I wanted to recommend to my readers to check out Tim Enloe's Societas Christiana BLOG for some excellent entries from a Reformed perspective. Now obviously I will not agree with Tim on some issues{1} however I am not for that reason about to refer to him as an "uneasy ally" ala my good friend The Secret One. For surely someone who wants to see a Christendom restored to where faith is seen as the central and animating feature of society -however their view differs in micro details from ours- is on the same page as those who want to restore what is traditionally referred to as the "Social Kingship of Christ." These goals are not as mutually exclusive as was once presumed.

For what can (or should) contribute to the restoration of Christian unity more effectively than an alliance to defend those elements of society which require defending if society is to even exist at all??? This does not mean that there is no room for theological disputation of course. However, such should always seek to unite and not divide whenever this is possible. After all, there will be enough divisions in outlooks without deliberately contributing to greater fragmentation.

Far too often do people who try to defend triumphalism bring forward the statement that Our Lord said "he who is not with me is against me" (Matt. xii,30; Luke xi,23). However, they ignore the fact that Our Lord also said "he that is not against us is for us" (Mark ix,40; Luke ix,50) and He said this at the very moment that the Apostles were attempting to exclude others from the pale who "did not walk with us." In short, there is truth that those not with Christ are against Him; however, it is the heighth of arrogance to presume that someone who does not look like us or who does not think like us is automatically beyond the pale. These are times of ecumenical jihad my friends and it behooves all of us to presume that those not against us are for us in macro principles if not in micro outlines.


Note:

{1} One example is on the subject of papal primacy - my last response on which can be read HERE.

Thomas Storck takes a very ressourcement{1} oriented look at the phenomenons of the 1960's counter-culture and the establishment they claimed to be fighting in a piece titled Change and Return which can be read at this link. Prepare yourself for a well-reasoned defense of the notion that some of the ideals of the 1960's "counter-culture" may well be of greater vintage (and also more intrinsically Catholic) than either the proponents or their opponents would casually presume.

Also well worth reading at the same link is Storck's piece Aging Hippies or Old Western Men? I particularly recommend this one if you have an interest in the old world or medieval period. I intended to link to the latter piece about seven odd months ago but ended up forgetting about it. However, as it is at the same link as the first piece, you now get two for the price of nothing except a bit of time to read them (of course).


Note:

{1} For an exposition by your humble servant on the subject of ressourcement outlooks, see the weblog entry titled The Definition of a Conservative. (Posted to the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG a few months ago after over two years of mostly subconscious reflection.)

Today's Johnny Cash song was recorded in 1971. I was originally going to do these in chronological order but the lyrics to this song mesh well with the previous Points to Ponder installment where Stephen mentions the concept of justice.

Man in Black:

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.

I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.

Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.

I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.

Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.

Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.

Points to Ponder:
(On Liturgy and its Fruits)

When any view the Mass obsessively as the be-all and end-all of the Catholic faith---i.e., as an end in itself--- rather than as the means to Christ's and the Spirit's spiritual fruits (faith and good works), they are bound to be off-kilter spiritually. Rather than see Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist they will be scanning the rite for problems, irritants everywhere, for elements that do not please them. In this way the Christian faith devolves into self-centeredness.

The fruits of the Spirit (1 Cor 13; Gal 5:22,23) and the praxis of the beatitudes (Matt 5-7), i.e., the imitation of Christ, are the test as to whether ours is a Self religion or a Him religion. The Mass (whatever the rite) is the means to this grace. When the Liturgy is approached for the Eucharist alone then we see and experience the liturgical rite as the window, par excellance, to Him, leading to orthopraxis.

What is orthopraxis? Some object to the word as of recent origin. As someone wrote recently: practically speaking, orthopraxis simply means right practice, just as orthodoxy means right belief. It should be obvious that the lexicon of Christianity has constantly evolved and is constantly evolving around fixed points defined by the magisterium, first from pagan denotations (theo, deus, Christ, ecclesia, Phylakas Angelos, homoousion, substance, etc) and, later, from different schools and movements within Christianity itself. It is better to help shape the language which has already become a part of the lexicon of the theology of the day than to defensively wish it hadn't arrived.

The concept of right practice is very biblical, of course, for "faith without works is dead," Sts. Paul and James teach, and as the prophets continually emphasized (Isaiah 1:11, 16-17; Amo 5:21-24; Hsa 6:6 ; Mk 12:33) . Our sacrifices and rites without justice are repugnant to YHWH. Traditionalists and maybe a few conservatives have much to gain from this word. And liberals must not make it a substitute for right belief, but an expression of it.

So the Mass and orthodoxy exist for right practice, good works, the fruits of the Spirit and the teachings of Jesus as found preeminently in the Beatitudes. This is the measure of whether we are approaching liturgy appropriately and as Catholics. If we only find irritants in a rite---gross abuses aside--- there is something wrong with our spiritual vision. We see the what only and not the Who and the why. The problem is with us, not with the Church's rites. [Stephen Hand: TCR Letters and Musings]

Today's Johnny Cash lyrics are from a song he recorded on July 1, 1957...

Give My Love To Rose

I found him by the railroad track this morning
I could see that he was nearly dead
I knelt down beside him and I listened
Just to hear the words the dying fellow said

He said they let me out of prison down in Frisco
For ten long years I've paid for what I've done
I was trying to get back to Louisiana
To see my Rose and get to know my son

Give my love to Rose please won't you mister
Take her all my money, tell her to buy some pretty clothes
Tell my boy his daddy's so proud of him
And don't forget to give my love to Rose

Tell them I said thanks for waiting for me
Tell my boy to help his mom at home
Tell my Rose to try to find another
For it ain't right that she should live alone

Mister here's a bag with all my money
It won't last them long the way it goes
God bless you for finding me this morning
And don't forget to give my love to Rose

Give my love to Rose please won't you mister
Take her all my money, tell her to buy some pretty clothes
Tell my boy his daddy's so proud of him
And don't forget to give my love to Rose

Ruminations of Apolonio
(A Rerum Novarum Quadruple Slam)

A sampling of musings from a modern Catholic evangelist who quite possibly has the purest philosophical approach around. The first link is on morality in general - a sample of which reads as follows:

Thoughts

I just interviewed a couple of my classmates on the issue of morality. I asked, "What is morality?" All of their answers were relatavistic. One person answered, "Morality is a set of guidelines and rules you set for you to follow." This is what most believe. And I was scared of it. It seems as if an abolition of man is possible. If it is, then man is not man anymore, but a machine or an animal. We simply have not exterminated morality in practice, but in theory. It seems to me that men act as if they are "men without chests". But why? Wasn't September the 11th enough to convince us that there is such a thing as evil? We sometimes need to experience things in order to be convinced something is true. For More Go Here

I hate to say it but at times my pessimism is comparable to Apolonio's is at the above link. (I wonder how Apolonio would score on the Myers-Briggs profile but I digress.)

