Dressing like a Doofus
A good post by Old Oligarch is being noticed by lots of bloggers. That’s good. It’s shameful, the way some women dress for Mass. The "fashion" failings of women are bound up with sexual vanity. But the failings of men are bound up with a casual contempt for the duties of religion. The women preen, the men shirk. It resembles Eden, I think. There’s Eve, preening over her impending self-divinization. And over there we see Adam the coward, scuffing the dirt with his toe, shirking his duty to the whole freaking universe. A lot of women dress like Eve for Mass. And a lot of men dress like Adam. Herewith my comment on the male half of the phenomenon.
I get tired of watching T-shirted men sandal-flopping up to the altar like they were in line for beer and brats. I don’t understand why polo shirts and blue jeans are acceptable attire for an audience with the King of Kings. I don’t see why a man can’t take fifteen minutes to shave (or trim his beard) before going to Mass. These guys wouldn’t dress that way to bury their mothers, but they dress like that to see the God-Man die for their sins? Only adolescents and fools would treat the occasion so, and men who dress like that should never complain about the scant attention the Church pays to their masculinity -- they should expect instead to remain marginalized adolescents and doofuses.
Take a moment to consider the clothing of powerful men, men who are doing significant public things. They don’t wear T-Shirts, cargo shorts or sneakers. When and if they ever do it’s only because they want to reassure you that it doesn’t matter if you’re average and they’re not. When it’s important, when their reputations and positions are on the line, they wear jackets, ties, and dress shoes. Because that, my brothers, is the clothing a man wears when his reputation and position is on the line, the clothing that says that he’s a man, he’s serious, and he’s doing something significant. The difference is that in the Mass none of us are average and all of us are doing something important, significant, and public. Chosen generation? Royal priesthood? Holy nation? Any of that ring a bell, doofus?
I’ve heard all the predictable replies to this complaint. "Some people can’t buy fancy clothes." Buddy, this isn’t about the quality of your clothes, but the message sent by their form. If you can’t afford a $1,500.00 suit, then by all means don’t buy one. Buy the $70 blue polyester jacket at Target. If you can’t afford a $70.00 jacket at Target, then try and get one from Goodwill or some similar outfit. And whatever you do, spend $5.00 on a tie and wear it with a collared shirt. Wear real shoes. Wear a belt or suspenders (but never both), and pants which aren’t blue jeans. You can even ditch the jacket if the temperature’s over 80 and the Church doesn’t have air conditioning.
"I don’t want to clutter my religion with all those status symbols and rules." Yeah, friend, sure -- that’s why you’re wearing Birkenstocks and fashionable golf shirts. It’s why every item on your person has a label: You’re completely unconcerned with status. When you dress like you’re going out with your buddies for a beer, you’re telling me that Jesus is one of your beer buddies. I know guys who think that way. They’re all doofuses. And rules? I hereby give you ALL the rules. Jacket. Shirt with Collar. Tie. Pants which aren’t blue jeans. Belt or suspenders, but never both. Socks in any color except white or colors of the rainbow. Brown, black or burgundy shoes that cover your toes. Those are the rules. The rest either comes naturally, or not, but either way you’ve got more dignity than somebody who comes to Mass in clothes he bought at the Pro Shop.
"Jesus doesn’t care about things like that." Yes He does. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." If your clothing says you don’t need to impress anyone, even Him, with care and attention to your person and the most dignified clothing you can find, then you’re not in love. If your clothes say the Mass is nothing more than a dinner and a movie, then you’re not showing much awareness of your soul. And if you really do want to live up to Him, and you really do think the Mass is a big deal, but you’re dressing to give the opposite message, then you’re not worshiping Him with your mind. Any way you cut it, your cargo shorts and "This T-Shirt Was Made from Hemp" getup is a proclamation of an individual, personal failure to pay respect. Be faithful in the little things, like your clothing, and you might just get a chance to be faithful in larger things, like being the spiritual head of a marriage.
