Points to Ponder:

It's better to be part of the process than to stand on the sideline and criticize, although I criticize, too. [Fr. Robert Taft SJ]

Miscellaneous Musings:

(On A Potential Petrine Apologia For Galatians 2)

This material was posted by yours truly in a social media instant messenger thread within the past couple of weeks.

The reason most Catholics approach the Galatians 2 incident as they do is from a position of defense. Protestants love to seize on it as proofread against papal primacy and papal infallibility whereas Catholics point out that nothing St. Peter did would have involved papal infallibility and papal primacy does not mean popes cannot be scolded at times for their own good. I am reminded of the US general who told Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap "you know, you never once defeated us on the battlefield" and Giap's response was "that is true but irrelevant." Likewise, however true the common Catholic response is to Protestant claims, it too is irrelevant. And while St. Thomas Aquinas is usually a good guide on any subjects, there are exceptions and a strong biblical argument can be made that this is one of them. 

To be clear, I cannot claim credit for the original thrust of this argument, for that would go to my friend Dr. Art Sippo. Essentially, St. Paul was out of line in Galatians 2. He was not wrong in principle but the early Church was much more sensitive pastorally to the scruples of weaker brethren. St. Peter did the right thing in Antioch for pastoral reasons and St. Paul was being both tiresome and legalistic. Despite his pastoral insensitivity however, St. Paul outlined why St. Peter should not have had to do what he did. But make no mistake, St. Peter was the better man in this instance. How do we know this? Because St. Paul admitted as much later on. 

Read 1 Corinthians 10:23-31 then read Romans 14: 1-23. St. Paul masterfully expounds in both places exactly what St. Peter was doing in Antioch and recommending a more pastorally sensitive approach to our brethren. The same principle was utilized in Acts 21:20-26. If St. Peter was wrong in Galatians 2 then St. Paul was wrong in 1 Corinthians 10:23-31 and Romans 14:1-23 and he was wrong to act as he did in Acts 21:20-26. St. Paul by his later words and statements vindicated St. Peter in Antioch. 

If one reads the Pauline corpus of epistles and Acts, you can see quite clearly a spiritual growth in St. Paul. After his conversion, he was on fire for the Lord but like Sts. John and James in the Samaritan incident (cf. Luke 9:52-56), St. Paul at this point in his life lacked both tact and pastoral sensitivity. He would learn these over time of course as in his journeys and struggles and the legalistic Pharisee would give way to a man of profound pastoral sensitivity, one who would "become all things to all" (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). St. Peter did not possess St. Paul's book learning. Nonetheless, the unlettered fisherman understood the principle of pastoral sensitivity to weaker brethren better than than the learned but fanatical former Pharisee at the time of Galatians 2 in keeping with Jesus' words "My Father, Lord of heaven and earth, I am grateful that you hid all this from wise and educated people and showed it to ordinary people" (Matt. 11:25).

 

10 WW I Battles That Killed Christianity

I have long believed that the death knell for Christendom was World War I (WWI) after a couple centuries of ever weakening understanding of Christendom as a moral order. The above article substantiates this hypothesis and approaches it from the angle of major battles in WWI that were instrumental in snuffing out the Christian moral order in Europe.

In a certain sense, we all lived the past century plus in the ruins of the WWI destruction of what remained of the old Christian moral order.

Extremists on Both Sides Are Enabling Violence | Opinion

The above article was written by my old Jaded Politics amigo Darvio "The Kingpin" Morrow. Here is just a sample...

"...Bail reform efforts can be commendable. But they should never be applicable to people accused of violent felonies, something most reasonable, rational people who support bail reform understand. The problem is when elite academics and political morons who live in online echo chambers hijack the discourse. That's when the conversation devolves from 'Police Accountability' to 'Defund the Police' to 'Abolish the Police.' That's when bail reform for people arrested on low-level crimes like marijuana possession turns into 'bail reform for anybody accused of anything'..."

Conservative Support for Andrew Coffee IV Is Opportunistic Hypocrisy

Here is just a sampling from the link above...

"...This brand of conservatives is so laser-focused on opposing the left that they are willing to sacrifice truth and justice at the altar of 'owning libs.'  Instead of taking a look at the facts of cases and making their own determination as to what 'justice' looks like, they look to the left to see what they are doing so that they can do the exact opposite.  Instead of taking a moment to acknowledge that we are failing at 'liberty and justice for all,' they are busy googling 'black guy self-defense acquittal.' They aren’t choosing what to support.  They are choosing to oppose BLM and the left at all costs.

Both of these cases are tragedies.  Both of these cases are examples of injustice.  Both deserve our support and outrage and not just when it serves our narrative.  If anything, the Breonna Taylor case is more of an injustice and something for which we should be more outraged, but I guess there were no white kids recently acquitted of self-defense at the time..."