in any meaningful way."
Yes, I did.
I note that in those blog entries you cite seven sentences plucked from some unspecified source. They are devoid of any context and there is no way for the reader to obtain any. Would you please forward me the entire e-message in question that shows those sentences in their entire context? Thank you.
This is a reasonable request. When I comment on a source, I tend whenever possible to utilize the entire source. The context of your words can be discerned by stringing all the black parts of the text together. The reason my comments took up so much space is because you made statements that I sought to address in detail. There is no context therefore which is missing from what I responded to.
You also wrote:
I for one have experienced the David Palm shuck and jive on discussion lists and frankly it gets old really fast.
This is very interesting, Shawn. On the CatholicTheology list just about one year ago you made a similar statement:
Considering how adeptly you have evaded several questions which appear to make you "uncomfortable" David, I find this characterization rather interesting.
In light of you asking me for context to the source I used -and again this is a reasonable request- I formally request the same in this case.
To which I replied:
You'll have to be more specific, Shawn. As I've said, I don't always catch what others consider the most salient of their queries. And Peter just likes to bait me, so I generally ignore his pokes. Please restate what I have evaded and I'll do my best to answer directly.
I presume the "Peter" in the above was Pete Vere. (I cannot recall offhand any other Peter's on that list.)
You did not bring forth any specifics at that time, Shawn, so I chalked up your prior statement as mere posturing (or perhaps "shucking and jiving", if you please). If you have some specific questions now, however, I'd would seek to address them as best I can.
We had a number of threads going as many discussion lists do.{1} I cannot recall which thread in particular you are referring to with the above quote. Further still, if I recall correctly (and I may be mistaken here) not long after I made the comments you quote, I also made protests to the moderator about a certain participant to the thread{2} who was poisoning the discourse and another who was constantly making abrupt challenges to others only to be smacked down again and again.{3}
I specifically told the moderator that if the former personage was not ejected from the forum that I would leave. As the moderator did not do this, I kept my promise and unsubscribed from the list. What I had wanted from the list was later realized in a new list to which I was invited upon its launching. And I have been a contributor to that list's discussion environment ever since -albeit the degree of involvement has varied over the months depending on many factors -particularly time constraints.
As far as the old list goes, I can barely remember all the threads on the lists I am on now which are ongoing -how am I going to remember divers stuff from a list of over a year ago??? I have some of the emails from the older list only because I saved them for blogging later on.{4} Other then those, I cannot remember much of anything in particular about the list you refer to.
The next two emails will be without greeting and closing:
Email #2 (circa 11/03/03):
I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? Thank you.
Email #3 (circa 11/10/03):
I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? I know how important it is to you to have things read in their entire context, so I would very much like to see the sentences you excerpted in their entire context. Thank you.
Since you asked more than once, here is the entire source. It is an email you made to Albert's old list. Albert posted it on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 10:55 am - presumably you wrote it a day or two prior to that. Here is the full text:
Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time. That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.
Did the Council address these errors? How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?
Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.
Pax tecum,
David
That is the entire thread I responded to.{5} Breaking it down section by section in my response, you will see the following divisions utilized.
Part I addressed these parts of the email:
Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time.
The rest of Part I and all of Parts II, III, and IV addressed the next two pieces of the email in detail.{6}
That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.
Did the Council address these errors?
Part V addressed these points of the email:
How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?
Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.
Part VI was a summation of the thread and additional bits for pondering from the wellspring of the Catholic tradition of spiritual instruction. In short, there was no prooftexting involved here. Instead, it was a detailed interaction with one of your emails where you made a bunch of (to put it nicely) "factually-challenged statements."
Hopefully that suffices to respond to your inquiries.{7}
IC XC
Notes:
{1} Heck, a list that was formed about a month after I left the list you refer to will celebrate its one year anniversary tomorrow. At the moment it has almost 4350 posts to it and a membership of about 35 people. (About half of which are regular contributors.)
{2} The name of which will not be mentioned to protect theguilty person.
{3} Neither of these people was you lest the readers wonder.
{4} Some of which I have blogged and some of which I have not. (At least not yet.)
{5} Sans the closing of course.
{6} With a commentary on the various parts of the encyclical Humani Generis so commonly misunderstood (and misappropriated) by the self-styled "traditionalist" crowd.
{7} To review the threads of which David refers, see this link.