"Oh, so you want us to wear suits for daily Mass, and then change into work clothes?" Through an imaginary pharisaism, one can turn any obligation into a ridiculous burden and then shrug it off, confident that Jesus doesn’t want all that "mindless and oppressive formalism." No, I don’t want you to don a suit for daily Mass and change at your workplace, although I’d be impressed if you did. Worn before, during, or right after work uniforms, scrubs, and work clothes are honest. They’re St. Joseph’s clothing. They say you’re supporting your family but have taken time from your day to worship the God who gave you a family to support. But on Sundays and Holy Days? On days when you don’t have to work? I don’t see you wearing Dickies or Timberlands then. I see you wearing the teenager’s sockless shoes, the little boy’s baggy shorts and -- perhaps worst of all -- golf clothing, the "regular guy’s" sartorial paean to blandness and mediocrity. I see you choosing to dress like a doofus.
"In other cultures . . . ." Oh, shut up. Just shut up. Or move there. I don’t give a damn which it is, just pick one or the other.
"This is perfectly acceptable attire. Men do wear polo shirts and blue jeans to callings, funerals, weddings, and public celebrations of all kinds." Yes, that’s true. And I know men who chew tobacco at all these events. I have nothing against chewing tobacco. I chew tobacco. (Snuff, actually.) It’s relaxing, and conducive to good marksmanship. But indulging the habit at such times is wrong. It’s wrong because it says that what’s happening "HERE" and "NOW" is not enough, not sufficiently riveting, to completely involve one. It says he has a capacity for interest and participation which isn’t quite being filled by the funeral of a friend’s loved one, a wedding, or the unveiling of a war memorial. Or it says that his limited capacity for interested participation is so consumed by chaw that he can’t really notice that people are grieving, new lives are beginning, or that communal allegiances are being forged and renewed. It is simply not done, and the man who does it is a hick, clod, berk and a boor. He's a doofus, and he's a doofus even if he's surrounded by other doofuses who’re also toting expectorated fluids around in little styrofoam coffee cups. Blue jeans and polo shirts don’t display the best and highest in a man’s interest, attentiveness, and respect. It doesn’t matter how many other guys are giving less than their best. Manliness is what you do when no one else has your back.
Before it’s said I’m being snotty, I’ll say it first. I’ve dressed like a doofus for Mass. It’s not something I’m proud of. Fortunately, it’s something I haven’t done in a while and don’t intend to do in future. In fact, writing this has made me aware that I’ve been . . . well, not slipping, but on the verge, so to speak, of slipping. If I don’t watch myself, and don’t make a conscious effort to put that Land’s End polo back in the closet, then someday my guardian angel will take a spiritual picture of me in flip-flops, parachute shorts, and a SexWax T-Shirt preparing to receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Then I’ll have to spend one or two hundred years in purgatory staring at that picture, being whipped with the leather belt I didn’t wear, agonized at how I could ever have been so nonchalant in the very presence of God. Don’t let this happen to someone you know. Suck it up, and knot the tie. Friends don’t let friends dress casual.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Sunday, July 25, 2004
C'mon Over! . . . .
I will be giving a presentation on the Immaculate Conception of our Lady at St. Charles Borromeo Church in Coldwater, Michigan on Sunday, August 1.
Blogging will be light until afterwards. If you can come, I’d really enjoy meeting you!
I will be giving a presentation on the Immaculate Conception of our Lady at St. Charles Borromeo Church in Coldwater, Michigan on Sunday, August 1.
Blogging will be light until afterwards. If you can come, I’d really enjoy meeting you!
I Was Sorry to Learn about This
Jerry Golsdmith died on July 21, 2004. He studied under the master movie composer Miklos Rosza (Ben Hur, King of Kings, Dragnet, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, etc.). Goldsmith composed moving, memorable, hauntng scores for all genres of film . His work includes the music to The Hindenburg, Hoosiers, Alien and Aliens, L.A. Confidential, Rudy, Not Without My Daughter, The Russia House, Rambo, Outland, Masada, MacArthur, Patton, The Boys from Brazil, The Wind and the Lion, Chinatown, Papillon, The Planet of the Apes, The Blue Max and Lillies of the Field.
He wrote music (including some themes) for lots of television shows, too. Such as Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Police Story, Barnaby Jones, The Waltons, Room 222, Man from U.N.C.L.E., Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Dr. Kildare, Twilight Zone, Wagon Train and Perry Mason.
He won only a single Oscar, for his frightening score to the silly and execrable movie, "Omen." (I remember being able to dissolve my high-school friends into fits of laughter by hissing, "Dandy Christ! Dandy Christ!"). In a way, that's fitting: Goldsmith wrote lots of wonderful music for lots of really dumb films I haven’t mentioned in my lists.
