A recently issued "motu proprio" (meaning that the pope has issued it on his own initiative) is the following document Misericordia Dei. It is subtitled "On Certain Aspects of the Celebration of Penance" and is issued in the form of an Apostolic letter. (A shorter form of utterance than an encyclical but of equivalent authority.) Here is a snippet from that Apostolic letter issued back on April 7, 2002:
In the present circumstances of the care of souls and responding to the concerned requests of many Brothers in the Episcopate, I consider it useful to recall some of the canonical laws in force regarding the celebration of this Sacrament and clarify certain aspects of them - in a spirit of communion with the responsibility proper to the entire Episcopate(9) with a view to a better administration of the Sacrament. It is a question of ensuring an ever more faithful, and thus more fruitful, celebration of the gift entrusted to the Church by the Lord Jesus after his Resurrection (cf. Jn 20:19-23). This seems especially necessary, given that in some places there has been a tendency to abandon individual confession and wrongly to resort to "general" or "communal" absolution. In this case general absolution is no longer seen as an extraordinary means to be used in wholly exceptional situations. On the basis of an arbitrary extension of the conditions required for grave necessity,(10) in practice there is a lessening of fidelity to the divine configuration of the Sacrament, and specifically regarding the need for individual confession, with consequent serious harm to the spiritual life of the faithful and to the holiness of the Church.
Thus, after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and after hearing the views of venerable Brother Cardinals in charge of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and reaffirming Catholic doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation as summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,(11) conscious of my pastoral responsibility and fully aware of the need for this Sacrament and of its enduring efficacy, I decree the following: ...
You will have to read the Apostolic letter to know what is being promulgated as law by the Holy Father. After the decrees of the text the following legal formulary is used:
I decree that everything I have set down in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio shall have full and lasting force and be observed from this day forth, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary. All that I have decreed in this Letter is, by its nature, valid for the venerable Oriental Catholic Churches in conformity with the respective Canons of their own Code.
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 7 April, the Second Sunday of Easter, the Feast of Divine Mercy, in the year of our Lord 2002, the twenty-fourth of my Pontificate. JOHN PAUL II
Basically, if any of the problems outlined in the Apostolic letter are happening at your church, print up the document and take it to the priests of your church. If they do not respond in a reasonable time to the decrees (say 60 days) go to the local ordinaries and charitably remind them of their responsibilities in this area. They are supreme in their dioceses this is true but this is a case where the pope has promulgated laws that bind the bishops under pain of sin. As tempting as it may be to act like a revolutionary, restrain yourselves. And after another 60 days if nothing has changed, email me and I will give you addresses to the dicasteries of the Holy See and to the Holy Father.
Friday, August 30, 2002
There are several articles on the ICEL situation at Gerard Serafin's Catholic Blog for Lovers. As one who thinks that "liturgists" who toy with the liturgy should be subjected to certain penalties, I will only note here that it seems self-evident to me that - personal opinions aside - a translation is supposed to convey the meaning intended by the text NOT the opinions of what the text *should* say according to the mind of ivory towered so-called "intellectual liturgists". I do not like any attempts to remove references to the "invisible", the "soul", the "spirit", or any other excisions from the Missal that remove its trancendental character. (Not to mention obvious boneheaded mistranslations that smack of an agenda.) The only exception from a personal standpoint is going with "and also with you" as a more coherent response to "the Lord be with you". But consistency in my mind overrides my personal preferences as indeed they should with everyone. Translate the texts correctly ICEL. Or maybe my opinions of the deserved censure for liturgists are worthy of consideration. (Right now it is a toss-up between "drawing and quartering" or "keel-hauling"...)
I am thinking of adding a link to GK Chesterton since I cannot be the only one who would be interested in promoting his cause for sainthood - and not *only* because he is credited with the statement "[t]he Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine, and a good cigar". Though admittedly how do you *not* love someone who is attributed with a wonderful statement like that??? :)
Well baseball, you saved my loyalty...(as I listen to sports radio typing on my blog)
Moving onto theological subjects, I am thinking of discussing the concept of the "norms of theological interpretation" since I use that term a lot and do not want to come across as an elitist. I guess I am wondering if anyone except certain canonists would be interested in such a dissertation ;-)
Moving onto theological subjects, I am thinking of discussing the concept of the "norms of theological interpretation" since I use that term a lot and do not want to come across as an elitist. I guess I am wondering if anyone except certain canonists would be interested in such a dissertation ;-)
Thursday, August 29, 2002
A quote worth pondering from my good friend Dr. Art Sippo
"There is only one true religion, but there are many religions that teach isolated truths. You can emphasize the first clause in this last sentence and act like a bigot or you can emphasize the last clause and act like a liberal indifferentist, or you can admit the whole sentence and act like a CATHOLIC".
"There is only one true religion, but there are many religions that teach isolated truths. You can emphasize the first clause in this last sentence and act like a bigot or you can emphasize the last clause and act like a liberal indifferentist, or you can admit the whole sentence and act like a CATHOLIC".
I must admit I am humbled by the very gracious greetings from several members of St. Blogs. Some of them have higher views of my capabilities than I do but I enjoy blogging whereas I did not always enjoy message board posting. I can basically be myself in this format which is practically impossible in a message board set-up.
Anyway, my friend John Betts aka "Irish Chico" has on his blog an excellent link to a commentary by the very good Protestant historian Ben Witherington III. It deals with the "left behind" series and is well worth a read. Here is the link:
What the Left Behind Series Left Out A biblical text taken out of its original context can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. By Ben Witherington III
Anyway, my friend John Betts aka "Irish Chico" has on his blog an excellent link to a commentary by the very good Protestant historian Ben Witherington III. It deals with the "left behind" series and is well worth a read. Here is the link:
What the Left Behind Series Left Out A biblical text taken out of its original context can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. By Ben Witherington III
Your humble servant was reading some more material at The JunkYard Blog and found some interesting Zenit material about the Sudan posted. Mr. Preston (proprietor of the blog) referred to it in the following way:
A COUNTRY RUN BY THOSE PEACEFUL RELIGIONISTS is just about set to crucify or hang 88 people who've been convicted of an assortment of crimes relating to ethnic violence. Two of them are 14 years old.
Here is the link: LINK
A COUNTRY RUN BY THOSE PEACEFUL RELIGIONISTS is just about set to crucify or hang 88 people who've been convicted of an assortment of crimes relating to ethnic violence. Two of them are 14 years old.