[Update: Subsequent to this post it was determined that this writer wronged David Palm on the subject matter pertaining to what was once referred to as the "Palm Desert Dept." post. For this reason, an apology was issued which can be read here. - ISM (12/22/03 12am)]
The following is a response to David Palm. His words in all three emails will be in light red font. His quoting of my previous words from either previous emails or a discussion list will be in blue font italicized. His words from the same list will be in blue initalicized font. My quotes of his previous words (from another source) will be in purple font. My sources (if any are used) will be in dark blue font.
Hi Shawn (et al.):
Hello David:
I decided to exercise the Welborn Protocol with this series of emails since (i) everyone you emailed the first time was a member of the Inquisition and (ii) nothing in the email you sent me privately is requiring of confidentiality.
Email #1 (circa 10/27/03):
Thanks for writing.
You are welcome.
I'd like to address some of the points in your post, but there is one central one that needs resolution before anything else.
Okay.
You wrote:
In the meantime, I responded some time ago on Rerum Novarum to your assertion that Vatican II"did not address the errors [outlined in Humani Generis] in any meaningful way."
Yes, I did.
I note that in those blog entries you cite seven sentences plucked from some unspecified source. They are devoid of any context and there is no way for the reader to obtain any. Would you please forward me the entire e-message in question that shows those sentences in their entire context? Thank you.
This is a reasonable request. When I comment on a source, I tend whenever possible to utilize the entire source. The context of your words can be discerned by stringing all the black parts of the text together. The reason my comments took up so much space is because you made statements that I sought to address in detail. There is no context therefore which is missing from what I responded to.
You also wrote:
I for one have experienced the David Palm shuck and jive on discussion lists and frankly it gets old really fast.
This is very interesting, Shawn. On the CatholicTheology list just about one year ago you made a similar statement:
Considering how adeptly you have evaded several questions which appear to make you "uncomfortable" David, I find this characterization rather interesting.
In light of you asking me for context to the source I used -and again this is a reasonable request- I formally request the same in this case.
To which I replied:
You'll have to be more specific, Shawn. As I've said, I don't always catch what others consider the most salient of their queries. And Peter just likes to bait me, so I generally ignore his pokes. Please restate what I have evaded and I'll do my best to answer directly.
I presume the "Peter" in the above was Pete Vere. (I cannot recall offhand any other Peter's on that list.)
You did not bring forth any specifics at that time, Shawn, so I chalked up your prior statement as mere posturing (or perhaps "shucking and jiving", if you please). If you have some specific questions now, however, I'd would seek to address them as best I can.
We had a number of threads going as many discussion lists do.{1} I cannot recall which thread in particular you are referring to with the above quote. Further still, if I recall correctly (and I may be mistaken here) not long after I made the comments you quote, I also made protests to the moderator about a certain participant to the thread{2} who was poisoning the discourse and another who was constantly making abrupt challenges to others only to be smacked down again and again.{3}
I specifically told the moderator that if the former personage was not ejected from the forum that I would leave. As the moderator did not do this, I kept my promise and unsubscribed from the list. What I had wanted from the list was later realized in a new list to which I was invited upon its launching. And I have been a contributor to that list's discussion environment ever since -albeit the degree of involvement has varied over the months depending on many factors -particularly time constraints.
As far as the old list goes, I can barely remember all the threads on the lists I am on now which are ongoing -how am I going to remember divers stuff from a list of over a year ago??? I have some of the emails from the older list only because I saved them for blogging later on.{4} Other then those, I cannot remember much of anything in particular about the list you refer to.
The next two emails will be without greeting and closing:
Email #2 (circa 11/03/03):
I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? Thank you.
Email #3 (circa 11/10/03):
I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? I know how important it is to you to have things read in their entire context, so I would very much like to see the sentences you excerpted in their entire context. Thank you.
Since you asked more than once, here is the entire source. It is an email you made to Albert's old list. Albert posted it on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 10:55 am - presumably you wrote it a day or two prior to that. Here is the full text:
Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time. That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.
Did the Council address these errors? How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?
Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.
Pax tecum,
David
That is the entire thread I responded to.{5} Breaking it down section by section in my response, you will see the following divisions utilized.
Part I addressed these parts of the email:
Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time.
The rest of Part I and all of Parts II, III, and IV addressed the next two pieces of the email in detail.{6}
That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.
Did the Council address these errors?
Part V addressed these points of the email:
How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?
Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.