Goldsmith’s influence lives on, IMHO, in the work of composers like James Horner (Braveheart, Apollo 13, The Perfect Storm). I will really miss hearing his compositions. I hope someday they’ll release all of them on CD, not just medleys and snippets as with some scores, but all of them. Especially his score to The Hindenburg which is just beautiful. Rest in peace, Jerry Goldsmith, and may I attend one of you concerts in Heaven.
Jerry Golsdmith died on July 21, 2004. He studied under the master movie composer Miklos Rosza (Ben Hur, King of Kings, Dragnet, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, etc.). Goldsmith composed moving, memorable, hauntng scores for all genres of film . His work includes the music to The Hindenburg, Hoosiers, Alien and Aliens, L.A. Confidential, Rudy, Not Without My Daughter, The Russia House, Rambo, Outland, Masada, MacArthur, Patton, The Boys from Brazil, The Wind and the Lion, Chinatown, Papillon, The Planet of the Apes, The Blue Max and Lillies of the Field.
He wrote music (including some themes) for lots of television shows, too. Such as Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Police Story, Barnaby Jones, The Waltons, Room 222, Man from U.N.C.L.E., Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Dr. Kildare, Twilight Zone, Wagon Train and Perry Mason.
He won only a single Oscar, for his frightening score to the silly and execrable movie, "Omen." (I remember being able to dissolve my high-school friends into fits of laughter by hissing, "Dandy Christ! Dandy Christ!"). In a way, that's fitting: Goldsmith wrote lots of wonderful music for lots of really dumb films I haven’t mentioned in my lists.
Goldsmith’s influence lives on, IMHO, in the work of composers like James Horner (Braveheart, Apollo 13, The Perfect Storm). I will really miss hearing his compositions. I hope someday they’ll release all of them on CD, not just medleys and snippets as with some scores, but all of them. Especially his score to The Hindenburg which is just beautiful. Rest in peace, Jerry Goldsmith, and may I attend one of you concerts in Heaven.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Irascible Look at Goofy News
Activists are trying to prevent spraying for mosquitos: "We will continue to say pesticides are toxic at any dose -- please stop making us sick," said Whiteman, who says she suffers from sensitivity to chemicals." My dear, of course pesticides are toxic. They’re supposed to be toxic. What would you like them to spray mosquitos with? Something inert, like the stuff between John Kerry’s synapses?
From a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s "Girlie Man" comment: "Originally popularized in a Schwarzenegger-inspired Saturday Night Live skit about a pair of fitness gurus, the governor's use of the term "girlie men" angered legislators, gays and women's groups." Apparently, this shoe fit.
Canada goes postal over mailman-shaped dog treats: "The pet store chain, which has 292 outlets in Canada, agreed to withdraw the treats after it received a letter from Canada Post saying that employees were concerned about the risks mail carriers face from dogs and unhappy with having dog biscuits shaped in their likeness." A Canadian study commission has proposed replacing the biscuits with treats shaped like Christians. "These new biscuits aren’t for lions," said Jack Cretin, head of Canada’s Commission for Peace and Tolerance, "but we’re working on that."
Billy Crystal's new movie: "When Valkyrie Met Neibelungen."More than 80 percent of single German women are perfectly happy without a man in tow . . . the survey of 1,003 women showed only two percent did not enjoy their solitary lifestyle and 36 percent opted to stay single because it was more fun. Almost half the women said they preferred single life because it was easier to keep their homes tidy and 36 percent said . . . they didn't have to endure watching sports on television. A sign of the decline of the West? Inroads of ungldoy individualism? Perhaps. But if your alternative is Arnold Schwarzenneger . . . .
Planned Parenthood lowers the bar on pedophilia . . . [P]eople e-mailed or called to complain about the project in which older teens were allowed to make condom necklaces fashioned of nylon netting, condom packets and pipecleaners. Planned Parenthood representatives said the activity was aimed at removing the stigma and secrecy from contraceptive use. "The intent is to make condoms a normal part of life," said Paul Robinson, community relations director. "You do what attracts the older youth." The necklace project was so popular among older teens that the booth ran out of supplies, said Deanna Leitner, public affairs field organizer with Planned Parenthood. But younger children were not allowed to make the necklaces or take free condoms. "We were talking about condoms and being safe," she said. "I'm certainly not doing what I'm accused of doing, which is distributing condoms to very young children." First Planned Parenthood draws the line at "older youth," then "older teens," then "younger children," and finally "very young children." But it shouldn’t be thought that these people lack morals. They absolutely refuse to distribute condoms to unborn children.