Here is the link: LINK
I have the album "Wish You Were Here" playing again. Side two of the album on tape or vinyl opened with "Have A Cigar" which gave the album a shot of rhythm and blues opening the second side. Due to the crackling intensity of David Gilmour's lead, I am amped up enough to take on another installment of the series "Responsum ad Catholicam Dubiosum". This could become a semi-regular feature on the "show" ;-) In honour of the group I am listening to now, let us christen this section slightly differently...
Another Brick in the Responsum ad Catholicam Dubiosum (Part II)
See the first part to follow the sequence in context...Before continuing this series, my persistent emailer - with their Jehovah's Witness-like zeal for propagating error :) - did what I knew they would do in responding to the first installment of this series: redefined certain terms and concepts in a manner to their own liking rather than "play by the rules" if you will. They were also not slow to propose a "solution" that is an egregious violation of the principle "the ends do not justify the means"... this is apparently supposed to be "Traditional". I would have a hearty laugh if this was not so sad.
If I put up here how this person claimed (in another email) that Church practice if it is consistent over time is infallible - you would see what I mean about confusing doctine and practices. (See the last entry to this blog.) Practices are not infallible or irreformable. And the only practices that are protected from error (because of their universal application coupled with their preservation of the essentials of the faith explicitly or by implication) this person wants to denigrate (of course).
Anyway, we have already established that the several part syllogism proposed by our emailer fell apart at the third step - where they made the assertion that they could "judge heresy". But let us presume for the sake of charity that their syllogism remained intact up to this point - even when it clearly did not.
4) A verbal admission of guilt is the gravest evidence of guilt.
Notice the very imprecise rationale here. "Verbal admission of guilt" can be made in many circumstances - some even by those under duress. By this "logic" if I tortured someone into confessing something, their words are the "gravest evidence of [their] guilt". Sorry, this dog does not hunt.
You see, heretics *never* admit that they are heretics. (Schismatics never admit that they are schismatics either.) This is the pattern of history. But then "to be deep in history is to cease to be a 'traditionalist'". So while no one would argue with point 4 here the fact is, it is as useless as Pascal's wager if not properly quantified. And this person did not quantify this point in their syllogism - a syllogism which I might add went off the tracks back at point 3.
5) Ergo, our judgment of someone charged with heresy ought to be based upon their verbal admission of guilt.
False on two counts (a) WE are to judge no one, that is the proper role of the ecclesiastical authority who has competence in this area (b) As verbal admissions of guilt can be coerced under duress, they cannot always be taken by themselves as authentic.
The train again derails my friends. For more tune in next time I decide to extend this series and answer another installment of this "syllogism".
To be continued today, tomorrow, or maybe next week (again depends on my mood)...
Another Brick in the Responsum ad Catholicam Dubiosum (Part II)
See the first part to follow the sequence in context...Before continuing this series, my persistent emailer - with their Jehovah's Witness-like zeal for propagating error :) - did what I knew they would do in responding to the first installment of this series: redefined certain terms and concepts in a manner to their own liking rather than "play by the rules" if you will. They were also not slow to propose a "solution" that is an egregious violation of the principle "the ends do not justify the means"... this is apparently supposed to be "Traditional". I would have a hearty laugh if this was not so sad.
If I put up here how this person claimed (in another email) that Church practice if it is consistent over time is infallible - you would see what I mean about confusing doctine and practices. (See the last entry to this blog.) Practices are not infallible or irreformable. And the only practices that are protected from error (because of their universal application coupled with their preservation of the essentials of the faith explicitly or by implication) this person wants to denigrate (of course).
Anyway, we have already established that the several part syllogism proposed by our emailer fell apart at the third step - where they made the assertion that they could "judge heresy". But let us presume for the sake of charity that their syllogism remained intact up to this point - even when it clearly did not.
4) A verbal admission of guilt is the gravest evidence of guilt.
Notice the very imprecise rationale here. "Verbal admission of guilt" can be made in many circumstances - some even by those under duress. By this "logic" if I tortured someone into confessing something, their words are the "gravest evidence of [their] guilt". Sorry, this dog does not hunt.
You see, heretics *never* admit that they are heretics. (Schismatics never admit that they are schismatics either.) This is the pattern of history. But then "to be deep in history is to cease to be a 'traditionalist'". So while no one would argue with point 4 here the fact is, it is as useless as Pascal's wager if not properly quantified. And this person did not quantify this point in their syllogism - a syllogism which I might add went off the tracks back at point 3.
5) Ergo, our judgment of someone charged with heresy ought to be based upon their verbal admission of guilt.
False on two counts (a) WE are to judge no one, that is the proper role of the ecclesiastical authority who has competence in this area (b) As verbal admissions of guilt can be coerced under duress, they cannot always be taken by themselves as authentic.
The train again derails my friends. For more tune in next time I decide to extend this series and answer another installment of this "syllogism".
To be continued today, tomorrow, or maybe next week (again depends on my mood)...
I cannot believe some of the stuff floating around. Here is one email "theory" on the USCCB document (a non-magisterial document btw):
What the bishops deny is but an infallibly correct pious practice.
You read correctly gentle reader. Here is the reason why "kids do not try this at home" applies to theology when we deal with the "unlearned and unstable" (cf. 2 Pet 3:17).
The PRACTICE of preaching to the Jews in order to convert them to Catholicism has at all times and in all places (until just now that the apostates have taken over) been practiced by the Church.
I really wish people would READ documents before quoting them. The document says simply that we do not plan to convert Jews away from being Jews. It does not say that we do not evangelize. The degree of *ignorance* possessed by many people on the real history of Catholic-Jewish relations is glaringly apparent. This person does not ask themselves what the word "convert" means to the *Jew* now do they??? Of course not, they take a usage from Catholic parlance and presume that because it means A to a Catholic that to a Jew it means A also. That is the reason this entire situation is so misunderstood.
Ergo, the PRACTICE qualified a long time ago as being taught by the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium.
The ordinary magisterium is a many-threaded mosaic. I hope to write an essay on it before the year is out.
We are thus assured of its infallible status.
LOL this is the most absurd statement I have read all week!!! Where on EARTH did this person get their education on Catholic theology??? No practice is protected from error except those that directly touch on the central mysteries of the faith. Examples include the promulgation of a Missal to the universal church and the promulgation of norms of sacramental administration to the universal church. (This is also two areas that the person I am quoting gripes about constantly.) Canonization of saints and granting approbation to a religious order would also fall into this category as would promulgating a Breviary. This person probably thinks that Fatima and Lourdes are "infallible" too...
But PRACTICES are not revealed by God nor defined as doctrines by the Church. Only truths and morals are.
Infallibility deals with all matters pertaining to the central mysteries of the faith either directly or indirectly.