Part VI was a summation of the thread and additional bits for pondering from the wellspring of the Catholic tradition of spiritual instruction. In short, there was no prooftexting involved here. Instead, it was a detailed interaction with one of your emails where you made a bunch of (to put it nicely) "factually-challenged statements."
Hopefully that suffices to respond to your inquiries.{7}
IC XC
Notes:
{1} Heck, a list that was formed about a month after I left the list you refer to will celebrate its one year anniversary tomorrow. At the moment it has almost 4350 posts to it and a membership of about 35 people. (About half of which are regular contributors.)
{2} The name of which will not be mentioned to protect the
{3} Neither of these people was you lest the readers wonder.
{4} Some of which I have blogged and some of which I have not. (At least not yet.)
{5} Sans the closing of course.
{6} With a commentary on the various parts of the encyclical Humani Generis so commonly misunderstood (and misappropriated) by the self-styled "traditionalist" crowd.
{7} To review the threads of which David refers, see this link.
On "Traditionalism", "Antisemitism", and Mel Gibson:
In a recent post, Bill Cork continues to employ the kind of approach to Mel Gibson and his movie The Passion that he criticizes in others who do this with USCCB subcommittee documents. The intention of this entry is to try to provide a bit of balance to this subject from one who spent a good part of his life affiliated with the same kinds of theological outlooks that Gibson has. As a former Lutheran (and a pastor), Bill has at times been critical of the approaches that non-Lutherans take towards the theological stances of Lutherans. Hopefully he therefore will understand that I approach the subject of "traditionalism" the same way and for similar reasons.
For despite these jabs at Gibson's movie, the reader needs to understand that Bill has not seen it whereas those critical of a certain USCCB subcommittee document from last year did see the document even if most people did not necessarily understand its manifested intention. Anyway, without further ado, let us interact with this entry a bit:
Touching a raw nerve
Why have so many rightwing commentators rushed to defend Mel Gibson from the charge of antisemitism? Some, I think, must feel the charge is correct, and are uncomfortable because it exposes their own attitudes. Not all, of course, but enough that we should be concerned.
Presumably amongst the people he is labeling as "right wing" would include your humble servant at Rerum Novarum who not only drew people's attention to commentaries on the reactions to the movie from two Orthodox Jewish commentators{1} but who also has weighed in on the Mel Gibson movie subject. But let us return to Bill's thread and address the attempt to put this into context that he supplies.
Let's put this in context. Many rightwing Catholics defended one of their own who went so far as to plagiarize Nazis and well-known white supremacists.
As my track record well indicates, I have consistently not defended the person Bill refers to. In fact, I was critical of that person behind the scenes for a couple of years prior to the debacle of last year. But rather than belabour that point, let us move onward.
Others, while embarrassed by his extreme statements, were equally blunt in attacking the US Bishops Conference for recent statements on the Jews.
Again, not this writer. That is not to say that I was pleased with what the conference said. However, I was deliberately hesitant to comment too much on this subject early on except very briefly. And of course when reading the comments of others, I was not shy to point out whose positions were problematical and whose were not from a theological standpoint.{2}
Were they just using theological criteria in doing so? I'm not so sure.
Presumably charitable criteria is out of the question here.
An adminstrator on one conservative Catholic message board today said that if Jews like the movie, "The Gospel of John," something must be lacking in its presentation. And if Jews dislike Gibson's passion, that is a point in its favor.
No comment.
I've tended to say that I think such statements are merely evidence of ignorance of the consistent Catholic teaching since Nostra Aetate. I think I was being naive.
When I first heard of Gibson's movie, I thought it sounded intriguing. When I heard Jim tell of seeing the trailer at the Atlanta Eucharistic Congress, I shared the enthusiasm of many others. When I heard of the questions that were being asked based on a copy of the script obtained by a group of respected scholars, I began to be concerned, but I supposed that once some people were able to see the film, we would have some answers.
Of course since Bill has not seen the film yet the readers should take that into account when reading his comments on it.
I wrote in June, I want to like this movie. In light of the comments that have been made by those who have seen the trailer or the rough cut, it sounds like an impressive piece of film making.
Michael Medved says that it is the best biblical epic film he has ever seen. And Medved has probably seen more films than the entire St. Blogs contingent combined. And as an Orthodox Jew who takes his faith seriously, if he saw problems with the film -technically or otherwise- it would be unlike him to not comment on them.