Thoughts on Sex

...What is love? Most people think it's a sort of emotion. It is not. Love is a matter of the will. Love is giving one's self for another; making a person's good your responsibility. It is a self-giving act. It is also a rational act, though above reason, it is not contrary to it. Wouldn't a person think before he gets married? It is not blind as people think it is. Lust is blind, not love. As Chesterton says, Love is not blind' that is the last thing it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind." Love does not bind your emotions to another, but it binds yourself. The more a person loves, the more responsibility he gets. For More Go Here

I believe it was Frank Sheed that once said that modern man as a rule never thinks about sex. Apparently he was not referring to Apolonio who quite clearly has :)

Thoughts on Beauty: My First Attempt

...A beautiful object reveals itself to the intellect. The more it reveals itself, the more beautiful it is. The intellect then is delighted in knowing the object. It satisfies our desires and produces love. Love then produces an ecstasy. This is why when we have listened to a beautiful music, it seems as if we have transcended ourselves. Every experience of beauty, Hans Urs Von Balthasar said, points to infinity. For More Go Here

I would argue that beauty is only in some things of a purely objective nature. Most of the time there is an undergirding subjective factor to it which needs to be faced squarely. But that is perhaps something that could be discussed another time. Finally, we have existential approaches to evangelization:

Evangelization:My Existential Approach

...There are different kinds of approaches to evangelization. It depends on the person or the people whom you are spreading the faith about. However, my first and basic step is to start from man. This is a popular starting point today and some probably disagree with it. However, I believe it is the best start that fits for the modern world. Some might call it the "existential approach". For More Go Here

In five words: Maurice Blondel, call your office ;-)

"One From the Vault" Dept
(Dialogue on Mel Gibson's Movie --Part II)

The first installment of this thread can be read HERE.

Shawn

Hi XXXXXX XXXX:

I agree that it would be good for people to wait until they have seen the film before deciding on its merits. That is why I wrote to try to suggest that those of us who have not seen it should not be rallying to its defense (which seemed to be more the tendency on this site than rushing to condemn it).

Well, in an ideal situation I would agree. However, since this film is being attacked by people who have not seen it, I believe we have to at the very least neutralize that. After all, there could very well be a solid tool here for evangelization and if the well is poisoned in advance, that will mitigate the potential positive effects amongst those who are incapable of recognizing the agenda of the saboteurs.

Those who have seen it or read the script are entitled to express opinions, which the rest of us can evaluate as we would any other opinion about something on which we have no direct knowledge -- that is what I understand by listening to the reasons behind the judgments of those who have seen or read it.

Yes but when the critics are trying to avoid the primary issues and stick to "what-ifs", I lose any respect for their credibility that I may have had.

I respect the opinions of Michael Medved and William A. Donohue (quoted by James Scott aka BenYachov) as well as those of Philip Cunningham. And at this point I can't judge the film, as is the case with many other people.

Medved and Donohue would not have come out if not for the lack of fairness on the part of the critics of the film. (Almost all of which are apparently reacting rather than thinking here.)

Now I'd like to respond (briefly, I hope) to some of the things you wrote.

By all means :)

(Shawn) "Again, is there no room whatsoever for artistic license???"

(XXXXXX XXXX) There can be. But in this case it is fair to insist that it must not be anti-Semitic in its effect nor contradict history or scripture.

I did not see these people too worried about films such as Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma, or any host of other films which were blatantly anti-Catholic. If there was a bit more even-handedness then I would not have as much of an objection to the critics of Mel's film. But I do not like inconsistency and unfortunately that is what we are seeing here.

(XXXXXX XXXX's Post) "Cunningham also notes that the U.S. Bishops' Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion say "that divergent scenes from the different gospels cannot simply be strung together for dramatic effect if the effect is to intensify 'Jewish' culpability."

(Shawn) I take it therefore that if there was no intention of the dramatic effect to "intensify Jewish culpability" that it would be okay."

(XXXXXX XXXX) I disagree.

So using the other Gospels to fill in details that the primary source (the Gospel of John) did not have would be a problem then???

(XXXXXX XXXX) The document quoted by Cunningham refers -- very reasonably IMO -- to "the effect" not "the intention."

Okay, then another question comes to mind: how are we to objectively judge the "effect"??? I do not see these people offering a solution to this, only a bunch of opinions which are no more valuable than the opinions of others. And of course these people are never to be found when the "effect" of lies about the Catholic faith crop up in movie after movie. Again, if they themselves showed more objectiveness, it would be easier to take their concerns seriously.

(XXXXXX XXXX) So Cunningham's objection is that as he reads the script Gibson has put the events from John and Matthew together in a way which intensifies Jewish culpability.

But he has not actually seen footage now has he??? Rough scripts can often go through many revisions before the final product emerges. But rather than submit such concerns privately, these people want to do so publicly to (apparently) attempt to discredit Mel's movie not only before it premieres but before it is even finished. This is not an honest way to go about with criticisms.

(XXXXXX XXXX) He is not saying that Gibson intended that effect, just that it is the effect.

But of course the question then arises: did he go into this endeavour intending to find ways to make the rough cut of the script "offensive"??? And of course one persons "effect" is another person's "non effect." This can be witnessed to by reading any group of reviewers of a film where some give high marks to what others downgrade.

There needs to be an objective source and that can only come from a private screening of the film followed by interviewing the watchers. But I am wondering if we can get an objective analysis of the film after these people poison the waters as they are doing.

For the charge of antisemitism is like being tarred and feathered: if they get it to stick it will oftentimes never come completely off.

(XXXXXX XXXX's Post) You and I can't tell at this time.

(Shawn) "Yes but why are we seeming to presume that Mel Gibson is an anti-semite???"

(XXXXXX XXXX) I'm not.

I was not saying "we" as an indictment of you XXXXXX XXXX. It was a reference to the critics who by bringing Mel's father into the mix are going a little shuck and jive themselves. (Because Hutton is a bigot.) But that does not mean that Mel is one. And furthermore, Hutton has nothing whatsoever to do with the movie. Yet they mention him for some reason.

I cannot help but feel it is because they want to try and indirectly undermine Mel via his father. In light of the nature of the complaints (i.e. the deicide issue and if all Jews are guilty or the sins of those who handed Jesus over to Pilate), I am seeing an amazing hypocrisy at work on their parts. For if they are so concerned about subsequent generations being blamed for the sins of past generations, why are they doing the exact same thing to Mel by bringing up his father???

(XXXXXX XXXX) "Furthermore, apparently what Gibson gives us isn't all in the Bible anyway.

(Shawn) Minor details (such as the wearing of chains) should hardly keep anyone awake at night."

(XXXXXX XXXX) a.) My point was that some people were saying something like, "It can't be anti-Semitic because it's all in the Bible." But that is an innacurate defense, because it's not all in the Bible. Artistic license, and all that.