So the bishops, by denying an INFALLIBLY CORRECT PRACTICE of the Church, do not deny an INFALLIBLY CORRECT MORAL OR DOGMATIC TRUTH of the Faith. That is, they do not commit heresy.
Well they got the last part right (about there being no heresy involved). I would still flunk them from Dogmatic Theology 101 for making such egregious errors. To paraphrase Newman:
"To be deep in knowledge of dogmatic theology is to cease to be a 'traditionalist'".
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a 'traditionalist'".
What the bishops deny is but an infallibly correct pious practice.
You read correctly gentle reader. Here is the reason why "kids do not try this at home" applies to theology when we deal with the "unlearned and unstable" (cf. 2 Pet 3:17).
The PRACTICE of preaching to the Jews in order to convert them to Catholicism has at all times and in all places (until just now that the apostates have taken over) been practiced by the Church.
I really wish people would READ documents before quoting them. The document says simply that we do not plan to convert Jews away from being Jews. It does not say that we do not evangelize. The degree of *ignorance* possessed by many people on the real history of Catholic-Jewish relations is glaringly apparent. This person does not ask themselves what the word "convert" means to the *Jew* now do they??? Of course not, they take a usage from Catholic parlance and presume that because it means A to a Catholic that to a Jew it means A also. That is the reason this entire situation is so misunderstood.
Ergo, the PRACTICE qualified a long time ago as being taught by the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium.
The ordinary magisterium is a many-threaded mosaic. I hope to write an essay on it before the year is out.
We are thus assured of its infallible status.
LOL this is the most absurd statement I have read all week!!! Where on EARTH did this person get their education on Catholic theology??? No practice is protected from error except those that directly touch on the central mysteries of the faith. Examples include the promulgation of a Missal to the universal church and the promulgation of norms of sacramental administration to the universal church. (This is also two areas that the person I am quoting gripes about constantly.) Canonization of saints and granting approbation to a religious order would also fall into this category as would promulgating a Breviary. This person probably thinks that Fatima and Lourdes are "infallible" too...
But PRACTICES are not revealed by God nor defined as doctrines by the Church. Only truths and morals are.
Infallibility deals with all matters pertaining to the central mysteries of the faith either directly or indirectly.
So the bishops, by denying an INFALLIBLY CORRECT PRACTICE of the Church, do not deny an INFALLIBLY CORRECT MORAL OR DOGMATIC TRUTH of the Faith. That is, they do not commit heresy.
Well they got the last part right (about there being no heresy involved). I would still flunk them from Dogmatic Theology 101 for making such egregious errors. To paraphrase Newman:
"To be deep in knowledge of dogmatic theology is to cease to be a 'traditionalist'".
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a 'traditionalist'".
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Addendum to an earlier posted link:
I am referring to the article I linked to at 2:42 pm earlier today. It seems that my friend Lane Core, Jr. interpreted that article differently than I did. He has established on his blog the undeniable truth that the popes have acted decisively and with authority in the periods that the article stated that they did not "micromanage the Church". If the article was saying that they never acted with authority then Lane would have a slam dunk. I do not believe that is what the article was getting at though.
I believe the article was trying to make the point that the popes - while they have the authority to intervene in every level of the Church - seldom have. The examples that Lane noted were deposing patriarches. Such events were very rare historically. I realize the principle that "if they can depose patriarches why not bishops, priests, or deacons??? Heck why not even .......liturgists ;-)
The deposing of an occasional prelate is not the same thing as the pope casting down thunder from the Vatican at scores of priests and bishops - which is what a lot of people today want to see. JP II would be more in line with the normal papal procedure if he and his advisors picked two big fish from the American Church and skewered them as examples for everyone else. Say a couple of bishops...nay make that a couple of CARDINALS. Shall we take nominations for whom they should be???
I am referring to the article I linked to at 2:42 pm earlier today. It seems that my friend Lane Core, Jr. interpreted that article differently than I did. He has established on his blog the undeniable truth that the popes have acted decisively and with authority in the periods that the article stated that they did not "micromanage the Church". If the article was saying that they never acted with authority then Lane would have a slam dunk. I do not believe that is what the article was getting at though.
I believe the article was trying to make the point that the popes - while they have the authority to intervene in every level of the Church - seldom have. The examples that Lane noted were deposing patriarches. Such events were very rare historically. I realize the principle that "if they can depose patriarches why not bishops, priests, or deacons??? Heck why not even .......liturgists ;-)
The deposing of an occasional prelate is not the same thing as the pope casting down thunder from the Vatican at scores of priests and bishops - which is what a lot of people today want to see. JP II would be more in line with the normal papal procedure if he and his advisors picked two big fish from the American Church and skewered them as examples for everyone else. Say a couple of bishops...nay make that a couple of CARDINALS. Shall we take nominations for whom they should be???
I have defended Walter Cardinal Kasper in some situations where he has been severely chastised over the past couple of years. This has not been an easy thing to do because he is very good at saying things that can have both an orthodox and a heterodox meaning. (Particularly in the Jewish-Catholic relations area where there are a lot of technical elements that are easily open to being misunderstood in a heretical sense if they are not properly quantified.)
Nevertheless, I have sought to demonstrate Traditional charity as the Saints and the Doctors in their spiritual instructionals exhort us to do. (I might add that most self-styled "traditionalists" would not recognize authentic charity if it came up and offered to buy them dinner.) But I have to confess my friends, I am starting to reassess my tendency to extend this courtesy towards some people - and Cardinal Kasper is one of them.
The following essay is from Dr. Phillip Blosser - the author of one of the best sections of the work "Not By Scripture Alone" (see my Amazon reviews for more details). It was published at the following link with permission from the New Oxford Review:
The Kasper-Ratzinger Debate and the State of the Church
Here is the section that stuck out at me like a sore thumb:
Kasper's article, beneath its complicated details, is animated by the desire to secure greater "pastoral flexibility" in areas of ecclesiastical discipline where a gap seems to be widening between the Church's official positions and the actual practices of many local churches. It is a fact that the Church's official positions tend to be implemented with increasing reluctance, if not simply ignored, in many local churches throughout the world, particularly in first-world countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the nations of Western Europe. Areas of disagreement and contention with the Vatican include, according to Kasper, "ethical issues, sacramental discipline and ecumenical practices" (p. 8). This likely translates into the Church's widely controverted and ignored prohibitions against contraception, homosexual acts, extramarital cohabitation, divorce, remarriage outside the Church -- and her ban prohibiting those involved in these things, or those whose affiliation is non-Catholic, from receiving Holy Communion. There is also the matter of contraception. It is widely known that there are bishops and priests who favor an open communion policy, and that there are few would turn away anyone approaching the altar, whatever his sexual practice, marital status, or church affiliation. Cardinal Martini of Milan has been reported as saying that the Church has no business getting involved in the personal morals of individual Catholics. As we shall see, Kasper seems inclined to agree with this perspective, and this similarity may be what led my priest to link Kasper with Martini in talking about possible future popes.