My alarm bells started ringing when one person who saw it and invited questions refused to answer even the simplest, and used terms like "demonic," "vile and disgusting," "absurd and frivolous" to describe the questions raised by some of the leading Catholic and Jewish scholars in the field of interfaith relations.
Of course these are many of the same people who raise nary a voice about the reams of movies that impugn Catholic teaching or practices. When these people apply this kind of criticism across the board, then I for one will take them seriously. But not until then.{3}
People began to refer to the film as "inspired" and "a source of theology." Others, even evangelical Protestants, saw the film and were so caught up in the emotion that they couldn't distinguish between those scenes that are faithful to Scripture and those that are additions from questionable sources.
Of course the idea that Mel Gibson might be trying to create a primarily devotional film or a film that will prompt people to reflect upon the event of the crucifixion itself is not admitted as a possibility. Movies have different aims and the best source for determining the intentions of a particular film is to ask the filmmaker.
Most Christians who have seen it have been so caught up in their own positive experience that they can't imagine how anyone could possible have a different experience. And they patronizingly tell Jews they have nothing to worry about.
For some reason I doubt that Bill has conducted a poll of "most Christians" on this or any other matter. And of course any film about Jesus of Nazareth is bound to get the skivvies of some Jews in a bunch.
Since June, I've read the scholars report, and have been able to speak with many Jews and Christians who have seen the film, and so have been able to develop a pretty good understanding of what is in the film now and what changes were made from the original script.
All films go through changes in the script. Rent any DVD of a recent movie and you will generally see lots of extras such as deleted scenes, alternate takes, and the like. I fail to see why we should expect that Mel's movie would be any different in this regard.
I've been able to see how it affects people. I've spoken to people who have seen both "The Passion" and "The Gospel of John," and it has been fascinating to hear the comparisons and contrasts.
I've waited to hear the defenders of "The Passion" mention "The Gospel of John," which, unlike Gibson's film, is truly a faithful telling of the gospel story.
I have seen neither film. But then again, I am not inclined to rail against films I have not seen. However, others who have are apparently not taking the position that the Gospel of John film is as faithful to the Gospel as Bill says it is.
But they say nothing, all the while lifting Gibson above the evangelists themselves, and canonizing his Traditionalist take on the passion.
This is really the meat of the matter: Bill is so sensitive to the views of Jews and even of Lutherans -which in and of itself is fine- but those whom he has never had an affiliation (the so-called "traditionalists") are of course not accorded the same respect.
Besides, it seems that Bill is quite quick to hang any incongruities between the Gospel of John (Mel's main template) and the movie with visionary stuff rather than go to the three most obvious secondary sources. Here is one example{4} of him doing this:
There's also a scene in it from Emmerich in which the earthquake at the death of Jesus strikes the temple in divine retribution; this didn't appear to be in the script they saw.
Of course this has to be from Emmerich. After all, Mel being a "traditionalist" has never seen a Bible in his life.{5} Perhaps Bill should open his Bible to the Gospel of Matthew and read along with us for a moment:
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling Eli'jah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to save him." And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. [Matthew xxvii,45-53 RSV]
Mark's Gospel also refers to the curtain in the temple being torn in two as does Luke's Gospel (see Mark xv,38 and Luke xxiii,45). Matthew's Gospel it is true is the only one that speaks of the earthquake taking place but it seems to this writer that the scene above was taken from Matthew's Gospel, not the works attributed to Anne Catherine Emmerich. And lest Bill think that as a former "traditionalist" that I am an "apologist for Emmerich" I was critical of some of her stuff before I disassociated myself with the radtrads.{6}
Now then, is it at all possible that Gibson was supplementing his epic with material from the other Gospels??? A dialogue partner of mine even noted that one scene (of a Jewish mob "brutalizing" Jesus) has a very close parallel in the Gospel of Luke and "[t]he men who held Jesus in custody ridiculing and beating him" (cf. Luke xxii,63-65).
Of course as the Gospel of Luke notes, this preceded these same men taking Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Mark's Gospel actually has this event happening after the visit to the Sanhedrin and after the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy (see Mark xiv,65). Likewise, Matthew's Gospel has this scene after the visit to the Sanhedrin (see Matthew xxvii,67-68).
This is not the place to go into informal controlled formats of oral tradition so for the moment merely recognize that three Gospels relate this same event and the Gospel of John is silent on the matter. Bill would probably chalk this up to a "vision of Emmerich" also -which seems to this writer to be a reinforcement of the stereotype that "traditionalists" never read their Bible.{7} Otherwise, I am left asking why Bill would presume a priori that Gibson must have gotten the material not in the Gospel of John from non-biblical sources.
