Missed Opportunity
New Lincoln document found that had his directive been followed could've shortened the Civil War.
June 07, 2007
Quotes
From Benjamin Wiker in Crisis on Michael Behe's latest book:* * *
First Things post on Brownback's faith & reason statement.
* * *
A Catholic connection to the green jackets at Augusta? (Via The Daily Eudemon.)
* * *
Markus Shea on salvation outside the Catholic Church.
* * *
Parody is Therapy updated...
* * * Interesting post from a Christian titled Why I Read Nietzsche:
From Benjamin Wiker in Crisis on Michael Behe's latest book:
Behe is not arguing against evolution, but against Darwinism. Evolution happened, and Behe has no problem with sharing ancestors with apes. The question is not whether evolution happened, but whether mere random mutation and natural selection can explain it.
First Things post on Brownback's faith & reason statement.
A Catholic connection to the green jackets at Augusta? (Via The Daily Eudemon.)
Markus Shea on salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Parody is Therapy updated...
[T]here were the eschatological enthusiasts, those who immersed themselves in popular prophetic texts and evinced an odd enthusiasm for what they believed would be an outpouring of wrath so implacable that billions would perish. I will tread gently and state that it is not so much the fact of belief in these interpretations - though I find them other than plausible - as the earnest desire on the part of some I knew that all of these horrors come to pass: a reveling in a dream of divine vengeance:--"I understand; I'll open my ears again (oh! oh! oh! and close my nose). Now I can really hear what they have been saying all along: 'We good men - we are the just - what they desire they call, not retaliation, but 'the triumph of justice; what they hate is not their enemy, no! they hate 'injustice', they hate 'godlessness'; what they believe in and hope for is not the hope of revenge, the intoxication of sweet revenge (--'sweeter than honey' Homer called it), but the victory of God, of the just God, over the godless; what is there left for them to love on the earth is not their brothers in hatred but their 'brothers in love', as they put it, all the good and just on earth." (From [Nietzsche's] Genealogy of Morals, Essay 1, Section 14)Now, I understand even more now what I knew then, that even amongst the better sort of Christian writers there could be found admonitions against this desire to call down and revel in wrath and judgment; but to find in the writings of an arch-calumniator of the Faith a confirmation of just how loathsome in the eyes of the unbelieving we can be made to appear by the wrath-desiring among us - this, paradoxically, was something to be savoured, for it confirmed the ruination that certain vices could bring into the world.
Nevertheless, reading Nietzsche was not only salubrious insofar as he could be enlisted against those who dragged down the Faith by their lack of wisdom, but because he is so honest:Against Christianity -- What is now decisive against Christianity is our taste, no longer our reason. (Gay Science 132)Christianity is not rejected among moderns because they have reasoned out a proof that it is untrue, but because it is distasteful to them, chiefly on moral grounds. Though the excesses of the eschatology enthusiasts might be loathsome, and might prompt sensitive souls to recoil in horror on moral grounds, this is, in fact, no disproof of Christianity, or even of the theories against which it is a reaction. It is merely disgust - and disgust, as we are reminded whenever we turn to the subject of our culture's valorization of deviant sexualities, is ostensibly no reason to proscribe them or stigmatize them.
In other words, Nietzsche is saying, we reject Christianity not because we find it repugnant to reason, but because we simply dislike it...We subordinate reason to passion, and this is why we reject Christianity - Christianity bids us reverse this relation, and we will have none of that.
June 06, 2007
The Fluctuating Moral Compass
Two temptations for the state during wartime are torture of the enemy and the killing of civilians.
What's interesting is how in five decades the perception of the morality of torture and killing civilians has reversed: during WWII any physical pressure was prohibited while the wholescale slaughter of civilians was greeted with equanimity.
Part of this is due to the nature of the combat. One was "total war" involving conventional armies and identifiable countries. The second is limited to a band of networked terrorists, single players without a flag.
With German P.O.W's, we used brain power instead of brawn. We used deception and bugging. We planted German-speaking Americans posing as fellow prisoners. But there was never a question of making them stand for hours or sleep deprivation let alone "waterboarding". Now there's much greater toleration for physical means of gaining information, at least in the Bush Administration if not the media. (Most of the techniques, I understand, were derived during the Cold War from the Soviets; if America rarely originates bad moral practices, it's perhaps not a stretch to say she is not too shy about adopting or adapting to what the enemy uses and then hanging on to them. Part of that is due to our self-perception as 'good', caused by our Puritan founding and 'city on the hill' imagery. If we're doing it that means, definitionally, it isn't that bad. Back in antebellum times slavery was seen as bad where it was not practiced and good where it was. Made that's less our Puritan upbringing than simply human nature.)
The practice of indiscriminately killing civilians was begun by the Axis Powers (the Germans began it in the First World War). It became so acceptable that we could, seemingly without much angst, drop a nuclear bomb on Japan. Now, not only is the nuclear option pretty much unthinkable, but probably part of the calculus in staying in Iraq is that we consider ourselves responsible for the wholescale death that will occur in an unchecked civil war. Perhaps this is part of what Colin Powell meant when before the war he said: "if we break it, we buy it".