I am tired of making allowances for people who cannot come out and make their positions reasonably clear. Cardinal Kasper needs to make it *explicitly clear* what he means about differences in the areas of "ethical issues, sacramental discipline and ecumenical practices". What are *all* of the relevant alterations that he thinks are a good idea here??? Considering the kind of crap I have become used to hearing from professional bureaucrats, a frank admission would be very refreshing - even if in doing so His Eminence confirms the worst suspicions of those who have expressed severe criticisms of him recent years viz his orthodoxy.
Nevertheless, I have sought to demonstrate Traditional charity as the Saints and the Doctors in their spiritual instructionals exhort us to do. (I might add that most self-styled "traditionalists" would not recognize authentic charity if it came up and offered to buy them dinner.) But I have to confess my friends, I am starting to reassess my tendency to extend this courtesy towards some people - and Cardinal Kasper is one of them.
The following essay is from Dr. Phillip Blosser - the author of one of the best sections of the work "Not By Scripture Alone" (see my Amazon reviews for more details). It was published at the following link with permission from the New Oxford Review:
The Kasper-Ratzinger Debate and the State of the Church
Here is the section that stuck out at me like a sore thumb:
Kasper's article, beneath its complicated details, is animated by the desire to secure greater "pastoral flexibility" in areas of ecclesiastical discipline where a gap seems to be widening between the Church's official positions and the actual practices of many local churches. It is a fact that the Church's official positions tend to be implemented with increasing reluctance, if not simply ignored, in many local churches throughout the world, particularly in first-world countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the nations of Western Europe. Areas of disagreement and contention with the Vatican include, according to Kasper, "ethical issues, sacramental discipline and ecumenical practices" (p. 8). This likely translates into the Church's widely controverted and ignored prohibitions against contraception, homosexual acts, extramarital cohabitation, divorce, remarriage outside the Church -- and her ban prohibiting those involved in these things, or those whose affiliation is non-Catholic, from receiving Holy Communion. There is also the matter of contraception. It is widely known that there are bishops and priests who favor an open communion policy, and that there are few would turn away anyone approaching the altar, whatever his sexual practice, marital status, or church affiliation. Cardinal Martini of Milan has been reported as saying that the Church has no business getting involved in the personal morals of individual Catholics. As we shall see, Kasper seems inclined to agree with this perspective, and this similarity may be what led my priest to link Kasper with Martini in talking about possible future popes.
I am tired of making allowances for people who cannot come out and make their positions reasonably clear. Cardinal Kasper needs to make it *explicitly clear* what he means about differences in the areas of "ethical issues, sacramental discipline and ecumenical practices". What are *all* of the relevant alterations that he thinks are a good idea here??? Considering the kind of crap I have become used to hearing from professional bureaucrats, a frank admission would be very refreshing - even if in doing so His Eminence confirms the worst suspicions of those who have expressed severe criticisms of him recent years viz his orthodoxy.
I could call this another "see I told you so" but I will restrain myself :) The following editorial on the priest situation with JP II strikes a number of targets well enough that I will let it speak for itself:
On Blaming the Pope
On Blaming the Pope
Before I forget, I want to issue a thankyou to Dale Price for his nice comments on the blog. It is not often that the difficult balancing that I try to accomplish - and sometimes fail at - is recognized.
Dale also had some nice comments about my friend Stephen Hand of TCR. Stephen emailed me yesterday with "one small quibble" about my take on the situation so as I promised to issue a correction, I do so here on Rerum Novarum front page instead of back in Q7 next to the obituaries in small-point type ala the major media newspapers when they screw up. (If they acknowledge their screwups at all that is.) Anyway, the following is from Stephen's email which will explain the "quibble" if you will:
A hasty note about one simple correction, for the record:
Someone wrote recently about my allegedly once , "parrotting the worst of the Remnant crowd's drivel " (emphasis mine).
Actually I wrote very little direct criticism of the Pope in The Remnant, and never in an intentional schismatic direction, though I did confuse Vatican 2, and thus the Popes, in my mind with general (non -schismatic) modernist pollution (actually my understanding of modernism was naive and based on SSPX framing also), very wrongly, owing mostly to SSPX literature.
Most of my Remnant writing was along cultural lines, culture of death, art, eugenics, philosophy etc.
I was too lazy to read JPII and the documents of Vatican II directly and study them in depth and this was my fatal sin.
Mine too for a long time. I apologize here and now for the misrepresentation. The comment was written on the fly and (to be honest) I could not remember precisely what you wrote about in Remnant as I used to read other peoples versions of the periodical and did not receive a subscription myself. (Unlike periodicals like "The Roman Catholic", "Angeles Magazine", "Catholic" and "Verbum" where I have numerous copies of each from that period in my files..)
[Self-styled "traditionalists"] prefer Archbishop Williamson to all the others and work to prop him up.
Tiny quibble: it is Bishop Williamson. I know because my face was met by his hand at confirmation about fourteen years ago. I remember that some thought since I was one of the adults I should have been slapped harder. Others just thought I should have been slapped harder period ;-) I also had a few non -theological conversations with him when he would visit my old parish - which happened a few times particularly in my last year and a half there. Whatever else one says about him, he is an excellent orator that is for sure.
The difference between the substance and accidents of tradition is a tonic for the bewildered
Brilliantly stated. May those who have ears to hear hear and eyes to see see as that is the root of all their troubles right there - Protestant private judgment excepted of course.
Dale also had some nice comments about my friend Stephen Hand of TCR. Stephen emailed me yesterday with "one small quibble" about my take on the situation so as I promised to issue a correction, I do so here on Rerum Novarum front page instead of back in Q7 next to the obituaries in small-point type ala the major media newspapers when they screw up. (If they acknowledge their screwups at all that is.) Anyway, the following is from Stephen's email which will explain the "quibble" if you will:
A hasty note about one simple correction, for the record:
Someone wrote recently about my allegedly once , "parrotting the worst of the Remnant crowd's drivel " (emphasis mine).
Actually I wrote very little direct criticism of the Pope in The Remnant, and never in an intentional schismatic direction, though I did confuse Vatican 2, and thus the Popes, in my mind with general (non -schismatic) modernist pollution (actually my understanding of modernism was naive and based on SSPX framing also), very wrongly, owing mostly to SSPX literature.