They expect miracles of the film, and conversions, and this only hardens their belief that any questioning of it must be rooted in unbelief.
How about this novel concept: let Gibson make his movie, watch it, then criticize it (if you feel inclined to).
They've turned Gibson's movie into a Sacrament; those who question it take the role of the scourgers of Christ, and they become Simon of Cyrene. And then it comes. Then they say, "What do you expect? This is what they did to Jesus 2000 years ago."
All of this is what is referred to in a court of law as "hearsay."
In closing, Bill Cork as a former Lutheran minister as well as (if I recall correctly) someone with Jewish ancestry has a natural sensitivity towards these groups of people. However, he is quite clearly more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than he is the so-called "traditionalists."
Nonetheless, as he set his entry up with a contrast between (i) the approach taken towards the public antisemitism of Robert Sungenis (ii) the approach taken by many of the same people towards the USCCB and (iii) the approach most Catholics have taken towards the accusations leveled at The Passion, it is clear that Bill sought by default to discredit the criticisms of anyone who was inconsistent in the above scenarios. And as one of the only Catholics who has not been inconsistent on the above matters,{8} it seemed to this writer that a response was needed.
Hopefully Bill will recognize that in this response that as a former self-styled "traditionalist",{9} my criticisms of him here are in the same vein as his criticisms of non-Lutherans pontificating with dogmatic authority on the theological positions of Lutherans. For the casualty of consistency here is not on my side but instead it is on his.
Notes:
{1} Referring here to movie critic and talkshow host Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition. (Who is a weekend talkshow host as well as a substitute host at times for Michael Medved and Medved's rabbi.)
{2} This does not mean that I necessarily agreed with the stances of those whom I pointed out were approaching this subject correctly -either fully or for the most part.
{3} And yes, this is the position I have consistently taken over the years -even when doing so makes me "unpopular."
{4} From the link located HERE. Notice if you will that Bill misses the entire thrust of Rabbi Lapin's article which was directed towards the critics of the Passion, not the uncompleted film itself.
{5} Many do not this is true. However this is a stereotype and for one who rightfully decries stereotypes against the Jews, it is amazing that Bill seems to imply that what is good for the gander is in this case not good for the goose.
{6} And readers of Envoy Encore can attest to, I am no fan whatsoever of the Emmerich-attributed visions: at least 90% of which are inauthentic.
{7} Like most stereotypes it has some foundation in reality but that is still no excuse.
{8} Bill is certainly not unaware of my stances on the Sungenis situation. However, my criticisms of the way most Catholic commentators handled the USCCB situation -being fewer in number and less frequent- may not be as known to him. Nonetheless, like the war subject -another one where many gung ho Catholic types have had to backtrack on- I have been consistent in my stances all along.
{9} And as no one can accuse me of a lack of criticism viz the so-called "traditionalists", Bill cannot chalk this up as a blind defending of them on my part. (As he could do with numerous others who might seek to defend them.)
In a recent post, Bill Cork continues to employ the kind of approach to Mel Gibson and his movie The Passion that he criticizes in others who do this with USCCB subcommittee documents. The intention of this entry is to try to provide a bit of balance to this subject from one who spent a good part of his life affiliated with the same kinds of theological outlooks that Gibson has. As a former Lutheran (and a pastor), Bill has at times been critical of the approaches that non-Lutherans take towards the theological stances of Lutherans. Hopefully he therefore will understand that I approach the subject of "traditionalism" the same way and for similar reasons.
For despite these jabs at Gibson's movie, the reader needs to understand that Bill has not seen it whereas those critical of a certain USCCB subcommittee document from last year did see the document even if most people did not necessarily understand its manifested intention. Anyway, without further ado, let us interact with this entry a bit:
Touching a raw nerve
Why have so many rightwing commentators rushed to defend Mel Gibson from the charge of antisemitism? Some, I think, must feel the charge is correct, and are uncomfortable because it exposes their own attitudes. Not all, of course, but enough that we should be concerned.
Presumably amongst the people he is labeling as "right wing" would include your humble servant at Rerum Novarum who not only drew people's attention to commentaries on the reactions to the movie from two Orthodox Jewish commentators{1} but who also has weighed in on the Mel Gibson movie subject. But let us return to Bill's thread and address the attempt to put this into context that he supplies.