Nowadays no matter what America does she will be criticized by the MSM. If a WMD had made its way to a terrorist via Hussein, the press would've crucified Bush for not having gone into Iraq when the signs were obvious that he should've (i.e. weapons inspectors thrown out; continual defiance of U.N., sanctions failing to work...etc...).
Two temptations for the state during wartime are torture of the enemy and the killing of civilians.
What's interesting is how in five decades the perception of the morality of torture and killing civilians has reversed: during WWII any physical pressure was prohibited while the wholescale slaughter of civilians was greeted with equanimity.
Part of this is due to the nature of the combat. One was "total war" involving conventional armies and identifiable countries. The second is limited to a band of networked terrorists, single players without a flag.
With German P.O.W's, we used brain power instead of brawn. We used deception and bugging. We planted German-speaking Americans posing as fellow prisoners. But there was never a question of making them stand for hours or sleep deprivation let alone "waterboarding". Now there's much greater toleration for physical means of gaining information, at least in the Bush Administration if not the media. (Most of the techniques, I understand, were derived during the Cold War from the Soviets; if America rarely originates bad moral practices, it's perhaps not a stretch to say she is not too shy about adopting or adapting to what the enemy uses and then hanging on to them. Part of that is due to our self-perception as 'good', caused by our Puritan founding and 'city on the hill' imagery. If we're doing it that means, definitionally, it isn't that bad. Back in antebellum times slavery was seen as bad where it was not practiced and good where it was. Made that's less our Puritan upbringing than simply human nature.)
The practice of indiscriminately killing civilians was begun by the Axis Powers (the Germans began it in the First World War). It became so acceptable that we could, seemingly without much angst, drop a nuclear bomb on Japan. Now, not only is the nuclear option pretty much unthinkable, but probably part of the calculus in staying in Iraq is that we consider ourselves responsible for the wholescale death that will occur in an unchecked civil war. Perhaps this is part of what Colin Powell meant when before the war he said: "if we break it, we buy it".
Nowadays no matter what America does she will be criticized by the MSM. If a WMD had made its way to a terrorist via Hussein, the press would've crucified Bush for not having gone into Iraq when the signs were obvious that he should've (i.e. weapons inspectors thrown out; continual defiance of U.N., sanctions failing to work...etc...).
June-ish Thoughts
Trees bask
in the Basque region
in revenues rich
in sun & rain.
* * *
The cardinal's face
is black-bearded as Pio's
with a red-fin'd head
as if part fish.
* * *
Liberals and conservatives
see the earth as they see human nature:
either infinitely malleable
or utterly impervious.
* * *
An egg-headed egg-head
went on Colbert
and declared his belief in God
- the god of human genius -
which is like confusing a bicycle with a fish.
* * *
Robins stay well-grounded;
They keep close to their food source.
* * *
The unmown yard decreases
with each clipped row;
what started out as chore
I long to prolong.
* * *
The park at noon is filled
with the young & the old
in a pleasing diversity
before diversity became a dirty word.
* * *
The Rose is the Budweiser of flowers,
the King of Buds,
but of higher maintenance.
June 05, 2007
Links & Commentary
Tis a shame the Catholic blog search engine no longer works. Type something in and it retrieves the results - for about one nanosecond.
* * *
Wade Boggs could not only flat-out hit, but perhaps more importantly could flat-out drink.
* * *
Finally reading the book 1776, and McCullough writes about a Joseph Reed who left his family to accompany the charismatic George Washington, which reminds me of how crucial a personal relationship with Christ since that is what will cause someone to sacrifice something:
* * *
René Girard reviews Pope Benedict's book on Jesus (via Intelligam, thru the lens of Babelfish).
* * *
Interesting article concerning how the Christian church has struggled with what to do with the Old Testament.
* * *
A Cornerite posts about Sopranos...I feel out o' the loop. Never seen a Sopranos episode or American Idol, Desperate Housewives or Sex in the City. Never saw an episode of 24 until 2005 and Lost leaves me feeling lost.
* * *
I'm liking the Goldberg-Beinart NR video discussions about tv pundits. My impersonation of Cokie Roberts: "But does the candidate have ovaries?"..."Well the really important thing is that she is a she."....and "What a shame the French didn't elect the candidate with breasts". I know, I'm harsh.
* * *
I’m tempted to sing the Mary Poppins lyrics “I Love to Laugh” as “I Love to Write”. What a joy! I woke up still half in a dream and made my way to the Great White Way, i.e. the word processor, and the Bob Novak piece basically wrote itself. Novak is one of those rare individuals who is actually an individual. Old bloggers will recall the great KTC, “Kathy the Carmelite”, who likewise was an individual and who had a deep and abiding affection for Robert Novak. And it was nice that Eric Scheske linked it in NCR since those sorts of offerings are labors of love and thus are almost definitionally of limited appeal.
* * *
No too surprising since I'm not from Taxachusetts though I love Boston...via Dylan:
Tis a shame the Catholic blog search engine no longer works. Type something in and it retrieves the results - for about one nanosecond.