Most of my Remnant writing was along cultural lines, culture of death, art, eugenics, philosophy etc.
I was too lazy to read JPII and the documents of Vatican II directly and study them in depth and this was my fatal sin.
Mine too for a long time. I apologize here and now for the misrepresentation. The comment was written on the fly and (to be honest) I could not remember precisely what you wrote about in Remnant as I used to read other peoples versions of the periodical and did not receive a subscription myself. (Unlike periodicals like "The Roman Catholic", "Angeles Magazine", "Catholic" and "Verbum" where I have numerous copies of each from that period in my files..)
[Self-styled "traditionalists"] prefer Archbishop Williamson to all the others and work to prop him up.
Tiny quibble: it is Bishop Williamson. I know because my face was met by his hand at confirmation about fourteen years ago. I remember that some thought since I was one of the adults I should have been slapped harder. Others just thought I should have been slapped harder period ;-) I also had a few non -theological conversations with him when he would visit my old parish - which happened a few times particularly in my last year and a half there. Whatever else one says about him, he is an excellent orator that is for sure.
The difference between the substance and accidents of tradition is a tonic for the bewildered
Brilliantly stated. May those who have ears to hear hear and eyes to see see as that is the root of all their troubles right there - Protestant private judgment excepted of course.
In a classic example of the stupidity of intellectuals, the UN is now whining about low birth rates in developed countries. Here are some of their "solutions" to the problem:
Dr. Chamie [UN statistics chief - ISM] and other experts warn of drastic changes that will be required to cope with the effects of underpopulation.
"The age of retirement will have to increase. The benefits to the elderly will probably decrease. Taxation for the workers will probably increase," said Chamie. Another expert, Dr. Paul Samuelson, spoke about mandating saving for retirement, "voluntarily or coercively, in our working years in order to be able, given our numbers, to pay for our longer years of retirement."
See the full story HERE
I have a better solution long-term: how about families with one child having at least another, families with two children having at least a third and possibly a fourth, etc.
Perhaps those people who have wanted larger families (say 4 or more kids) should not be looked at as so "weird" in light of the bed that has been made by those who had a "preference" for destructive debt instead of constructive debt. (And now because of selfish motives are in deep kim chee viz their retirement plans as a result.) Just a thought...
Dr. Chamie [UN statistics chief - ISM] and other experts warn of drastic changes that will be required to cope with the effects of underpopulation.
"The age of retirement will have to increase. The benefits to the elderly will probably decrease. Taxation for the workers will probably increase," said Chamie. Another expert, Dr. Paul Samuelson, spoke about mandating saving for retirement, "voluntarily or coercively, in our working years in order to be able, given our numbers, to pay for our longer years of retirement."
See the full story HERE
I have a better solution long-term: how about families with one child having at least another, families with two children having at least a third and possibly a fourth, etc.
Perhaps those people who have wanted larger families (say 4 or more kids) should not be looked at as so "weird" in light of the bed that has been made by those who had a "preference" for destructive debt instead of constructive debt. (And now because of selfish motives are in deep kim chee viz their retirement plans as a result.) Just a thought...
I have Santana's album "Supernatural" in the CD player and am listening to his beautiful playing of the leads in a song called "Love of My Life" which is being sung by Dave Matthews. (My sister is a *huge* Dave Matthews fan.) Anyway, that is the atmosphere as I type this out for the blog.
I just read an essay from Jeff Culbreath that I found very interesting. Before I post the link I wanted to make a few comments on it. It is on liberalism and the Anglo-Catholic resistance to it in the nineteenth century. It shows a picture of the kind of chaos that was taking place in biblical studies at the time.
While knowledge in the fields of biblical study has increased dramatically since the nineteenth century, it is important to stress the sitz im leben here. I quote from my book "A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion" written by Charles Coppens, SJ. which was Imprimateured in 1903. It was a classroom theology text and is a pretty well balanced work worthy of anyone's bookshelf - and not only because I can quote it liberally without worrying about existing copyright laws ;-) Anyway, here goes (all emphasis is mine):
No Catholic is at liberty to put novel interpretations upon the texts of Holy Scripture not in accord with the true Catholic sense. Hence the Council of Trent forbids all interpretations at variance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers, when these speak as witnesses to the Tradition of the Church. But when the Fathers give their judgment as mere critics, or men of science their authority is not at all decisive. Science has made great progress since their times, and criticism should keep step with it. Still we should not mistaken for science the many rash theories that usurp its name. Prof. H. L. Hastings, in his "Higher Criticism", states that since 1850 there have been published 747 theories, known to him, about the origin and authenticity of the Bible. Of those he counted some years ago 608 as then defunct; most of the other 139 are probably defunct by this time. Regarding the first chapter of Genesis, too, theories of interpretation are countless: the Fathers were not at all unanimous on the meaning of this chapter; and even if they had been, they were not handing down a doctrine of Tradition. In such cases we welcome all the light that geology and the kindred sciences may furnish (n.153). [Charles Coppens, SJ: excerpt from his work "A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion" pgs. 47-48 (c. 1903)]
Some of my well-meaning friends are critical of the actions taken by the magisterium of the Catholic Church to grant a kind of "grudging acknowledgement" of Higher Criticism in this period. Pope Leo XIII of immortal memory outlined a charter for fruitful biblical study that is still for the most part relevant today. (Referring to the splendedly written Providentissimus Deus.) Granted the magisterium has loosed some of his tight regulations on Higher Criticism but I hope the context provided above dashes to the ground the facile notion that such regulations were not needed - and needed badly - when they were put into place. (I will save what I was about to say next in anticipation of a few objections from friends of mine who have misperceptions about the notion of Scriptural inerrancy as taught by Pope Leo.)
All of this to set the stage for Jeff's essay because without it the dilemma of the Anglo-Catholics cannot properly be understood: their struggle against those who would appear to be ripping to shreds the credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Anyway, without further ado, here is the link to Jeff's essay:
Liberalism and the Anglo-Catholic Resistance
Oh, one more word about Higher Criticism. While its usage has been given more leeway since Pope Leo's time, it is the opinion of this writer that Scripture is better interpreted primarily in accordance with the ancient "4 senses" used by the Fathers and Scholastics. This is not to diss Higher Criticism, which is better known and more stable a method than it was seventy-five to a hundred odd years ago. It is instead to recognize that whatever value it has it should *supplement* what preceded it that was tried and true. After all, quite often the Fathers DO know best...
I just read an essay from Jeff Culbreath that I found very interesting. Before I post the link I wanted to make a few comments on it. It is on liberalism and the Anglo-Catholic resistance to it in the nineteenth century. It shows a picture of the kind of chaos that was taking place in biblical studies at the time.