"This is my breast implant. There are many like it, but this one is mine . . .": "[M]embers of all four branches of the U.S. military can get face-lifts, breast enlargements, liposuction and nose jobs for free -- something the military says helps surgeons practice their skills." This is the kind of story that leaves me in doubt about what to do. Quote Plutarch’s account of the orders Caesar gave his legionaries before the battle of Pharsalia? (Caesar ordered them to "strike . . . upwards into the eyes and faces of the enemy; telling them that those fine young dancers would never endure the steel shining in their eyes, but would fly to save their handsome faces.") Or lament that a hundred billion dollars’ worth of sophisticated and destructive weaponry is being entrusted to youngsters so witless that they’d let Army plastic surgeons "practice" on them?
MAN ATTACKED BY MIDGET LAWYER!!!!"Peter Fischel, a marine biologist at the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, said that barracudas are not usually aggressive toward humans. "It's quite a myth that they go out and attack people," Fischel said. "Generally, it's a mistake by the fish when they bite someone.". That’s what we all say until we can swim really, really close.
Activists are trying to prevent spraying for mosquitos: "We will continue to say pesticides are toxic at any dose -- please stop making us sick," said Whiteman, who says she suffers from sensitivity to chemicals." My dear, of course pesticides are toxic. They’re supposed to be toxic. What would you like them to spray mosquitos with? Something inert, like the stuff between John Kerry’s synapses?
From a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s "Girlie Man" comment: "Originally popularized in a Schwarzenegger-inspired Saturday Night Live skit about a pair of fitness gurus, the governor's use of the term "girlie men" angered legislators, gays and women's groups." Apparently, this shoe fit.
Canada goes postal over mailman-shaped dog treats: "The pet store chain, which has 292 outlets in Canada, agreed to withdraw the treats after it received a letter from Canada Post saying that employees were concerned about the risks mail carriers face from dogs and unhappy with having dog biscuits shaped in their likeness." A Canadian study commission has proposed replacing the biscuits with treats shaped like Christians. "These new biscuits aren’t for lions," said Jack Cretin, head of Canada’s Commission for Peace and Tolerance, "but we’re working on that."
Billy Crystal's new movie: "When Valkyrie Met Neibelungen."More than 80 percent of single German women are perfectly happy without a man in tow . . . the survey of 1,003 women showed only two percent did not enjoy their solitary lifestyle and 36 percent opted to stay single because it was more fun. Almost half the women said they preferred single life because it was easier to keep their homes tidy and 36 percent said . . . they didn't have to endure watching sports on television. A sign of the decline of the West? Inroads of ungldoy individualism? Perhaps. But if your alternative is Arnold Schwarzenneger . . . .
Planned Parenthood lowers the bar on pedophilia . . . [P]eople e-mailed or called to complain about the project in which older teens were allowed to make condom necklaces fashioned of nylon netting, condom packets and pipecleaners. Planned Parenthood representatives said the activity was aimed at removing the stigma and secrecy from contraceptive use. "The intent is to make condoms a normal part of life," said Paul Robinson, community relations director. "You do what attracts the older youth." The necklace project was so popular among older teens that the booth ran out of supplies, said Deanna Leitner, public affairs field organizer with Planned Parenthood. But younger children were not allowed to make the necklaces or take free condoms. "We were talking about condoms and being safe," she said. "I'm certainly not doing what I'm accused of doing, which is distributing condoms to very young children." First Planned Parenthood draws the line at "older youth," then "older teens," then "younger children," and finally "very young children." But it shouldn’t be thought that these people lack morals. They absolutely refuse to distribute condoms to unborn children.
"This is my breast implant. There are many like it, but this one is mine . . .": "[M]embers of all four branches of the U.S. military can get face-lifts, breast enlargements, liposuction and nose jobs for free -- something the military says helps surgeons practice their skills." This is the kind of story that leaves me in doubt about what to do. Quote Plutarch’s account of the orders Caesar gave his legionaries before the battle of Pharsalia? (Caesar ordered them to "strike . . . upwards into the eyes and faces of the enemy; telling them that those fine young dancers would never endure the steel shining in their eyes, but would fly to save their handsome faces.") Or lament that a hundred billion dollars’ worth of sophisticated and destructive weaponry is being entrusted to youngsters so witless that they’d let Army plastic surgeons "practice" on them?