This is a fair criticism. The defenders should have stuck to saying "it is overwhelmingly based on the literal text" and that statement would probably stick. But they went for the absolute terms like "all" or "only." So they set themselves up to be refuted very easily.

(XXXXXX XXXX) b.) Chains may not be a biggie, but having a Jewish mob "brutalizing" Jesus when it isn't in any of the Gospels is another matter. (The closest thing to it is Luke's reference to "[t]he men who held Jesus in custody" ridiculing and beating him -- Lk 22:63-65.)

That is probably the text he had in mind.

(XXXXXX XXXX) And if the primary source is John, what is the effect of introducing this bit from Luke, heightened by "artistic license?"

To help magnify for the viewer the tremendous sufferings of the Saviour perhaps???

(Shawn) "One of those on the Ad Hoc Scholars Committee (Amy-Jill Levine) apparently noted as follows: "[A]ccusing him of being 'quite selective in choosing audiences'" to preview the film, Levine imagined how children of those invited would characterize Jews if asked, "'In the movie, who killed Jesus?' or 'Did the Jews in the film seem very interested in money?'" Levine added, "Every single response may be benign, but why take the chance?"]"

(XXXXXX XXXX) This particular objection strikes me as pretty weak.

Agreed.

(Shawn)"Another Ad Hoc Scholars Committee representative (Sister Mary C. Boys) stated the following: ["We're not saying Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, or even that the film is anti-Semitic," Boys said. "But rather, that by stressing the brutality, the torture, and by ascribing that visually to the Jews, the Christians seeing this will naturally conclude that the Jews carry the primary responsibility for the death of Jesus."]"

(XXXXXX XXXX) If what scripture says was done by Pilate's soldiers, by the members of the Sanhedrin, or by the guards is depicted as being done by a mob of unofficial Jews, that would be problematic IMO.

I agree. But we are trusting these people who also have not seen even a rough cut of the film to tell us what the visuals are. Not to sound like Thomas but until I see it for myself, I am afraid I will not trust them based on their track record of inconsistency and their weak objections.

(XXXXXX XXXX) I am glad to read the quote stating that Mel Gibson is not anti-Semitic.

Me too. He has for a long time been among my favourite actors in Hollywood. Part of the reason I object to the blanket deicide assertion pertaining to "traditionalists" is because I know a lot of "traditionalists" who do not believe in deicide. (Nor did I ever that I can recall hold such a view.)

It is true that there are many radtrads who do have this view; however it is not a universal within the so-called "traditionalist" movement. So we have essentially the same people who decry stereotypes against others using a stereotype against the "traditionalists" as if somehow their opposition to Vatican II means that they therefore *must* be propagators of the deicide view.

(XXXXXX XXXX) I hope he has not made a movie which is unintentionally anti-Semitic in effect.

Me too. But without seeing at least a rough cut - and even that would be an incomplete viewing - it is all guesswork. So as Catholics we should presume the best here as that is the hallmark of a proper charitable outlook.

I was going to comment on Rush Limbaugh and ESPN but fortunately Allen Barra of Slate did it for me. Here is the link:

Rush Limbaugh was right on Donovan McNabb

The moral of this story: if you are not willing to live in the land of make believe, then prepare to be assaulted by the mental midgets of the media machine.

Points to Ponder:

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone. [Thomas à Kempis: The Imitation of Christ Book I, Chapter I (c. 1418)]

"One From the Vault" Dept
(Dialogue on Mel Gibson's Movie --Part I)

Hi XXXXXX XXXX:

The September 12 issue of the Boston Pilot (the archdiocesan weekly) has a letter to the editor which makes some points which bear consideration here. The letter is by Philip A. Cunningham, the Executive Director of the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College.

Responding to an earlier article by one Michael Pakaluk, Mr. Cunningham states that he reviewed a shooting script "at the request of an associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs" of the USCCB.

How about simply waiting for the movie to come out before deciding to talk about its relative merits???

He found "flagrant historical innaccuracies and an approach to the New Testament not according to current Catholic biblical principles, but from the perspective of a late 18th-century German mystic, Anne Katherine Emmerich."

I am a bit troubled by this notion of "current Catholic biblical principles" because there are many recognized ways of going about biblical study. Just because Mel Gibson does not go along with what is seen as the "in vogue" manner now does not immediately disqualify his work from consideration. There is such a thing as "artistic license" after all and Mel Gibson's movie is intended to be more devotional than historical. For those who are so keen on making the proper distinction between literary genres with Scripture (which is to their credit) they sure approach Mel's movie with a fundamentalist hermeneutic. This inconsistency does not speak well about their sense of objective fairness.

Cunningham objects to the following: "video clips showing Jesus shackled in chains (not merely 'bound' as in the Gospels), dragged to the Temple (rather than to the high priest's courtyard as in the New Testament), into a fanciful, non-existent 'Great Hall of the Temple' (one wonders about the archeologists that Pakaluk claims Gibson consulted) where he is brutalized by a rabble of over a hundred Jews (which does not appear in the Bible, but does in Emmerich). Moreover, Pilate is portrayed as intimidated and dominated by Caiaphas, although it is an undisputed historic fact that Caiaphas remained hugh priest only at Pilate's pleasure."

Again, is there no room whatsoever for artistic license??? I do not see why at the very least such critics cannot wait until there is a version of the movie that can be viewed before deciding to pass judgment on the film which is not even completed yet.

Besides, I can think of other movies which do a far worse hatchet job on Catholic beliefs and practices than anything Mel Gibson's movie may possibly contain. Why are these same critics not as interested in going after those movies and their directors/producers???

Cunningham also notes that the U.S. Bishops' Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion say "that divergent scenes from the different gospels cannot simply be strung together for dramatic effect if the effect is to intensify 'Jewish' culpability."

I take it therefore that if there was no intention of the dramatic effect to "intensify Jewish culpability" that it would be okay. That leads to another important point of consideration: the judgment of the words and actions of another.

Why is there an immediate presumption that Gibson has sought to do this??? I harp on pseudo-"traditionalists" for showing the same lacuna in Traditional charitable interpretation of facts and events. Therefore, out of consistency I have to do the same in this case with the U.S. Bishops' Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion.

The instruction of St. Francis de Sales comes to mind for this as I have often used it against the trads:

Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Fr. RP Quadrupani: Light and Peace quoting St. Francis de Sales (c. 1795)]

Frankly, I am disgusted that the same people who would justly decry the deicide outlook would uncharitably interpret Mel Gibson's actions here. They would apparently presume that just because (i) radtrads are often antisemitic and (ii) Mel Gibson's dad is a sedevacantist anti-semitic bigot that therefore (iii) Mel must be also. I have news for them: there are people who identify themselves as "traditionalists" who do not have an antisemitic bone in their body.