Wade Boggs could not only flat-out hit, but perhaps more importantly could flat-out drink.
Finally reading the book 1776, and McCullough writes about a Joseph Reed who left his family to accompany the charismatic George Washington, which reminds me of how crucial a personal relationship with Christ since that is what will cause someone to sacrifice something:
As Reed explained, Washington had "expressed himself to me in such terms that I thought myself bound by every tie of duty and honor to comply with his request to help him through the sea of difficulties."McCullough also mentions Washington's great-grandfather John Washington. My question to you is this: Everyone has four great-grandfathers. Why is it that in the history books only the paternal-paternal one gets ink when DNA is such that you or I could be partially a product of any of the four?
René Girard reviews Pope Benedict's book on Jesus (via Intelligam, thru the lens of Babelfish).
Interesting article concerning how the Christian church has struggled with what to do with the Old Testament.
A Cornerite posts about Sopranos...I feel out o' the loop. Never seen a Sopranos episode or American Idol, Desperate Housewives or Sex in the City. Never saw an episode of 24 until 2005 and Lost leaves me feeling lost.
I'm liking the Goldberg-Beinart NR video discussions about tv pundits. My impersonation of Cokie Roberts: "But does the candidate have ovaries?"..."Well the really important thing is that she is a she."....and "What a shame the French didn't elect the candidate with breasts". I know, I'm harsh.
I’m tempted to sing the Mary Poppins lyrics “I Love to Laugh” as “I Love to Write”. What a joy! I woke up still half in a dream and made my way to the Great White Way, i.e. the word processor, and the Bob Novak piece basically wrote itself. Novak is one of those rare individuals who is actually an individual. Old bloggers will recall the great KTC, “Kathy the Carmelite”, who likewise was an individual and who had a deep and abiding affection for Robert Novak. And it was nice that Eric Scheske linked it in NCR since those sorts of offerings are labors of love and thus are almost definitionally of limited appeal.
No too surprising since I'm not from Taxachusetts though I love Boston...via Dylan:
| You Are 8% Massachusetts |
 |
Things that (or People who) don’t bother me
Blame this on Jeff Culbreath, who tagged me. (I'm Pavlovian when it comes to tags; it's fair to say my freedom is limited and thus I'm not culpable.) I concur with much of his list and will no doubt find it hard to make my own without the obvious things (i.e. "sun", "big books") or without stealing some of his so I'll limit myself to stealing just one or two.
1. Rad Trads. (Their heart's in the right place.)
2. Fair and balanced Fox.
3. Foreigners.
4. Fat people.
5. Words that start with "F".
6. Politics exercised during ecumenical councils.
7. Soap operas.
8. 24.
9. Steel guitars & "twangy" music.
10. Budweiser.
11. Democracy.
12. People who don’t vote.
13. Bad poetry.
14. Universalists.
15. Anti-Universalists.
16. the Crusades, the idea if not the execution.
17. Spam with good titles.
18. A woman president.
19. Six-day creationists.
20. Non-automatic car windows.
21. High gas prices.
22. The racial make-up of any given sport.
23. Families with many children. (I'm not worthy.)
24. Red-headed step children.
25. Bloggers who engage in cri-de-coeur
26. Or have posted pet pictures. (guilty)
27. I guess memes because I'm stuck doing this one.
28. Donald Trump.
29. Authority.
30. Eastern Orthodox.
UPDATE: Jeff says I forgot to tag people. How about Aliens in this World, Darwin Catholic and Henry Dieterich and Roz.
Blame this on Jeff Culbreath, who tagged me. (I'm Pavlovian when it comes to tags; it's fair to say my freedom is limited and thus I'm not culpable.) I concur with much of his list and will no doubt find it hard to make my own without the obvious things (i.e. "sun", "big books") or without stealing some of his so I'll limit myself to stealing just one or two.
1. Rad Trads. (Their heart's in the right place.)
2. Fair and balanced Fox.
3. Foreigners.
4. Fat people.
5. Words that start with "F".
6. Politics exercised during ecumenical councils.
7. Soap operas.
8. 24.
9. Steel guitars & "twangy" music.
10. Budweiser.
11. Democracy.
12. People who don’t vote.
13. Bad poetry.
14. Universalists.
15. Anti-Universalists.
16. the Crusades, the idea if not the execution.
17. Spam with good titles.
18. A woman president.
19. Six-day creationists.
20. Non-automatic car windows.
21. High gas prices.
22. The racial make-up of any given sport.
23. Families with many children. (I'm not worthy.)
24. Red-headed step children.
25. Bloggers who engage in cri-de-coeur
26. Or have posted pet pictures. (guilty)
27. I guess memes because I'm stuck doing this one.
28. Donald Trump.
29. Authority.
30. Eastern Orthodox.
UPDATE: Jeff says I forgot to tag people. How about Aliens in this World, Darwin Catholic and Henry Dieterich and Roz.