While knowledge in the fields of biblical study has increased dramatically since the nineteenth century, it is important to stress the sitz im leben here. I quote from my book "A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion" written by Charles Coppens, SJ. which was Imprimateured in 1903. It was a classroom theology text and is a pretty well balanced work worthy of anyone's bookshelf - and not only because I can quote it liberally without worrying about existing copyright laws ;-) Anyway, here goes (all emphasis is mine):
No Catholic is at liberty to put novel interpretations upon the texts of Holy Scripture not in accord with the true Catholic sense. Hence the Council of Trent forbids all interpretations at variance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers, when these speak as witnesses to the Tradition of the Church. But when the Fathers give their judgment as mere critics, or men of science their authority is not at all decisive. Science has made great progress since their times, and criticism should keep step with it. Still we should not mistaken for science the many rash theories that usurp its name. Prof. H. L. Hastings, in his "Higher Criticism", states that since 1850 there have been published 747 theories, known to him, about the origin and authenticity of the Bible. Of those he counted some years ago 608 as then defunct; most of the other 139 are probably defunct by this time. Regarding the first chapter of Genesis, too, theories of interpretation are countless: the Fathers were not at all unanimous on the meaning of this chapter; and even if they had been, they were not handing down a doctrine of Tradition. In such cases we welcome all the light that geology and the kindred sciences may furnish (n.153). [Charles Coppens, SJ: excerpt from his work "A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion" pgs. 47-48 (c. 1903)]
Some of my well-meaning friends are critical of the actions taken by the magisterium of the Catholic Church to grant a kind of "grudging acknowledgement" of Higher Criticism in this period. Pope Leo XIII of immortal memory outlined a charter for fruitful biblical study that is still for the most part relevant today. (Referring to the splendedly written Providentissimus Deus.) Granted the magisterium has loosed some of his tight regulations on Higher Criticism but I hope the context provided above dashes to the ground the facile notion that such regulations were not needed - and needed badly - when they were put into place. (I will save what I was about to say next in anticipation of a few objections from friends of mine who have misperceptions about the notion of Scriptural inerrancy as taught by Pope Leo.)
All of this to set the stage for Jeff's essay because without it the dilemma of the Anglo-Catholics cannot properly be understood: their struggle against those who would appear to be ripping to shreds the credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Anyway, without further ado, here is the link to Jeff's essay:
Liberalism and the Anglo-Catholic Resistance
Oh, one more word about Higher Criticism. While its usage has been given more leeway since Pope Leo's time, it is the opinion of this writer that Scripture is better interpreted primarily in accordance with the ancient "4 senses" used by the Fathers and Scholastics. This is not to diss Higher Criticism, which is better known and more stable a method than it was seventy-five to a hundred odd years ago. It is instead to recognize that whatever value it has it should *supplement* what preceded it that was tried and true. After all, quite often the Fathers DO know best...
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Well it is time for another "see I told you so" as it were...
Before your humble servant was involved in religious-social web boards, he was involved in sports and political-social web boards. In those days he was an Integrist who used the moniker "Just the Facts" - shortened shortly afterwards to JTF. (I believe I am the only person who ever brought up Thomas Aquinas and G K Chesterton on a sports message board but I digress.)
As a fan of the former president Ronald Reagan I possess copies of two books of quotations including "President Reagan's Quotations" and "Ronald Reagan: a man true to his word". (Along with what formed the "Magna Carta" if you will of both my political/philosophical formation and Reagan's: Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative".) I wish to reiterate something I made in board forums and political conversations over the years: the babbling about the "immorality" of increased defense spending "while others are going without food" is philosophically bankrupt.
Other than the fact that it is one of the *only* areas delegated to the Congress to make appropriations for (yes, read your Constitution and Bill of Rights people) there is the claim by those who would want us kissing the UN flag rather than Old Glory that "military strength does not deter our enemies". I quote from "President Reagan's Quotations" pg. 23 on the subject of "National Security/Defense Policy":
"The purpose of our military is simple and straightforward: We want to prevent war by deterring others from the aggression that caused war. If our efforts are successful we will have peace and never be forced into battle. There will never be the need to fire a single shot. That is the paradox of deterrence". [Radio Address to the Nation; Armed Forces Day May 21, 1983]
And again:
"[W]eakness on the part of those who cherish freedom inevitably brings a threat to that freedom".
I bring this up because of a recent revelation posted by my new friend (and lover of the leaf) Thomas Fitzpatrick on his blog. Here is the quote of which I speak:
Revealed
During and before World War II, the Japanese military used biological weapons including anthrax, on the Chinese. They did not use these weapons on our troops, because they knew we had the capacity to build these same weapons, and reciprocate on a scale they could not cope with. The Germans, likewise did not use gas in World War II, because they knew we and the British would retaliate on a massive scale, probably against German cities. Deterrence worked.
Anyone out there who was critical of the strategy of Ronaldus Magnus, it is not too late to repent of your errors. And with an election coming up in mid-term you can rectify your past by giving President Bush two Republican led houses of Congress and for more than two years please. (No Republican President has had that kind of backing since Silent Cal in the 1920's and Hoover who rode in on Cal's coattails.)
Whine all you want about people without food liberals. Maybe you can *buy* some food for them??? Maybe you can *donate* some food to causes that tend to the needy??? If there was not a strong defense we would not HAVE a country today and you would likely be begging in the gutter too while some Josef Stalin was dictator-for-life around here. THEN who would give to the needy when *everyone* would be needy??? Think about it...or at least just *think.* (After all, every journey starts with a step.)
Before your humble servant was involved in religious-social web boards, he was involved in sports and political-social web boards. In those days he was an Integrist who used the moniker "Just the Facts" - shortened shortly afterwards to JTF. (I believe I am the only person who ever brought up Thomas Aquinas and G K Chesterton on a sports message board but I digress.)
As a fan of the former president Ronald Reagan I possess copies of two books of quotations including "President Reagan's Quotations" and "Ronald Reagan: a man true to his word". (Along with what formed the "Magna Carta" if you will of both my political/philosophical formation and Reagan's: Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative".) I wish to reiterate something I made in board forums and political conversations over the years: the babbling about the "immorality" of increased defense spending "while others are going without food" is philosophically bankrupt.