But of course to admit to this is to remove from the critics their largest cudgel with which to beat Mel Gibson with. Yeah his daddy is a bigot so Mel must be one too. This is a different form of "let his blood be on us and on our children" we are seeing here - but since it is a bunch of traddys it is okay right???

He suggests that that is what Gibson has done in the way he associates the scourging (only in John) with Pilate's hand washing (only in Matthew).

In my humble opinion this objection is beyond absurd. The two events are both well known to anyone who reads the various Passion accounts. Mel Gibson made it clear that he wanted to primarily follow the outline of the Gospel of John. However, "primarily" means that there would be secondary sources as well and what better sources to supplement the Gospel of John with than the Synoptic accounts???

Would these writers be denying the following teaching from Dei Verbum on the Gospels themselves:

It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour.

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfilment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of the faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John {Cf. St. Irenaeus, AGAINST HERETICS, III, 11, 8: PG 7, 885; Sagnard Edition, p. 194}.

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1-2).

Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed {John 2:22; 12:16; Cf. 14:26; 16:12-13; 7:39} after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth {Cf. John 14:26; 16:13.}.

The sacred authors wrote four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus {Cf. instruction HOLY MOTHER CHURCH edited by Pontifical Consilium for Promotion of Bible Studies: AAS 56 (1964) p. 715.}. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4). [Dei Verbum §19-20]

The same Dogmatic Constitution reaffirmed the freedom from error that the Church teaches as solemn doctrine (see DV §11 and Divino Afflante §1). So those who accept the teaching of Dei Verbum and then criticize the reliance on the Gospel narratives for a movie as Mel Gibson is doing are...well...not coming across as unhypocritical (to put it nicely).

In short, according to the U.S. Bishops' criteria it is not enough that "it's in the Bible." As [ZZZZZ ZZZ ZZZZZ] has pointed out, vicious anti-Semites quote the Bible to "prove" their points.

Yes but why are we seeming to presume that Mel Gibson is an anti-semite??? Is it because of Hutton Gibson's stances??? Again, do not decry deicide charges on the Jews (ala "may his blood be on us and on our children") and then utilize the same principle to tar and feather Mel Gibson for the errors of his father.

Furthermore, apparently what Gibson gives us isn't all in the Bible anyway.

Minor details (such as the wearing of chains) should hardly keep anyone awake at night.

Frankly, I haven't read everything that has appeared here, much less everywhere else, on the subject.

Nor have I.

But I think the discussion needs to get deeper than the level of "It's anti-Semitic." "No it isn't, and anybody who says it is must be anti-Christian."

According to a few Orthodox Jews whose opinions on this I trust (such as movie critic Michael Medved who attended an early screening of the work), there is nothing antisemitic about the movie. I have been a listener of (and occasional caller to) Medved's radio show for years and he has a tremendous amount of credibility with me on these issues.

In fact, Medved claimed that he has never seen a better visual epic of a biblical story than the cut he saw of the movie. He also noted that unlike other movies where Jesus and Mary and the Apostles do not look at all like first century Jews that the actors in this movie actually look the part.

Why do the people who raise the issue of anti-Semitism think it is a danger in this film?

I was originally going to say that it was probably because Mel prefers the Tridentine liturgical form and because his father is a bigot. Here are a couple examples though of actual "objections".

One of those on the Ad Hoc Scholars Committee (Amy-Jill Levine) apparently noted as follows:

"[A]ccusing him of being 'quite selective in choosing audiences'" to preview the film, Levine imagined how children of those invited would characterize Jews if asked, "'In the movie, who killed Jesus?' or 'Did the Jews in the film seem very interested in money?'" Levine added, "Every single response may be benign, but why take the chance?"

Translation: "No matter how benign the responses to such questions may be -not to mention the remote possibility that someone may ask children these questions- and even if the hypothetical responses were inoffensive; nonetheless, they may be less than benign and as a result it should be scrapped."

In short, this is pathetically fallacious slippery slope "what-if" reasoning.

Another Ad Hoc Scholars Committee representative (Sister Mary C. Boys) stated the following:

"We're not saying Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, or even that the film is anti-Semitic," Boys said. "But rather, that by stressing the brutality, the torture, and by ascribing that visually to the Jews, the Christians seeing this will naturally conclude that the Jews carry the primary responsibility for the death of Jesus."

Translation: "It is not that Mel Gibson or the movie is antisemitic but the Christians are such dumbasses that if the movie goes to press, they will immediately blame the Jews as the killers of Christ."

What response can be made to the specific objections? Both sides need to make their case beyond slogans.

Agreed, however slogans unfortunately too often masquerade for substantive thought on these kinds of issues. Look at the idiocy of the above "objections" to the movie.

Furthermore, I think that Mel Gibson's reported rejection of Vatican II ought to raise a big caution flag for Catholics.

Your point is well taken if it is true; however at the same time, Mel Gibson may be an agnostic on the whole issue. I knew (and know) some self-styled "traditionalists" who were very agnostic on the whole subject; it is not improbable that Mel Gibson may be among them. But notice how they have to drag Hutton Gibson into the equation.

It is undeniable that Hutton hates Vatican II and is a kook but again, this has nothing to do with the views of Mel's father. Yet no one it seems can resist bringing Hutton Gibson into the equation. Apparently the elites think that anything to use as a cudgel against Mel Gibson is fair game.

I for one am disgusted by the whole thing and wish they would all shut the hell up until at the very least they see a rough cut of the film. Even that would not be as good as seeing the finished product but at the very least it would give them some credibility here.

For most of the nattering nabobs of negativism have not seen anything at all and yet they are going to tell us all how to think about it. Even if Mel Gibson does actually reject Vatican II, I cannot see how the actions of some scholars with a supposed "enlightened perspective" on these issues -who seem intent on condemning a movie that is not even completed yet and which most of them have not even seen a rough cut of- will in any way endear Mel to them or the views that they represent.

Epilogue:

The following statements from one of Mel Gibson's respresentatives (Paul Lauer) are interesting:

Marketing director Paul Lauer responded that the committee's comments are inconsistent with the final version of the film. Eventually, the Catholic bishops apologized for what they described as an unauthorized critique. Critics from ADL, however, stood their ground in saying that without scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as The Passion could falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews...

Mel abhors anti-Semitism, a promotional website for the film quoted marketer Lauer as stating. In no way does his faith endorse hatred or bigotry or anti-Semitism or blame the Jews for the death of Christ.

Pardon me if I do not believe for a minute that there are any grounds for the assertions of antisemitism. The accusers owe Mel Gibson more than a mere apology. They should also make a few mea culpas publicly. But of course they will not correct an A1 mistake on A1 when it can be put on Q14 with smaller point type.

To be Continued...

Today's Johnny Cash lyric is from Big River which was recorded on November 12, 1957...

Big River:

Now I taught the weeping willow how to cry,
And I showed the clouds how to cover up a clear blue sky.
And the tears that I cried for that woman are gonna flood you Big River.
Then I'm gonna sit right here until I die.