 |  |
Even if Genesis had given a more biologically detailed explanation of our origins, something more congenial to the modern mind, it would still be rejected for the simple reason that God had anything to do with it. - Bill Luse of Apologia
[There is] this strain inTolkien I don't quite trust. He seems to have greater confidence in evil than in good. At the end of Lord of the Rings the triumph of good leads to the destruction of nearly everything good. Lothlorien is abandoned, the Shire is overrun with foulness, and the elves all leave Middle Earth. It is naive to assume that the triumph of good means good results for all; however, it is equally naive to assume that evil consistently betters good. - Steven Riddle
Michael Dubruiel wrote, "We learn the faith as children but really don't 'get it' until the it gets challenged--then we either get it or bale." That is, take what one now regards as so much straw and bundle it up to transport. Hence the self-described recovering Catholic who complains of the continuing burden of carrying the former faith. - Terrence Berres of "The Provincial Emails"
[There is a distinction] between respecting sentiment and practicing sentimentalism. We all have all sorts of sentiments, and as incarnate beings we cannot simply ignore ours or those of others. At the same time, sentiment does not, merely by virtue of being felt, create or suspend laws, rights, or responsibilities. So I suppose I am, both on the blog and in person, opposed to sentimentalism, to ceding the objective truth or justice of a question to whomever feels strongest whatever it is they feel...While sharing our experiences with each other can be helpful, it can also be harmful, either because the experience teaches a false lesson or because it is taken to be normative. - Tom of Disputations
And if America encourages a national mythology, paraded on holidays like Memorial Day, do anarcho-pacifists rely at least as much on their own myth, of Uncle Sam as reactionary imperialist Monopoly Guy? - Mark of "Irish Elk"
The recent descent of the Dawkinoids upon this very website confirms the observation. Was the fanaticism of the fundamentalist ever on more egregious display? Here we witnessed the adherents of the Church of Darwin trapped by a useless urge of Nature's own devising: the need to be right, to gain converts; and to cast the unbelievers into outer darkness. Unlike his Christian counterpart, he has no need of acknowledging, as a condition of the faith, that not only is he wrong about many things (especially himself), but that he needs forgiving for having done wrong; that the credit for any converts should be deferred to any power other than that of deified reason; nor that the unbelievers in exile should be prayed for, let alone that their absence should be as keenly felt as that of a missing member of one's own family. It seems to me that the two dispositions are - how shall I put it? - fundamentally different. If people genuinely find comfort in the "soulless materialism of the Darwinian universe", I say let them worship among a congregation with whose members they are most comfortable. I would simply ask them to do one thing for me, as an act of unaccustomed charity: Stop pretending, a la Hitchens, that you really do appreciate the religious origins of certain great works of music, art, and architecture, when we know very well that you think Michaelangelo's time would have been better spent executing a technically advanced cave painting rather than the Sistine ceiling. Leave off poetic appeals to creation's "grandeur", when we know full well that you don't believe it was created. Stop pretending that Darwin's story of life has a happy enough ending to satisfy the truly healthy mind, when his agony at his own daughter's death shows that it doesn't. In short, stop trying to convince me of the solace to be taken in the prospect of my own annihilation, and of those I love, when you know before you say it that there is none. The consolation to be found in nihilism is a lie unworthy of a believer in the one true faith. - Bill Luse of "What's Wrong With the World"
The Catholic view of justification elegantly tied together James and Paul and the teachings of Jesus that put a premium on a believer’s faithful practice of Christian charity. Catholicism does not teach “works righteousness.” It teaches faith in action as a manifestation of God’s grace in one’s life. That’s why Abraham’s faith results in righteousness only when he attempts to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God...Because Protestant evangelicals accept much of the Great Tradition that Catholics take for granted — such as the Catholic creeds and the inspiration of Scripture — but without recourse to the Church’s authority, they have produced important and significant works in systematic theology and philosophical theology. Catholics would do well to plumb these works, since in them Protestant evangelicals often provide the biblical and philosophical scaffolding that influenced the Church Fathers that developed the catholic creeds as well as the Church’s understanding of the Bible as God’s Word. But these evangelicals do so by using contemporary language and addressing contemporary concerns. This will help Catholics understand the reasoning behind the classical doctrines. In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world...Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith. - Francis Beckwith of "Right Reason" via Jeff Miller
The Forward [of a book praising Archbishop Weakland] by Richard J. Sklba, Auxiliary Bishop of Milwaukee begins (p. vii)
It was the glory of the Council of Trent (1545-1563 C.E.) ...He wrote on April 2, 2002 C.E., before Paul Marcoux appeared on Good Morning America on May 23, A.D. 2002... - Terrence Berres of TPE
With the passing of the years [Tertullian] became ever more exigent of Christians: above all he expected them to face persecution heroically. In the end he found himself isolated: “an overly individualistic search for the truth along with his intemperance led to his breaking from communion with the Church to become a follower of the Montanist sect”. Still today “there is open debate regarding his behaviour”. “This great personality – commented the Pope – this figure so rigid in his convictions, who demanded Christians face persecution heroically, spurs me to thought. In the end it becomes clear that he lacked simplicity, the humility to become one with the Church, accepting its weaknesses”. - Pope Benedict on Tertullian
On the one hand, 'a Christian can't really hate', and on the other, there's Tertullian arguing that part of the joy of the blessed will be watching the damned suffer, just like a gladiator show. Yes, Tertullian had... issues. Apparently, it's very difficult to be smart, pious, virtuous, brave, a great lawyer and orator, and also compassionate. Augustine had similar gifts and North African background, though without the advantage of his happier life and good wife. Tertullian did have a big temptation towards gladiatorial games, though, like Augustine's one buddy. But it was Augustine who held out to the end under siege, and Tertullian who broke and ran to his tiny perfect little Spirit-filled sect (which actually did turn as weird and pagan as historical rumor said, according to recent archeology digs). Please pray for the soul of poor proud Tertullian, so torn up and angry. Sometimes it's our strengths that hurt us as well as our weaknesses. - Maureen of "Aliens in This World"
Saints for Modern (& Post-Modern) Souls
I've been lately interested in the concept of counsel, good, bad and neutral. Most of the times I engage in counsel I end up praying afterward: "Lord, undue the damage I probably did."