Let's put this in context. Many rightwing Catholics defended one of their own who went so far as to plagiarize Nazis and well-known white supremacists.
As my track record well indicates, I have consistently not defended the person Bill refers to. In fact, I was critical of that person behind the scenes for a couple of years prior to the debacle of last year. But rather than belabour that point, let us move onward.
Others, while embarrassed by his extreme statements, were equally blunt in attacking the US Bishops Conference for recent statements on the Jews.
Again, not this writer. That is not to say that I was pleased with what the conference said. However, I was deliberately hesitant to comment too much on this subject early on except very briefly. And of course when reading the comments of others, I was not shy to point out whose positions were problematical and whose were not from a theological standpoint.{2}
Were they just using theological criteria in doing so? I'm not so sure.
Presumably charitable criteria is out of the question here.
An adminstrator on one conservative Catholic message board today said that if Jews like the movie, "The Gospel of John," something must be lacking in its presentation. And if Jews dislike Gibson's passion, that is a point in its favor.
No comment.
I've tended to say that I think such statements are merely evidence of ignorance of the consistent Catholic teaching since Nostra Aetate. I think I was being naive.
When I first heard of Gibson's movie, I thought it sounded intriguing. When I heard Jim tell of seeing the trailer at the Atlanta Eucharistic Congress, I shared the enthusiasm of many others. When I heard of the questions that were being asked based on a copy of the script obtained by a group of respected scholars, I began to be concerned, but I supposed that once some people were able to see the film, we would have some answers.
Of course since Bill has not seen the film yet the readers should take that into account when reading his comments on it.
I wrote in June, I want to like this movie. In light of the comments that have been made by those who have seen the trailer or the rough cut, it sounds like an impressive piece of film making.
Michael Medved says that it is the best biblical epic film he has ever seen. And Medved has probably seen more films than the entire St. Blogs contingent combined. And as an Orthodox Jew who takes his faith seriously, if he saw problems with the film -technically or otherwise- it would be unlike him to not comment on them.
My alarm bells started ringing when one person who saw it and invited questions refused to answer even the simplest, and used terms like "demonic," "vile and disgusting," "absurd and frivolous" to describe the questions raised by some of the leading Catholic and Jewish scholars in the field of interfaith relations.
Of course these are many of the same people who raise nary a voice about the reams of movies that impugn Catholic teaching or practices. When these people apply this kind of criticism across the board, then I for one will take them seriously. But not until then.{3}
People began to refer to the film as "inspired" and "a source of theology." Others, even evangelical Protestants, saw the film and were so caught up in the emotion that they couldn't distinguish between those scenes that are faithful to Scripture and those that are additions from questionable sources.
Of course the idea that Mel Gibson might be trying to create a primarily devotional film or a film that will prompt people to reflect upon the event of the crucifixion itself is not admitted as a possibility. Movies have different aims and the best source for determining the intentions of a particular film is to ask the filmmaker.
Most Christians who have seen it have been so caught up in their own positive experience that they can't imagine how anyone could possible have a different experience. And they patronizingly tell Jews they have nothing to worry about.
For some reason I doubt that Bill has conducted a poll of "most Christians" on this or any other matter. And of course any film about Jesus of Nazareth is bound to get the skivvies of some Jews in a bunch.
Since June, I've read the scholars report, and have been able to speak with many Jews and Christians who have seen the film, and so have been able to develop a pretty good understanding of what is in the film now and what changes were made from the original script.
All films go through changes in the script. Rent any DVD of a recent movie and you will generally see lots of extras such as deleted scenes, alternate takes, and the like. I fail to see why we should expect that Mel's movie would be any different in this regard.
I've been able to see how it affects people. I've spoken to people who have seen both "The Passion" and "The Gospel of John," and it has been fascinating to hear the comparisons and contrasts.
I've waited to hear the defenders of "The Passion" mention "The Gospel of John," which, unlike Gibson's film, is truly a faithful telling of the gospel story.
I have seen neither film. But then again, I am not inclined to rail against films I have not seen. However, others who have are apparently not taking the position that the Gospel of John film is as faithful to the Gospel as Bill says it is.
But they say nothing, all the while lifting Gibson above the evangelists themselves, and canonizing his Traditionalist take on the passion.
This is really the meat of the matter: Bill is so sensitive to the views of Jews and even of Lutherans -which in and of itself is fine- but those whom he has never had an affiliation (the so-called "traditionalists") are of course not accorded the same respect.