I met her accidentally in St. Paul (Minnesota).
And it tore me up every time I heard her drawl, Southern drawl.
Then I heard my dream was back Downstream cavortin' in Davenport,
And I followed you, Big River, when you called.

Then you took me to St. Louis later on (down the river).
A freighter said she's been here
But she's gone, boy, she's gone.
I found her trail in Memphis,
But she just walked up the block.
She raised a few eyebrows and then she went on down alone.

Now, won't you batter down by Baton Rouge,
River Queen, roll it on.
Take that woman on down to New Orleans, New Orleans.
Go on, I've had enough;
Dump my blues down in the gulf.
She loves you, Big River, more than me.

Now I taught the weeping willow how to cry,
And I showed the clouds how to cover up a clear blue sky.
And the tears that I cried for that woman are gonna flood you Big River.
Then I'm gonna sit right here until I die.

"Oratory from the Oligarch" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Double Slam)

Our first link -an excellent musing on the subject of "marginally-involved Catholics"- was blogged by The Ancient One recently and is worth a read. To tempt you to click on the link below, your humble servant will supply a little appetizer...

I wish I could get inside the head of many of the people -- several of my family members included -- who are marginally religious, if at all, and yet they want the standard course of sacraments for themselves and their children. Hypotheses are welcome.

I suppose it's an objectified / commodified view of religion. Most I know can be fairly called "bourgeios." I can image them thinking of the Catholic religion like an odd garden tool and thinking, "Well, I don't want to get TOO involved with it, but there is a marginal utility to at least HAVING IT AROUND..." LINK

The second one consists of some fascinating comments from The Ancient One on his role of the lay theologian. (And by this I mean over and above the average evangelist/theologian.) Again, just a sampling, see the link for the rest...

The Insightful Hazards of Being a Lay Theologian

Fifty years ago it would have been very unusual to be what I am: A lay Catholic theologian. Not a minister. Not a priest. But a theologian. Most theologians were ordained.

Nowadays, we tend to look at the frequent intersection of the priestly and theological vocations as an historical accident, or luxury of the priest-abundant pre-conciliar era. Both the academy and the episcopacy seem to be comfortable with the idea of the non-sacerdotal, non-pastoral office of theologian. On a professional level, there is a comfortable, well-established division of labor between pastor and doctor. In theory, I do my academic work in the school room, and the clergy dispense the sacraments and serve as doctors of the heart in the parish.

The average layman usually casts this distinction completely aside...Click Here For More

More Johnny Cash Lyrics:

Today's offering was recorded in August of 1958...

Don't Take Your Guns To Town:

A young cowboy named Billy Joe
Grew restless on the farm
A boy filled with wanderlust
Who really meant no harm
He changed his clothes and shined his boots
And combed his dark hair down
And his mother cried as he walked out;

"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

He sang a song as on he rode,
His guns hung at his hips
He rode into a cattle town,
A smile upon his lips
He stopped and walked into a bar and laid his money down
But his mother's words echoed again;

"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

He drank his first strong liquor then to calm his shaking hand
And tried to tell himself at last he had become a man
A dusty cowpoke at his side began to laugh him down
And he heard again his mother's words;

"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

Bill was raged and Billy Joe reached for his gun to draw
But the stranger drew his gun and fired before he even saw
As Billy Joe fell to the floor the crowd all gathered 'round
And wondered at his final words;

"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

Points to Ponder:

There are two reasons people ask questions. The first is to find things out. The second is to keep from finding things out. [Mark Shea]

"To Be Deep in Catholic Theology is to Cease to Be a (Pseudo) 'Traditionalist'" Dept.

This post contains material posted to one of Mark Shea's message boxes earlier today. Though I may reconsider this later on, at the moment I have decided to change the names to protect the guilty. Their words will be in dark yellow font and mine in regular font with sources in darkblue font. Without further ado, let us get to it...

There is enough shoddy theology from Brian Mershon on this thread to write a book about. As I do not have that kind of time -and as these messages have limits character wise- I can only briefly deal with various bits of Brian's comments here.

I believe the Holy Trinity is a required dogma of the reality of God. As such, since Judaism rejects Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Islam regards the dogma of the Holy Trinity blasphemy, it is safe to say that they do not worship the same God we do, nor do we worship the same God they do.

If knowledge was *required* to worship the true God then no one prior to Nicaea worshipped the true God since all trinitarian notions in the ante-Nicene period were for the most part incomplete or fragmentary. Shall we therefore declare all ante-Nicene Fathers -all of whom had by later standards heterodox notions about the Trinity- to therefore be worshipping "another God"??? Of course not. The principle here is the same in the implication of the Jews as not worshipping the same God as us.

Further still, the complete hybrid nature of Jesus Christ as the God-Man would not be worked out for an additional three hundred years after Nicaea. So shall we draw the line at Constantinople III and declare that no one prior to that time worshipped the true God??? Of course not.

And if the principle applies to Jews it also applies to Muslims, albeit not as readily so. And the principle I am using here is the one which Our Lord noted to the Samaritan woman. For just as the pagan Samaritans "worship what they do not know", those who do not explicitly profess a belief in Christ "worship what they do not know." By contrast, we who profess the Trinity -beneficiaries of additional revelation about the nature of God that we are- worship what we know.

Please show me in any authoritative pre-Vatican II or Vatican II document.

This is like the Protestant assertion "show me that it is in the Bible." Whether it can be shown in the documents of any period is not relevant since (i) it has been taught in the Magisterium since the Second Vatican Council and (ii) generally it is not until a subject becomes controversial that it is addressed.

There is virtually no magisterial statements about the Jews prior to Vatican II except for papal legislation regulating what Jews could and could not do in society. (And of course decrees issued for their protection by various popes.) Other than those things, the number of actual magisterial texts on the Jews probably number less than three. (And there are even less in the case of the Muslims.)

When it comes to the relationship between the Church and non-Christian religions, there are none prior to the Declaration Nostra Aetate as the subject was never dealt with prior to that time. If you think this is a problem than consider what other areas of Church teaching are similarly "problematical."

If you want to demand pre-Vatican II magisterial statements duplicating what was taught by Vatican II and by the subsequent popes, you should acquire some consistency in your own position. And here is how you can do that.

Please begin by pointing to the magisterial statements prior to 1870 which treated on the infallibility of the pope. From there, please point us to the magisterial statements prior to 1547 (Trent Session VI) that treated on the subject of Justification. Thirdly, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 1215 that treated on the subject of transubstantiation. Fourthly, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 787 that treated on the subject of icons.

From there, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 649{1} that treated on the subject of the number of wills in Christ. Further still, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 449 that treated on the two persons of Christ. Also, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 430 which treated on the subject of Theotokos. Also, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 381 which treated on pneumatology. Finally, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 325 which treated on the subjects of the consubstantiality and coeternity of Jesus Christ with the Father.