To find out more about counsel I could've gone to Aquinas as Tom of Disputations might, but that didn't immediately occur to me for reasons of time efficiency. Aquinas, like Tom, requires multiple re-readings.
But I did check the offered Summa link and it turns out that counsel - I now know from St. Thomas via Thomas K. - requires the Holy Spirit's help. I don't always ask for the Spirit's help, in fact mostly I just jump in and give my opinions. And given the particularites of every particular person, the research required in order to know all the repercussions (sort of like Just War theory) would require omniscience, hence St. Thomas says: "Hence in the research of counsel, man requires to be directed by God who comprehends all things." Hence indeed.
My initial foray was to try to find biographies about saints (or near saints) who counseled modern people. I was thinking Mother Teresa, but she dealt mainly with just the very poor and her fellow sisters. I also thought of that Fr. Solanus, but I think he was in a monastery and perhaps didn't come into contact with "ordinary joes". I ruled out Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton (as I type this I recall Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen).
My project is to try to figure out if modern saints are speaking to us in "tough love" terms as Padre Pio mostly did --(see excerpts from book about him yesterday; St. Pio even refused some people who wanted to be his spiritual children for reasons unstated in the book) -- or in a "kindler/gentler" tenderness. Or both.
In other words, I'm wondering if Padre Pio is an anomaly or the modern ideal.
St. Pio's tough love can be exhilarating, in that it tends to increase awe and decrease pride. (The decrease in pride allows one to be satisfied with less, including warm fuzzies from God...being okay with less is the pessimist's contentment.) The natural tendency would be to avoid provoking Padre Pio and yet when Madame Tangari, who is being considered for sainthood herself, neglected to ask him for advice concerning business matters because she didn't want to bother him he said, "But you should have the courage to bother me!" It would seem that courage is not the modernity's strong suit and yet there's obviously no avoiding it.
I'm not sure it's helpful to read saints of other ages or even cultures since times & cultures change. St. Alphonsus Liguori was kind and tender in reaction to rampant Jansenism. St. John Chrysostom was so tough that he recommended foregoing Communion even if you haven't sinned lately; he said you should receive when you are full of the Holy Spirit and good deeds because those qualities are as important as a lack of sin. Doesn't that make you want to recoil in despair?
But one could say that Jansenism is not really our problem today. And of course each individual is very different too, which should cast great suspicion on the whole project, though certainly it can't hurt to be well-versed in what very modern saints are saying, since they speak to us with the voice of God more clearly than those of us whose vision is clouded with sin.
I emailed Steven Riddle about it all and he replied:
I've been lately interested in the concept of counsel, good, bad and neutral. Most of the times I engage in counsel I end up praying afterward: "Lord, undue the damage I probably did."
To find out more about counsel I could've gone to Aquinas as Tom of Disputations might, but that didn't immediately occur to me for reasons of time efficiency. Aquinas, like Tom, requires multiple re-readings.
But I did check the offered Summa link and it turns out that counsel - I now know from St. Thomas via Thomas K. - requires the Holy Spirit's help. I don't always ask for the Spirit's help, in fact mostly I just jump in and give my opinions. And given the particularites of every particular person, the research required in order to know all the repercussions (sort of like Just War theory) would require omniscience, hence St. Thomas says: "Hence in the research of counsel, man requires to be directed by God who comprehends all things." Hence indeed.
My initial foray was to try to find biographies about saints (or near saints) who counseled modern people. I was thinking Mother Teresa, but she dealt mainly with just the very poor and her fellow sisters. I also thought of that Fr. Solanus, but I think he was in a monastery and perhaps didn't come into contact with "ordinary joes". I ruled out Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton (as I type this I recall Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen).
My project is to try to figure out if modern saints are speaking to us in "tough love" terms as Padre Pio mostly did --(see excerpts from book about him yesterday; St. Pio even refused some people who wanted to be his spiritual children for reasons unstated in the book) -- or in a "kindler/gentler" tenderness. Or both.
In other words, I'm wondering if Padre Pio is an anomaly or the modern ideal.