Besides, it seems that Bill is quite quick to hang any incongruities between the Gospel of John (Mel's main template) and the movie with visionary stuff rather than go to the three most obvious secondary sources. Here is one example{4} of him doing this:
There's also a scene in it from Emmerich in which the earthquake at the death of Jesus strikes the temple in divine retribution; this didn't appear to be in the script they saw.
Of course this has to be from Emmerich. After all, Mel being a "traditionalist" has never seen a Bible in his life.{5} Perhaps Bill should open his Bible to the Gospel of Matthew and read along with us for a moment:
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling Eli'jah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to save him." And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. [Matthew xxvii,45-53 RSV]
Mark's Gospel also refers to the curtain in the temple being torn in two as does Luke's Gospel (see Mark xv,38 and Luke xxiii,45). Matthew's Gospel it is true is the only one that speaks of the earthquake taking place but it seems to this writer that the scene above was taken from Matthew's Gospel, not the works attributed to Anne Catherine Emmerich. And lest Bill think that as a former "traditionalist" that I am an "apologist for Emmerich" I was critical of some of her stuff before I disassociated myself with the radtrads.{6}
Now then, is it at all possible that Gibson was supplementing his epic with material from the other Gospels??? A dialogue partner of mine even noted that one scene (of a Jewish mob "brutalizing" Jesus) has a very close parallel in the Gospel of Luke and "[t]he men who held Jesus in custody ridiculing and beating him" (cf. Luke xxii,63-65).
Of course as the Gospel of Luke notes, this preceded these same men taking Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Mark's Gospel actually has this event happening after the visit to the Sanhedrin and after the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy (see Mark xiv,65). Likewise, Matthew's Gospel has this scene after the visit to the Sanhedrin (see Matthew xxvii,67-68).
This is not the place to go into informal controlled formats of oral tradition so for the moment merely recognize that three Gospels relate this same event and the Gospel of John is silent on the matter. Bill would probably chalk this up to a "vision of Emmerich" also -which seems to this writer to be a reinforcement of the stereotype that "traditionalists" never read their Bible.{7} Otherwise, I am left asking why Bill would presume a priori that Gibson must have gotten the material not in the Gospel of John from non-biblical sources.
They expect miracles of the film, and conversions, and this only hardens their belief that any questioning of it must be rooted in unbelief.
How about this novel concept: let Gibson make his movie, watch it, then criticize it (if you feel inclined to).
They've turned Gibson's movie into a Sacrament; those who question it take the role of the scourgers of Christ, and they become Simon of Cyrene. And then it comes. Then they say, "What do you expect? This is what they did to Jesus 2000 years ago."
All of this is what is referred to in a court of law as "hearsay."
In closing, Bill Cork as a former Lutheran minister as well as (if I recall correctly) someone with Jewish ancestry has a natural sensitivity towards these groups of people. However, he is quite clearly more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than he is the so-called "traditionalists."
Nonetheless, as he set his entry up with a contrast between (i) the approach taken towards the public antisemitism of Robert Sungenis (ii) the approach taken by many of the same people towards the USCCB and (iii) the approach most Catholics have taken towards the accusations leveled at The Passion, it is clear that Bill sought by default to discredit the criticisms of anyone who was inconsistent in the above scenarios. And as one of the only Catholics who has not been inconsistent on the above matters,{8} it seemed to this writer that a response was needed.
Hopefully Bill will recognize that in this response that as a former self-styled "traditionalist",{9} my criticisms of him here are in the same vein as his criticisms of non-Lutherans pontificating with dogmatic authority on the theological positions of Lutherans. For the casualty of consistency here is not on my side but instead it is on his.
Notes:
{1} Referring here to movie critic and talkshow host Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition. (Who is a weekend talkshow host as well as a substitute host at times for Michael Medved and Medved's rabbi.)
{2} This does not mean that I necessarily agreed with the stances of those whom I pointed out were approaching this subject correctly -either fully or for the most part.
{3} And yes, this is the position I have consistently taken over the years -even when doing so makes me "unpopular."
{4} From the link located HERE. Notice if you will that Bill misses the entire thrust of Rabbi Lapin's article which was directed towards the critics of the Passion, not the uncompleted film itself.
{5} Many do not this is true. However this is a stereotype and for one who rightfully decries stereotypes against the Jews, it is amazing that Bill seems to imply that what is good for the gander is in this case not good for the goose.