Do not claim that you are not so bound to prove such things while those you ask for proof are not. But as I recognize that I asked a lot of questions here, let us make it fair and reduce it to one proof for you.

It will suffice for you to produce the magisterial statements prior to 325 which treated on the subjects of the consubstantiality and coeternity of Jesus Christ with the Father. Remember, they have to be *magisterial* statements. Not that I am saying you could prove this doctrine by a consensus of the ante-Nicene Fathers{2} but since you seem to think that something must be enshrined in a magisterial text, let us see you prove two key points to what you have called a required dogma of the reality of God from pre-Nicene magisterial texts.

Again, this refers to Christ the Lord's consubstantial nature with the Father and also his coeternity. Show us the magisterial texts pre-Nicaea that teach these truths and then you have valid grounds to make these challenges to others.

It is also worth noting that the denoting of those who were recognized as not believing in God was that of "heathen." But the Church has never referred to Jews or Muslims as "heathens." Instead, the term they used was "infidel" - a term which in classic theology admits of three applications. (Not all of which is a sin.)

The "infidel" was one who though believing in the one God professed some incomplete or malformed notion of Him. Generally it was applied to the unbaptized though it could be said to apply to baptized non-Catholics as well. Nonetheless, an "infidel" is not one who believes in another God than Catholics, only one whose understanding of the one God is to some extent erroneous.

I do not have to PROVE to you what the Church DOES NOT teach.

This sounds like the Protestants who defend sola scriptura by saying "Catholics have to prove the infallibility of their Church or else sola scriptura stands." To make an affirmative statement or deny a proposition in philosophy or theology is useless without supporting the statement with evidences and argumentation.

You have made the claim that Jews do not worship same God as Christians. You have further asserted that those who say they do are making assertions that are contrary to what the Church taught pre-Vatican II. Then you have the burden or proof to demonstrate this supposed "teaching" Brian. This is basic "disputation 101" here: you have made the assertion so you must defend it. That is how it works outside of journalism school.

It is evident. Read the text and look for the words "same God as Christians" or "one, TRUE God." Nowhere to be found.

What idiocy. Here is the text from Nostra Aetate:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, ###the Creator of heaven and earth who has spoken to men###...

Apparently, the "Creator of heaven and earth" is not the same God that Christians worship. At least not if we accept what Brian has to say. As far as the Jews go, the synod recognized that the foundations of the Church's faith are "found among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets" (NA §3).

It is called the Trinity, of whom Jesus Christ is man and God and the second person. This is the God of the NT, right?

Are you claiming that the God of the OT is not the same as the God of the NT???

As for allowing Catholics "theological speculation," I would recommend reading the condemned propositions in the Syllabus of Errors and the Errors of the Modernists prior to thinking this proposition is allowed Catholics.

And you will show us a condemned proposition in these sources that proscribes what is being asserted??? If so, where is it??? If not, then why bring these sources up???

Humani Generis and Mystici Corporis by Pius XII might also shed some light on worshipping the one, TRUE God.

Read them all and do not recall anything said about whether or not Jews worship the same God as Christians do. But then again, maybe Brian can refresh our memories on the matter. Where is this subject discussed in any of the sources you mention??? The answer of course is NOWHERE.

Have you actually ever read Newman's Development of Doctrine?

I have read it and also reviewed it for Amazon.

It says the germ of doctrine MUST be in the root of the tree (the Church), so it is VERY IMPORTANT to know where this so-called "doctrine" sprung from because otherwise it may be what Newman calls a "corruption" rather than "development."

This is for the most part accurate.

Something has to "develop" from a kernel that already existed previously.

Okay then, if Christianity is a true development of the Jewish religion, then there must be kernals in the Jewish religion. One of these kernals would have to be worship of the one true God since the claims of Jesus the Jew was that he came "not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill" (cf. Matt. v,17).

So if Christianity and the New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old Testament, then if those who believe in the Old Testament do not believe in the true God, neither by logical extension do those of the New Testament. So according to Newman's understanding of development, Christianity would be a corruption of primitive Judaism rather than an authentic development. If we accept your untraditional view on the matter that is. Fortunately no Catholic on this thread is doing that.


Notes:

{1} I say 649 because there are magisterial statements prior to Constantinople III on this subject. (Specifically one from Pope Martin I.) Hence, I want to see magisterial statements before 649 condemning what Pope Martin condemned and what was later condemned by Constantinople III on the subject of one or two wills in Christ.

{2} Because I already know you have not a ghost of a chance to prove this.

Though I mentioned last month that I would soon be posting lyrics from the late great Johnny Cash (RIP) within that week. Well, obviously that did not happen but I did not forget the promise.

Instead, as can happen at times when one has many things to muse on and a limited amount of time for blogging them, things got sidetracked. So this will be the first of several posts in the coming days where we look at some of the writing of Johnny Cash. Let us start this all off with the groundbreaking song I Walk The Line recorded in April of 1956.

I Walk the Line:

I keep a close watch on this heart of mine
I keep my eyes wide open all the time.
I keep the ends out for the tie that binds
Because you're mine,
I walk the line

I find it very, very easy to be true
I find myself alone when each day is through
Yes, I'll admit I'm a fool for you
Because you're mine,
I walk the line

As sure as night is dark and day is light
I keep you on my mind both day and night
And happiness I've known proves that it's right
Because you're mine,
I walk the line

You've got a way to keep me on your side
You give me cause for love that I can't hide
For you I know I'd even try to turn the tide
Because you're mine,
I walk the line

The Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated.

Mark Shea's recent piece titled The Seven Virtues for Parents can be read HERE.

Miscellaneous Early Morning Notes:

[Note: This response was written about a week ago at this time. - ISM]

I'm shufflin' thru the Texas sand,
but my head's in Mississippi.
I'm shufflin' thru the Texas sand,
but my head's in Mississippi.
The blues has got a hold of me.
I believe I'm gettin' dizzy.
{Help me now.}

Boy, it is not often that I am unable to sleep so I will try to tire myself out by responding to an email from a friend who works the graveyard shift. I apologize in advance if any of this sounds incoherent and (of course) I reserve the right to make revisions if needed when my mind is working sharper but here goes...

Shawn:

Hi XXXX:

It is not often I get an email with this much variation to it.

In an e-mail message I sent you a while back, I had lauded Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles as bright theologians.

And they are.

You had remarked that John Paul II is even brighter.

Yes. I read his encyclicals and other magisterial documents and wonder why I even bother writing anything period. But of course deflating the pseudo-trads and pseud-progs (the so-called "progressives") and their sad caricatures of him of course make that to some degree necessary.

One of the brightest things John Paul II has done is tap Ratzinger to head up the CDF.