St. Pio's tough love can be exhilarating, in that it tends to increase awe and decrease pride. (The decrease in pride allows one to be satisfied with less, including warm fuzzies from God...being okay with less is the pessimist's contentment.) The natural tendency would be to avoid provoking Padre Pio and yet when Madame Tangari, who is being considered for sainthood herself, neglected to ask him for advice concerning business matters because she didn't want to bother him he said, "But you should have the courage to bother me!" It would seem that courage is not the modernity's strong suit and yet there's obviously no avoiding it.
I'm not sure it's helpful to read saints of other ages or even cultures since times & cultures change. St. Alphonsus Liguori was kind and tender in reaction to rampant Jansenism. St. John Chrysostom was so tough that he recommended foregoing Communion even if you haven't sinned lately; he said you should receive when you are full of the Holy Spirit and good deeds because those qualities are as important as a lack of sin. Doesn't that make you want to recoil in despair?
But one could say that Jansenism is not really our problem today. And of course each individual is very different too, which should cast great suspicion on the whole project, though certainly it can't hurt to be well-versed in what very modern saints are saying, since they speak to us with the voice of God more clearly than those of us whose vision is clouded with sin.
I emailed Steven Riddle about it all and he replied:
My unsubstantiated guess here is that it has less to do with the times and more to do with the personalities of the people, even personalities formed by a stricter faith. I look through time and see about equal numbers of tough-love and tender-love saints. For every John of the Cross/Teresa of Avila (tender love) there is a Catherine of Siena (tough love). So it seems. God calls us to serve through who we are and so that would entail our expression of that reality.
Fiction for a Tuesday: "Hosting Bob Novak"
To be called "the Prince of Darkness" by Washington beltway denizens who carry out the devil's policies while thinking themselves on the side of the angels is to pay Robert D. Novak the ultimate compliment - one that he makes no secret of relishing.
I remember seeing the old codger decades ago when he was celebrating his fortieth year in journalism. I was then in the YAF leadership at a large public university and Novak had been invited by the college to speak. A friend of his wanted to play a joke by letting Novak assume it would be the typical secular audience when instead we were busing conservative kids in from out-of-state so that he'd have a university crowd he'd never seen, one that was to the right politically even of him.
Novak was scheduled to give a brief talk and then open it up to Q & A. The bewilderment on his face was priceless when shortly into his remarks he repudiated Soviet gulags and received applause. In other talks he'd given most of the kids liked the idea of Soviet gulags, at least as far wanting to send Nixon and his cronies there.
He looked like Bernard Lewis up there, balding, with the arch eyebrows and big teeth and loopy grin. You couldn't help but love him. Bill Buckley, who'd set the whole joke up thought every conservative should at least one time know the joy of a packed house of cheering youths instead of jeering ones.
Novak continued with his standard set, roiling against Communism and atheism and arguing for the free market and capital gains cuts. It wasn't long before he came to the conclusion he'd been set up.
"I've been set up," he grinned. But then the crowd turned ugly, on Buckley's pre-arranged signal.
Four youths wearing "Life Begins at Conception" began heckling Novak for not being pro-life enough. (It was well-known that Bob supported National Right to Life, while they supported American Life League.)
The kids approached the podium gesticulating wildly and foaming at the mouth (they'd armed themselves with shaving cream for the foaming effect). They'd also not showered in days so that Bob would get the whiff of body odor. They were removed by campus police after going limp in order to make the officers' jobs more difficult.
They were so realistic that Bob wasn't sure if this was part of the act or not. He began the Q & A segment when protestors demanding an immediate tax cut interrupted him. They'd thought Bob was not strong enough on the issue and had begun chanting "Novak's a sellout, so get the hell out!"
The first question was "What can we do about the threat of the irreligious left?" but before Bob could answer others began chanting:"Sanger lied, children died!"and"Planned Parenthood Emptied Out the 'hood!"Novak kept his composure & Buckley came up to explain the whole gag. It surely was a campus visit Robert Novak will never forget.
June 04, 2007
Memory Lane
Some of the photos from the Ohio Memory website look almost terrifying:
Others not at all, such as Matthew Brady's picture of the 1869 Cincy Reds:
First American ordained priest:
Priest holding up a cross:
Some of the photos from the Ohio Memory website look almost terrifying:
Others not at all, such as Matthew Brady's picture of the 1869 Cincy Reds:
First American ordained priest:
Priest holding up a cross:
Further Pondering the Great Pew Controversy
(See previous post if interested.)
I think it might come down to a simple culture-clash between the Roman & Orthodox cultures. The pastor and I come from a Roman Catholic background. Certainly it's resistance to change that has allowed the Byzantine liturgy to have remained so untampered with over the years as the Roman. (Even the old Latin Rite is an infant compared to the Orthodox.) So there are plusses to that Orthodox mentality and minuses.
Part of the reason I so loved and respected my own beloved Grandma is that she stuck with the RCC thru changes far greater than what the Byzantine parish is seeing. She was so loyal that it breaks my heart. She grew up pre-Vatican II and loved the Latin rite. But she didn't give up. She didn't complain about the changes. She was upset but had deep faith that God would make it right somehow in the end. She was truly a member of the "greatest generation". There's a special place in Heaven for people who stuck with the Bride even when the Bride acted like a devilish whore.