Other than the fact that it is one of the *only* areas delegated to the Congress to make appropriations for (yes, read your Constitution and Bill of Rights people) there is the claim by those who would want us kissing the UN flag rather than Old Glory that "military strength does not deter our enemies". I quote from "President Reagan's Quotations" pg. 23 on the subject of "National Security/Defense Policy":
"The purpose of our military is simple and straightforward: We want to prevent war by deterring others from the aggression that caused war. If our efforts are successful we will have peace and never be forced into battle. There will never be the need to fire a single shot. That is the paradox of deterrence". [Radio Address to the Nation; Armed Forces Day May 21, 1983]
And again:
"[W]eakness on the part of those who cherish freedom inevitably brings a threat to that freedom".
I bring this up because of a recent revelation posted by my new friend (and lover of the leaf) Thomas Fitzpatrick on his blog. Here is the quote of which I speak:
Revealed
During and before World War II, the Japanese military used biological weapons including anthrax, on the Chinese. They did not use these weapons on our troops, because they knew we had the capacity to build these same weapons, and reciprocate on a scale they could not cope with. The Germans, likewise did not use gas in World War II, because they knew we and the British would retaliate on a massive scale, probably against German cities. Deterrence worked.
Anyone out there who was critical of the strategy of Ronaldus Magnus, it is not too late to repent of your errors. And with an election coming up in mid-term you can rectify your past by giving President Bush two Republican led houses of Congress and for more than two years please. (No Republican President has had that kind of backing since Silent Cal in the 1920's and Hoover who rode in on Cal's coattails.)
Whine all you want about people without food liberals. Maybe you can *buy* some food for them??? Maybe you can *donate* some food to causes that tend to the needy??? If there was not a strong defense we would not HAVE a country today and you would likely be begging in the gutter too while some Josef Stalin was dictator-for-life around here. THEN who would give to the needy when *everyone* would be needy??? Think about it...or at least just *think.* (After all, every journey starts with a step.)
I took the time to read a few times the editorial that sparked the yesterday's conflict. I had no problems at all with 98% of it - nay make that 99%. (That does not mean I agreed with 99% of it btw.) According to my friend Lane Core, Jr.
From some of [Mr. Dreher's] comments at In Between Naps, I see that he had a 900-word limit and only four hours in which to write. What very few real complaints may be made of it can probably be chalked up to those limitations. I only wish that I could have written so precisely, so well, with similar constraints.
I am familiar to some extent with word limits. My Amazon book reviews have all had word limits on them - sometimes I had to go back and edit half of what I said to fit the parameters. (I plan to write a few more for CD's soon and I doubt that protocol has changed with them.) I remember last November 25th sending out to my friend Pete Vere a 4500 word essay for the Wanderer which I had to make numerous revisions to in getting it down to that size. (Which anyone who has read my stuff knows, 4500 words is among my shortest writings.)
Pete upon reading it basically said "it is a good read but we need to be around 2000 words". Without prejudicing the final product, it is difficult to say something you want to say when there are word limitations involved. So Mr. Dreher's 900 word limit can be considered a noteable factor in anyone's problems with the final product.
The areas I find problematical were well summed up by Gerard Serafin at his Catholic Blog for Lovers. I will quote some of the extracts now:
One can criticize numerous pastoral decisions of this and any Pope. But to me, anyway, what Rod Dreher does is quite different. He actually places blame, in part, on the Holy Father for the sexual molestation of our children. This is outrageous to me and unconscionable. It is to miss the vital links in the Catholic chain...it indicates a failure to grasp the fulness of Catholic ecclesiology, in which Bishops are not "vicegerents of the Pope" or "local representatives of the Pope" but are the "vicars of Christ" and the successors to the apostles in their own local Church. (The Pope intervenes only on occasion and when absolutely necessary, for the most part, in the history of the Church).
Precisely Gerard. The bishops as successors are the supreme rulers of their dioceses and they do so in their own name with their own authority in communion with the pope. Throughout history the popes have never micromanaged the Church's affairs. And those who want to see this pope hurling anathemas and deposing clerics en masse, again the Church has never operated that way.
Popes generally make examples of a strategic few to instruct the many - this is what Pope St. Pius X did during the modernism crisis. This is what the popes have almost always done. Those who do not know their history very well - and who live for the moment - think that because the pope is Supreme Pontiff that he can and oughta clean house. They should read up on Pope Urban VI whose vigorous reform attempts of the fourteenth century were the impetus of the western schism. They should read up on the incompetent papal nuncios who in the midst of a similarly delicate situation barged into the Patriarch's church in Constantinople and brashly placed a bull of excommunication on the high altar.
A delicate situation that for at least three hundred and sixty odd years (692-1054) had been simmering - with a small flairup ala Photius between 850 and 880 - from that point became a breach in communion between east and west. Attempts to patch it up at Lyons II (1274), Ferrara-Florence (1439-1445), and the more genteel climate between east and west since the Second Vatican Council so far have failed. And formal separation started with a very *stupid* couple of clerics a thousand years ago.
Anyone who thinks we are not on the verge of that again is sadly naive - indeed Mr. Dreher alludes to this state of "practical schism" in his article. And as I presumed yesterday, Mr. Dreher's anguish over this situation is genuine - this is evident in his article which is on the whole very well written. The inferences that personal blame for the molestations is in part the pope's is all I would object to in that article and for some of the reasons noted above. But I do not want to belabour this point any longer lest somehow this humble blog plays the role of Cardinal Humbert in Constantinople in July of 1054. Or Pope Urban VI in 1379...
From some of [Mr. Dreher's] comments at In Between Naps, I see that he had a 900-word limit and only four hours in which to write. What very few real complaints may be made of it can probably be chalked up to those limitations. I only wish that I could have written so precisely, so well, with similar constraints.
I am familiar to some extent with word limits. My Amazon book reviews have all had word limits on them - sometimes I had to go back and edit half of what I said to fit the parameters. (I plan to write a few more for CD's soon and I doubt that protocol has changed with them.) I remember last November 25th sending out to my friend Pete Vere a 4500 word essay for the Wanderer which I had to make numerous revisions to in getting it down to that size. (Which anyone who has read my stuff knows, 4500 words is among my shortest writings.)
Pete upon reading it basically said "it is a good read but we need to be around 2000 words". Without prejudicing the final product, it is difficult to say something you want to say when there are word limitations involved. So Mr. Dreher's 900 word limit can be considered a noteable factor in anyone's problems with the final product.
The areas I find problematical were well summed up by Gerard Serafin at his Catholic Blog for Lovers. I will quote some of the extracts now:
One can criticize numerous pastoral decisions of this and any Pope. But to me, anyway, what Rod Dreher does is quite different. He actually places blame, in part, on the Holy Father for the sexual molestation of our children. This is outrageous to me and unconscionable. It is to miss the vital links in the Catholic chain...it indicates a failure to grasp the fulness of Catholic ecclesiology, in which Bishops are not "vicegerents of the Pope" or "local representatives of the Pope" but are the "vicars of Christ" and the successors to the apostles in their own local Church. (The Pope intervenes only on occasion and when absolutely necessary, for the most part, in the history of the Church).