True. They complement one another in that the pope's specialties are philosophy, theology, and knowledge of the human person while Ratzinger is particularly well-read on issues pertaining to the "reformation". Breakthrough accords like the Catholic-Lutheran joint declaration would never have occurred without Ratzinger's astute insights. He saved that declaration from the scrapheap as even some of the non-Catholic theologians involved in the endeavour have attested to.

In addition to his brilliance, his life is a model of obedience. He had no desire to become a bishop and cardinal nor did he have any desire to be a curial prefect. If he had his druthers, he would spend his life writing scholarly books. But he accepted both the Archbishopric of Munich and CDF prefect out of a sense of duty. He is obedient, but he is not a yes man. He has no compunction about telling it like it is.

Indeed.

I think that's why John Paul picked him. He understood that he needed someone who didn't give damn about his "career" and who was going give him the straight skinny when it really counted.

I agree.

The interview he gave to German secular journalist Peter Seewald that became the book Salt of the Earth is Cardinal Ratzinger at his very best. He gave some answers that you wouldn't expect from someone so high up in the Church.

He did the same thing in The Ratzinger Report.

I believe that if John Paul II is the greatest pope of this century (a position I don't think I could refute even if I had wanted to) it is because is standing on the shoulders of the giants who were his predecessors, something I'm sure John Paul II himself would agree with.

This is true to some extent certainly.

If you read some of the things both John Paul II and Pius XII taught about issues like bioethics, sexuality, and even ecumenism, the parallels are striking, scholastic language of the latter notwithstanding.

True.

As I have deciphered from some of your blog entries, you are something of a rock and blues buff.

Well, pre-MTV rock anyway but I find myself more and more of a blues, jazz, and classic country fan than of rock and roll. It is easier to make a list of what I do not like stylistically as it is a much shorter list.

You seem to have something of an affinity for Albert Collins.

Yes. He was one of those whose style I spent a fair amount of time practicing but cannot completely duplicate. The same is the case for Albert King who like Collins has a deceptively simple style that spawned a host of imitators trying to duplicate it with varying degrees of success. They are my two favourite electric bluesmen however there are other stellar lights such as Otis Rush, Buddy Guy, Magic Sam, and Freddie King who are also worthy of both mentioning as well as listening to.

I've always wondered why he capoed up so high. I'm not all that familiar with his music.

He varied the capo from the third to the seventh fret most of the time. My guess is that since he used a minor tuning, the capo was to adjust the tuning to the song being played.

I'm not all that familiar with his music. In my opinion, Stevie Ray Vaughan was the greatest blues guitarist. He was certainly the most intense.

Depends on how one defines intense. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. There is no denying that Stevie was very good. However, if not for Albert King there would be no Stevie Ray. (Nor would there be much of a Jimi Hendrix.) I have never heard anyone who played the guitar with more authority than Albert King did - though Albert Collins came darn close quite often. The significant difference between the two was the material chosen.

Collins tended towards music with more of a sense of humour or which was easier to dance to. Not that King's stuff did not have the dancing quality of course - particularly when he had Booker T and the MG's or the MarKays as his backing band on the Stax albums. (Not to mention The Memphis Horns.) But his style was more Mississippi Delta blues based whereas Collins was more of a Texas style. They could both create so much tension with a sparse number of notes - and even at times a single note - that those who play dozens of them could never accomplish.

Stevie's best stuff in my opinion was when he was most noticeably borrowing heavily from Albert King - songs like Texas Flood and The Sky is Crying come immediately to mind here.

He combined the styles of other greats like Buddy Guy, Albert King, Al Collins, and Hugh Sumlin, packed it with muscle and created quite a sound.

He synthesized a lot of styles this is true. But all the greats combined the stylings of others before them. That applies as well to theology and philosophy as it does to music.

Plus, nobody did Jimi Hendrix covers like Stevie.

True but Clapton did a few really good covers of Hendrix tunes too - the Derek and the Dominoes version of Little Wing in spots is so beautiful that it almost brings tears to the eyes.

I like most all types of music, but folk and folk-rock is my favorite. I guess that's what happens when you are the second youngest of ten kids with older siblings who teenagers in the sixties.

I also play a little guitar. I'm actually more of a singer than a guitar player. When my voice is warmed up and I know the song, I can take off.

I am generally a better lead guitar player than singer in my opinion. But I have played my Gibson so sporadically in the past three years that I am not sure if that is the case anymore. (It does take a little practice to maintain one's proficiency after all.) Most of my noodlings these past few years have been on my acoustic guitar. Part of the reason is that my amp for the Gibson is not working right but at the same time it forced me to practice chords which with the electric I almost always avoided. (Instead focusing on lead phrasing.)

Due to breaking my hand about ten years ago, most of my focus for a long time was on string vibrato, bending/sliding/trilling and that sort of thing. Not that I am unable to let it rip but I have found that most players practice the virtuoso stuff first and then have to refine later on. Essentially I did it backwards in that regard. I also never play with a pick usually just my thumb and forefinger ala the two Alberts. (Though I do at times utilize my middle finger as well ala Jeff Beck, and Mark Knopfler.) Recently I have been working on fingerpicking a bit to play folk stuff with more than a thumbbrush approach. However, I still often instinctively go for the thumb brush and finger sweep for picking the notes individually rather than a fingerstyle pattern. (In short, a lot more practice is needed in this area.)

In a post you made regarding war and peace, you had said that lyrics say things that words couldn't.

That mere words cannot this is true.

This is something the Church has always understood. It has always had a special catechcatical meaning.

Agreed.

Having attended many a Byzantine liturgy, I think the East has better understood this than the West.

I have attended a few Byzantine liturgies myself and have to agree with this assessment.

When Augustine said "He who sings prays twice," he knew what he was talking about.

True. I think a lot of westerners who want the church to be a tomb of silence completely miss the boat. But at the same time, those who want continual singing or speaking need to be rebuked as well. Silence after all needs to have a role too as it allows for contemplation and thus can foster a more active participation by involving the entire person. Many parishes I have attended seem to be afraid of silence. (Or at the very least they look at silence as being awkward.) The Dominicans at Blessed Sacrament are very good at utilizing silence at pivotal points - a minor point maybe but it is one that I greatly appreciate.

As far as today's secular music is concerned, I think Country Western has, by and large, the most substance as far as lyrics go.

As far as contemporary music goes, I have to agree. But blues is hardly contemporary. And of course innuendo is a powerful device as is humour. Songs like Laundromat Blues and MasterCharge come to mind here but many others could be noted as well.

It seems that my last "Points to Ponder" segment has to some extent achieved the purpose that I intend those excerpts to achieve: get people to utilize their musing capabilities. Among those esteemed St. Blogs members who commented on this over at SAM's site, were the following ones:

I don't think that it is Shawn's idea, it is one of the ideas Fr. Andrew M. Greeley advocates in his book. [Jeff Miller of Curt Jester]

How would you get around the fact that ordination, like baptism, is a indelible mark on the soul? [Maureen McHugh of Religion of Sanity]

Maureen, I don't think one would get around that fact. As I understand it, the indelible mark would remain but the life (including faculties) would last for 10 years.