___
Part of it too is this whole notion of pastoral authority. Here's a hypothetical example:
Priest "A" thinks that the purpose of religion is to make us feel better, a kind of therapy. Therefore he wants to make his flock as comfortable as possible. They are building a new church and the flock says they don't want a cross on top of the church because it reminds them of "negative Christianity". They don't want a crucifix inside either. They don't want kneelers, but want a praise band with electric guitar. The priest goes along with all of this because he realizes that they own the parish. It's their parish and they are the ones contributing all the money and sweat-equity. The priest is beloved.
Priest "B" believes he received a calling from God and that the purpose of religion is not to make us feel better but to make us better people, more like Christ. He doesn't think that keeping things exactly the same is the best way to make us better people. He believes that neither he nor the people "own" the parish but believes that God is leading him. He changes a few things around the parish that really irritate people. The priest is hated.
Who do you respect? Which is the better model?
(See previous post if interested.)
I think it might come down to a simple culture-clash between the Roman & Orthodox cultures. The pastor and I come from a Roman Catholic background. Certainly it's resistance to change that has allowed the Byzantine liturgy to have remained so untampered with over the years as the Roman. (Even the old Latin Rite is an infant compared to the Orthodox.) So there are plusses to that Orthodox mentality and minuses.
Part of the reason I so loved and respected my own beloved Grandma is that she stuck with the RCC thru changes far greater than what the Byzantine parish is seeing. She was so loyal that it breaks my heart. She grew up pre-Vatican II and loved the Latin rite. But she didn't give up. She didn't complain about the changes. She was upset but had deep faith that God would make it right somehow in the end. She was truly a member of the "greatest generation". There's a special place in Heaven for people who stuck with the Bride even when the Bride acted like a devilish whore.
___
Part of it too is this whole notion of pastoral authority. Here's a hypothetical example:
Who do you respect? Which is the better model?
Tradition & Sentiment
The Byzantine Catholic parish where I regulary attend is in an uproar because the pastor got rid of the choir loft and four pews in back. He said it was for aesthetic reasons but that he also wanted more room in the rear of church for processions and prayers.
When some of the parishioners arrived at church Sunday they broke down aghast. One cried loudly, "What have they done to my church? This is a barn!"
This is a barn! I seem to be collecting a lot of "you can't make it up" moments lately. Four pews = a barn. The Orthodox (or Byzantines) are so resistant to change that removing pews in back is tantamount to heresy. (Though, to be fair, I've done no polling on how many in the parish are upset about it.)
As usual, my church friend would go to his death to defend elderly babushkas. He feels their pain and again I am cast as the "cold conservative". I'm actually not a big fan of tough love since I don't like it practiced much on me, but come on: four pews = your-life-is-ruined? Has self-pity reached epidemic proportions? Does it seek a target even if the target is minutiae?
I suppose I'm fascinated by St. Pio for the same reason I read Tom of Disputations*. They are both so spare & unsentimental when it comes to matters of faith. Neither would be waving banners of protest over the pastor's reckless and mean-spirited church remodel.
Here's an example of St. Padre Pio's modus operandi, from "Stories of Padre Pio" (thanks Elena!):
* - UPDATE: One should not read this post without reading the clarifications posited here. (And yes, I should've distinguished between blog and blogger at the very least.) Perhaps St. Pio could counsel so effectively because of the gift of being able to read men's souls, to see the besetting sins people brought to the confessional. To see, in a word, not only the particulars but the capabilities of the sinner. For example, Fr. Peter Joseph writes:
The Byzantine Catholic parish where I regulary attend is in an uproar because the pastor got rid of the choir loft and four pews in back. He said it was for aesthetic reasons but that he also wanted more room in the rear of church for processions and prayers.
When some of the parishioners arrived at church Sunday they broke down aghast. One cried loudly, "What have they done to my church? This is a barn!"
This is a barn! I seem to be collecting a lot of "you can't make it up" moments lately. Four pews = a barn. The Orthodox (or Byzantines) are so resistant to change that removing pews in back is tantamount to heresy. (Though, to be fair, I've done no polling on how many in the parish are upset about it.)
As usual, my church friend would go to his death to defend elderly babushkas. He feels their pain and again I am cast as the "cold conservative". I'm actually not a big fan of tough love since I don't like it practiced much on me, but come on: four pews = your-life-is-ruined? Has self-pity reached epidemic proportions? Does it seek a target even if the target is minutiae?
I suppose I'm fascinated by St. Pio for the same reason I read Tom of Disputations*. They are both so spare & unsentimental when it comes to matters of faith. Neither would be waving banners of protest over the pastor's reckless and mean-spirited church remodel.