{6} And readers of Envoy Encore can attest to, I am no fan whatsoever of the Emmerich-attributed visions: at least 90% of which are inauthentic.
{7} Like most stereotypes it has some foundation in reality but that is still no excuse.
{8} Bill is certainly not unaware of my stances on the Sungenis situation. However, my criticisms of the way most Catholic commentators handled the USCCB situation -being fewer in number and less frequent- may not be as known to him. Nonetheless, like the war subject -another one where many gung ho Catholic types have had to backtrack on- I have been consistent in my stances all along.
{9} And as no one can accuse me of a lack of criticism viz the so-called "traditionalists", Bill cannot chalk this up as a blind defending of them on my part. (As he could do with numerous others who might seek to defend them.)
Points to Ponder:
(Early Understandings of Communio Ecclesiology)
It will be remembered that from 1921-1925 Cardinal Mercer, approved by Benedict XV and Pius XI, had received Anglican Church delegates in loyal dialogue. The surprise at these conversations was the reading of a memorandum by Dom Beaudouin on the matter in which an English Church united to the See of Rome could remain herself...
The Anglican Church has had, since its origins, a strong attachment to the See of Peter. Vested with the symbolical cloak of the Prince of the Apostles, the Archbishop of Canterbury shares in the apostolic jurisdiction , not only over the faithful but also over the pastors. The truth is that an Anglican Church separated from Rome is above all a historical heresy. In short an Anglican Church absorbed by Rome and an Anglican Church separated from Rome are two equally inadmissible premises. The true formula must be found in the via media, the only historical way: an Anglican Church united with Rome.
There exists a catholic formula for union between churches, which is not an absorption., but which saves and respects the interior, autonomous organization of the great historic churches, while maintaining their perfect dependence with regard to the universal Church. Indeed if there is one Church which by its origins, its history, the habits of the nation, has a right to concessions of autonomy, it is certainly the Anglican Church. Practically, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be reestablished in his traditional and effective rights as the patriarch of the Anglican Church. After having received his investiture from Peter's successor, by the historic imposition of the pallium, he would enjoy his patriarchial rights over the whole Church of England.
The Canon Law of the Latin Church would not be imposed on the Anglican Church, but the latter in an interprovincial synod, would determine its own ecclesiastical law.
It would also have its own liturgy, the Roman liturgy of the seventh and eighth century, as was in use at that time.
Obviously, all the ancient historic sees of the Anglican Church would be maintained and all the new Catholic sees created since 1851 would be suppressed. [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI with Jean Guitton pgs. 195-96 (c. 1966)]
(Early Understandings of Communio Ecclesiology)
It will be remembered that from 1921-1925 Cardinal Mercer, approved by Benedict XV and Pius XI, had received Anglican Church delegates in loyal dialogue. The surprise at these conversations was the reading of a memorandum by Dom Beaudouin on the matter in which an English Church united to the See of Rome could remain herself...
The Anglican Church has had, since its origins, a strong attachment to the See of Peter. Vested with the symbolical cloak of the Prince of the Apostles, the Archbishop of Canterbury shares in the apostolic jurisdiction , not only over the faithful but also over the pastors. The truth is that an Anglican Church separated from Rome is above all a historical heresy. In short an Anglican Church absorbed by Rome and an Anglican Church separated from Rome are two equally inadmissible premises. The true formula must be found in the via media, the only historical way: an Anglican Church united with Rome.
There exists a catholic formula for union between churches, which is not an absorption., but which saves and respects the interior, autonomous organization of the great historic churches, while maintaining their perfect dependence with regard to the universal Church. Indeed if there is one Church which by its origins, its history, the habits of the nation, has a right to concessions of autonomy, it is certainly the Anglican Church. Practically, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be reestablished in his traditional and effective rights as the patriarch of the Anglican Church. After having received his investiture from Peter's successor, by the historic imposition of the pallium, he would enjoy his patriarchial rights over the whole Church of England.
The Canon Law of the Latin Church would not be imposed on the Anglican Church, but the latter in an interprovincial synod, would determine its own ecclesiastical law.
It would also have its own liturgy, the Roman liturgy of the seventh and eighth century, as was in use at that time.
Obviously, all the ancient historic sees of the Anglican Church would be maintained and all the new Catholic sees created since 1851 would be suppressed. [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI with Jean Guitton pgs. 195-96 (c. 1966)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)