The more I think about this idea, the less enamored I am of it. It makes some pretty significant inroads onto the idea of priest as alter Christus (alter Christus for 10 years?). Secondly, I think it's probably the Orthodox priesthood in by the back door. Nothing wrong with the Orthodox priesthood, but celibacy is, as Greeley says, a "strength and treasure of the West." I can't believe we wouldn't take just the point we were now discussing about indelible marks and come up with a "Semi-Retired Priest Corps" that goes on and on and on until it eventually takes over all parishes. [SecretAgentMan of The Dossier]

Allow your humble blog host to respond to all three points at this time.

I don't think that it is Shawn's idea, it is one of the ideas Fr. Andrew M. Greeley advocates in his book.

True it is not my idea in that I did not originate the concept. However, that does not mean that I or others cannot muse over the idea and refine it.

How would you get around the fact that ordination, like baptism, is a indelible mark on the soul?

There is no need to "get around" anything here. It is true that a priest is always a priest but he does not always have the faculties to exercise priestly ministry. (He can either be suspended or otherwise deprived of them by his diocesan bishop or other superiors.) And of course in the rare emergency situation, all priests are given faculties and all penalties - even excommunication - are temporarily suspended. But ordinarily the priest who had served for a certain time in the Greeley model (or variations of it) would not have faculties to celebrate the mass or sacraments.

Maureen, I don't think one would get around that fact. As I understand it, the indelible mark would remain but the life (including faculties) would last for 10 years.

Fr. Greeley suggested ten years but I would say fifteen to twenty would probably be better. I posted it as a "points to ponder" segment because it is worth thinking about.

The more I think about this idea, the less enamored I am of it. It makes some pretty significant inroads onto the idea of priest as alter Christus (alter Christus for 10 years?).

That was the way it used to be when lifespans were forty years of age or less. Figure that most priests would go through training either in their late teens or early twenties or would come to ministry after the death of a wife - possibly in their mid to early thirties or later. If the lifespan was, say forty five years, that would mean a span of ministry that would average ten to fifteen years - after say a five year period of study and advancement through the minor orders. (With the mendicant orders it would have been even longer time than this for study.)

So essentially yes, you end up with a ten to fifteen year "alter-Christus" most of the time in the eras of the shorter lifespans. So what is being proposed here does not differ from before except before it was ten to fifteen years on average of alter-Christus before being taken from service by death. Now it would be ten to twenty years of alter-Christus before being essentially "decommissioned" (in most cases) or being selected for an additional period either for higher orders or continued priestly ministry. There would be no disgrace in those who did not want to "renew" if you will - and of course those who did would be highly esteemed for doing so.

There are many possible applications but essentially this principle is one way of dealing with the fact that (i) there is a vocations shortage (ii) the traditional lustre of ecclesial ministry has more additional options opposing it today than the mundane peasant life of the past (iii) the longer lifespans coupled with more demanding pastoral work means a quicker burnout by the priests.

For those of us who see the problem of lay involvement in the church in areas where they should not be -and who would in accordance with tradition see those tasks as properly performed by the hierarchy- there is a need to deal with the unique situations of today.

Besides, as the priest functions as "another Christ" at mass and in the sacramental ministry, within the ministry of the domestic church, the father is supposed to be "another Christ" to his family. Thus, I do not see the problem here that Maureen does or you seem to. There is biological fatherhood and spiritual fatherhood. Both roles have an "alter-Christus" dimension to them albeit in a different way.

Further still, there would in my view be another valuable function for priests in the situation Fr. Greeley described other than being a priest in emergency situations after the period of service was up. And that is being trained as part time spiritual directors. Certainly after ten to twenty years of hearing confessions such men acquire a tremendous insight into the human condition. And there is a scarcity of spiritual directors probably because this is a specialized area of ministry. But with a corps establishment as Fr. Greeley suggested, there would be other functions perhaps that could be involved after the term of service was up. I just suggested one of them and perhaps others can think of more.

Secondly, I think it's probably the Orthodox priesthood in by the back door. Nothing wrong with the Orthodox priesthood, but celibacy is, as Greeley says, a "strength and treasure of the West." I can't believe we wouldn't take just the point we were now discussing about indelible marks and come up with a "Semi-Retired Priest Corps" that goes on and on and on until it eventually takes over all parishes.

SAM, first you say there is nothing wrong with the Orthodox priesthood and then you lament this idea as necessarily one that would "take over all parishes" and be "Orthodox priesthood through the back door." If there is nothing wrong with Orthodox priesthood then what you see as lamentable would not be a problem if it were to happen. (And I am not convinced that it would.)

Besides, since the priests even in Greeley's arrangement would be required to make vows of celibate chastity, they would be bound to them until dispensed. This is significantly different than the Orthodox priest who though he cannot marry after ordination can do so before ordination.

Further still, potential candidates for higher office in my proposed modification of the Greeley scheme would be those who served their terms with distinction. (And to which a permanent vow of celibacy would be required if they accepted higher orders as in the case of the Orthodox who select their bishops from amongst the celibate monks and not the regular presbytery.)

And of course there were three questions SAM posted in blog form which I will touch on now.

[H]ow do we keep these guys from becoming Mormon Missionaries, e.g. "uberCatholics" who are such prime candidates for marriage and future lay leadership roles that every Catholic male hungers to be one (and is that a bad thing?).

Please restate this question in an easier to answer format.

[W]hat will these priests' relationship with people be like in Years 9 & 10?

Depends I suppose on (i) the length of the term of the service and (ii) whether these were potential priests for either continued ministry as a priest or possibly higher ministry.

Another advantage is that this idea would give us a much larger pool of potential episcopal candidates. And I believe it would better prepare those who would opt out of service after the term to be husbands and fathers biologically. And of course as there would not need to be a requirement to opt out after the term, those who truly had the drive to be an alter-Christus for life would be better discernible.

Just as there are temporary vows in the various orders of monastics (and particularly in the mendicant orders), the same would be the case here. I would however not recommend that the average diocesan bishop have the authority to dispense from the corps but instead have an advisory role to another authority who would have this faculty granted to them. (Say a Metropolitan Archbishop or a Cardinal.)

Three, what Bishop in his right mind would agree to the creation of a corps of priests who are much less under his control (because susceptible to only temporary "informal" sanctions) than his lifelong fellows?

Well, one idea is a special oath of fidelity to the diocesan bishop for priests involved in this corps concept. (Along with the usual Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity which those who have an ecclesial vocation in the Church are required to take.)

Anyway, whatever one thinks about Fr. Greeley -and Lord knows I do not agree with him too often- that does not detract from the fact that this is a concept well worth pondering. Hopefully others will chime in on it in the coming weeks or more - even if only to tell me that I am nuts for even lending credence to the idea at all.