Here's an example of St. Padre Pio's modus operandi, from "Stories of Padre Pio" (thanks Elena!):
The person most anxious to describe her own experience (of Padre Pio) was a distinguished lady from Genoa, who was supposed to have made her Confession to Padre Pio that morning. However, when her turn came, the only thing she could say was, 'Padre Pio, four years ago I lost my husband and I haven't gone to church since then.'Another story about a man whose son was killed:
'Because you lost your husband, you also lost God? Go away! Go away!' Padre Pio had told her brusquely, and he quickly closed the grates of the confessional without giving her any further attention.
The woman could not believe her ears, because nobody ever dared speak to her that way. What could she do? All she could do was get up and go away. She had made a long trip from Genoa and had to wait several days until her turn came and the only words Padre Pio had had for her were, 'Go away!' The death of husband had been too great a blow for her after so many years of a happy marriage, which had never been darkened by any shadow. She had thought Padre Pio would understand her pain for the loss of her husband and give her the comfort of a good word. Instead, to her disappointment, she had been sent away - and in such a way!
When she left Padre Pio's confessional, however, she suddenly felt a very keen desire to be reconciled with God. So she went back to one of the other friars and explained her situation to him. That same morning she made, in her own words, the best Confession of her life. She was very happy, and she attributed the merit of the recovery of her faith to the way Padre Pio had treated her. She then received Holy Communion from Padre Pio himself, her first one after years away from the Sacraments.
The day she left San Giovanni Rotondo, she came across Padre Pio again, and this time he gave her some words of encouragement, followed by his blessing. Thus, she too was able to go home with a content and serene heart.
For years I had abandoned my family - my wife, my daughter and my son - and I lived with a woman. My life was in chaos; nothing was sacred to me anymore. And then, all of a sudden, misfortune! There I was, oppressed by such despair that the memory of Padre Pio's name seemed like an anchor of salvation!...I got on my knees as if to go to Confession- but without the slightest intention of making a real Confession- and I said to him: 'Padre Pio, they have killed my only son!'____
I said that because I wanted a word of comfort from him. But Padre Pio, looking at me sternly, had only this brief question for me:
'And that's not enough for you?'
I was struck by these words, and I understood in an instant what I had not understood for many years. My entire life with all its errors stood before me.
'Yes, Padre Pio!' I answered.
'What are you waiting for? he asked me. I understood what he meant by that, and I asked him if he could hear my Confession.
Since then I have been the happiest man in the world, in spite of my great mourning. I had hoped to find comfrot and consolation from him, but he gave me much more: he completely transformed me!
Now I'm going back to my home, to my wife, to my daughter...I'm going home with a serene heart!
* - UPDATE: One should not read this post without reading the clarifications posited here. (And yes, I should've distinguished between blog and blogger at the very least.) Perhaps St. Pio could counsel so effectively because of the gift of being able to read men's souls, to see the besetting sins people brought to the confessional. To see, in a word, not only the particulars but the capabilities of the sinner. For example, Fr. Peter Joseph writes:
Padre Pio was asked once why he did not heal a close relative, a young man, of an ongoing illness. He replied, "If he were cured, he would come to love this life too much and his soul would be lost." It is not given to ordinary mortals to know the secret designs of Providence, but a simple story like this one gives us a glimpse into God's ways and into how He draws good from evil, even if we do not see it in this life.Tom links to St. Thomas (surprise!). Counsel, Aquinas says, is a gift of the Holy Spirit. In response to the anticipated objection of:
"Now for the purpose of taking counsel, man is sufficiently perfected by the virtue of prudence, or even of euboulia (deliberating well)...Therefore counsel should not be reckoned among the gifts of the Holy Ghost..."he replies: "
Since, however, human reason is unable to grasp the singular and contingent things which may occur, the result is that "the thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain" (Wisdom 9:14). Hence in the research of counsel, man requires to be directed by God who comprehends all things: and this is done through the gift of counsel, whereby man is directed as though counseled by God."
June 01, 2007
Links
I scored 67% on this true art or fake art? quiz.
* * *
Men without women is nicht zu gut.
* * *
"After you!"..."No, after you."..."You first, I insist.."
It's hillary-arious that Hillary waited to record her "No" vote for the war funding bill after Obama. Politico says, "Reporters assumed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois would vote against the final version of the war funding bill, since he’s never had a piece of the war. With Clinton, there was more drama."
Clinton voted minutes after, presumably to avoid providing a wedge issue for Obama. Nothing quite says 'authenticity' like a Clinton, 'eh? And yet Rush Limbaugh says he thinks there's an 80% chance she'll be elected, as does Robert Novak. Oy vey, I guess we get the politicians we deserve.
I scored 67% on this true art or fake art? quiz.
Men without women is nicht zu gut.
"After you!"..."No, after you."..."You first, I insist.."
It's hillary-arious that Hillary waited to record her "No" vote for the war funding bill after Obama. Politico says, "Reporters assumed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois would vote against the final version of the war funding bill, since he’s never had a piece of the war. With Clinton, there was more drama."
Clinton voted minutes after, presumably to avoid providing a wedge issue for Obama. Nothing quite says 'authenticity' like a Clinton, 'eh? And yet Rush Limbaugh says he thinks there's an 80% chance she'll be elected, as does Robert Novak. Oy vey, I guess we get the politicians we deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)