Precisely Gerard. The bishops as successors are the supreme rulers of their dioceses and they do so in their own name with their own authority in communion with the pope. Throughout history the popes have never micromanaged the Church's affairs. And those who want to see this pope hurling anathemas and deposing clerics en masse, again the Church has never operated that way.
Popes generally make examples of a strategic few to instruct the many - this is what Pope St. Pius X did during the modernism crisis. This is what the popes have almost always done. Those who do not know their history very well - and who live for the moment - think that because the pope is Supreme Pontiff that he can and oughta clean house. They should read up on Pope Urban VI whose vigorous reform attempts of the fourteenth century were the impetus of the western schism. They should read up on the incompetent papal nuncios who in the midst of a similarly delicate situation barged into the Patriarch's church in Constantinople and brashly placed a bull of excommunication on the high altar.
A delicate situation that for at least three hundred and sixty odd years (692-1054) had been simmering - with a small flairup ala Photius between 850 and 880 - from that point became a breach in communion between east and west. Attempts to patch it up at Lyons II (1274), Ferrara-Florence (1439-1445), and the more genteel climate between east and west since the Second Vatican Council so far have failed. And formal separation started with a very *stupid* couple of clerics a thousand years ago.
Anyone who thinks we are not on the verge of that again is sadly naive - indeed Mr. Dreher alludes to this state of "practical schism" in his article. And as I presumed yesterday, Mr. Dreher's anguish over this situation is genuine - this is evident in his article which is on the whole very well written. The inferences that personal blame for the molestations is in part the pope's is all I would object to in that article and for some of the reasons noted above. But I do not want to belabour this point any longer lest somehow this humble blog plays the role of Cardinal Humbert in Constantinople in July of 1054. Or Pope Urban VI in 1379...
Monday, August 26, 2002
Call for a "cease-fire" of sorts -Part IV:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To continue on this subject, if it seems that this commentary has been more focused on Stephen than on Mark, I did that with the presupposition that Mark would rectify anything on his blog. (As will Dale on his.) Stephen is on sabbatical from actively maintaining his TCR site out of the need to tend to family issues at this time. (I will not divulge any details I know which pertain to this.) So while I weight this response in his direction, I do not want it construed as me "endorsing Stephen and Gerard over Mr. Dreher, Mark, and Dale" or vice versa. I sympathize with what I believe is Stephen and Gerard's primary concern here. But I also sympathize with what appears (based on second and third hand information) to be Mr. Dreher's anguish. These are not easy times my friends let no one tell you differently. That is all I will say on the "war" matter.
Strangely enough, one of the voices in this debate whom I find a substantial accord with is someone who emailed me for the first time today and who has commented on Mark's comment list - one G. Thomas Fitzpatrick. I would quote him here but this comment is already too long so see Mark's blog for that. All I will say about it is that while some heated discussion is necessary, the need to discernment is of utmost importance. And no one discerns correctly all the time so we need to remember St. Paul's admonition "let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall" (i Cor. x,12). Thomas Fitzpatrick, my fellow Catholic "lover of the leaf" seems to have figured out the fate of "peacemakers" well. Considering some of the email I have received over the years, I doubt any vitriol will fly my way that I cannot handle.
In summary, I ask my friends Stephen Hand and Mark Shea to please bury the hatchet somewhere except in each other. And Mr. Dreher, though I have not read your article yet I am not unaware of the modern Catholic idea that it is a-ok to be critical of the Holy Father over every little quibble. (Not that the peophilia situation is a mere bagatelle of course.) All I ask if your eyes happen to make it to this humble blog is to consider these observations and perhaps Stephen's sensitivity - along with others such as Gerard Serafin - on this issue can be better understood. (And of course seek a "cease-fire" also please.)
You were apparently critical of the Holy Father on a very touchy subject and in a very high-profile manner (as the WSJ is widely read particularly amongst people of a more conservative nature). It is my guess that if your criticisms were kept inhouse that Stephen would have not sought to (to parphrase H.L. Mencken) "spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats". I hope an amiable "cease-fire" can be made and maybe (just maybe) something said here can help in that area. One can only hope anyway...
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To continue on this subject, if it seems that this commentary has been more focused on Stephen than on Mark, I did that with the presupposition that Mark would rectify anything on his blog. (As will Dale on his.) Stephen is on sabbatical from actively maintaining his TCR site out of the need to tend to family issues at this time. (I will not divulge any details I know which pertain to this.) So while I weight this response in his direction, I do not want it construed as me "endorsing Stephen and Gerard over Mr. Dreher, Mark, and Dale" or vice versa. I sympathize with what I believe is Stephen and Gerard's primary concern here. But I also sympathize with what appears (based on second and third hand information) to be Mr. Dreher's anguish. These are not easy times my friends let no one tell you differently. That is all I will say on the "war" matter.
Strangely enough, one of the voices in this debate whom I find a substantial accord with is someone who emailed me for the first time today and who has commented on Mark's comment list - one G. Thomas Fitzpatrick. I would quote him here but this comment is already too long so see Mark's blog for that. All I will say about it is that while some heated discussion is necessary, the need to discernment is of utmost importance. And no one discerns correctly all the time so we need to remember St. Paul's admonition "let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall" (i Cor. x,12). Thomas Fitzpatrick, my fellow Catholic "lover of the leaf" seems to have figured out the fate of "peacemakers" well. Considering some of the email I have received over the years, I doubt any vitriol will fly my way that I cannot handle.
In summary, I ask my friends Stephen Hand and Mark Shea to please bury the hatchet somewhere except in each other. And Mr. Dreher, though I have not read your article yet I am not unaware of the modern Catholic idea that it is a-ok to be critical of the Holy Father over every little quibble. (Not that the peophilia situation is a mere bagatelle of course.) All I ask if your eyes happen to make it to this humble blog is to consider these observations and perhaps Stephen's sensitivity - along with others such as Gerard Serafin - on this issue can be better understood. (And of course seek a "cease-fire" also please.)
You were apparently critical of the Holy Father on a very touchy subject and in a very high-profile manner (as the WSJ is widely read particularly amongst people of a more conservative nature). It is my guess that if your criticisms were kept inhouse that Stephen would have not sought to (to parphrase H.L. Mencken) "spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats". I hope an amiable "cease-fire" can be made and maybe (just maybe) something said here can help in that area. One can only hope anyway...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)