MAN ATTACKED BY MIDGET LAWYER!!!!"Peter Fischel, a marine biologist at the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, said that barracudas are not usually aggressive toward humans. "It's quite a myth that they go out and attack people," Fischel said. "Generally, it's a mistake by the fish when they bite someone.". That’s what we all say until we can swim really, really close.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Reader Input Requested!!!!!!!
I’m speaking about the Immaculate Conception at the end of the month, and it occurred to me that I should ask blog readers if there’s any questions, issues, or problems they might have about the dogma that they’d like to have answered. If so, could you use the comment boxes or my email address to ask/discuss them? I promise to answer in writing too, not just incorporate them into my presentation.
Also, I’ve heard that Santayana had some interesting things to say about Protestant opposition to marian devotions. Does anyone know a link or a source? Thanks.
I’m speaking about the Immaculate Conception at the end of the month, and it occurred to me that I should ask blog readers if there’s any questions, issues, or problems they might have about the dogma that they’d like to have answered. If so, could you use the comment boxes or my email address to ask/discuss them? I promise to answer in writing too, not just incorporate them into my presentation.
Also, I’ve heard that Santayana had some interesting things to say about Protestant opposition to marian devotions. Does anyone know a link or a source? Thanks.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Brief Scan of the Modern Church
Fr. Dowd proves that he’s a crank who just doesn’t understand modern civilization. We’re not supposed to get rid of the lice-ridden drunk. We’re supposed to spend hours letting him talk to us, invite him to our dinner tables and let him sleep in our childrens’ bedrooms. If we don’t, people will think we won’t reconcile ourselves, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
The Mighty Barrister impermissibly attempts to draw parallels between a bishop’s using the Eucharist as a "weapon" to protect the Church during the fight over integrating Catholic schools and more recent controversies. Poor Barrister; doesn’t he realize that analogies with the civil rights are only allowed to promote same-sex marriages? Obviously, the man won’t reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
Dale Price apparently has some sort of problem with strong, independent women who can think and choose for themselves. Really, Dale, don’t you think you’re a bit over the top comparing a woman who can slice up two of her three children to an SS selection officer? If we keep thinking that way, we won’t reconcile ourselves, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
Fr. Rob Johansen has been silly enough to trace society’s openness to same-sex marriage back to society’s embrace of contraception and no-fault divorce laws. Good grief! Is there no end to the intellectual anarchy produced by Catholicism? Guess Fr. Rob hasn’t reconciled himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
Well, that’s the Catholic Church for you, all topsy-turvey and misguided ever since the modernists took over.
Fr. Dowd proves that he’s a crank who just doesn’t understand modern civilization. We’re not supposed to get rid of the lice-ridden drunk. We’re supposed to spend hours letting him talk to us, invite him to our dinner tables and let him sleep in our childrens’ bedrooms. If we don’t, people will think we won’t reconcile ourselves, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
The Mighty Barrister impermissibly attempts to draw parallels between a bishop’s using the Eucharist as a "weapon" to protect the Church during the fight over integrating Catholic schools and more recent controversies. Poor Barrister; doesn’t he realize that analogies with the civil rights are only allowed to promote same-sex marriages? Obviously, the man won’t reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
Dale Price apparently has some sort of problem with strong, independent women who can think and choose for themselves. Really, Dale, don’t you think you’re a bit over the top comparing a woman who can slice up two of her three children to an SS selection officer? If we keep thinking that way, we won’t reconcile ourselves, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
Fr. Rob Johansen has been silly enough to trace society’s openness to same-sex marriage back to society’s embrace of contraception and no-fault divorce laws. Good grief! Is there no end to the intellectual anarchy produced by Catholicism? Guess Fr. Rob hasn’t reconciled himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.
Well, that’s the Catholic Church for you, all topsy-turvey and misguided ever since the modernists took over.
Monday, July 19, 2004
My Two Cents on the Baptisms of Arians
Random Catholic, in comment to my blog on baptism immediately below, asks as follows:
I say "pure" Arianism because it was a slippery doctrine, its tendrils variously rooted in the subtleties of Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics as well as equally-subtle misunderstandings of those metaphysics. It can be very difficult to pin down all those variations, quasi-departures, and sub-deviations. Even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article you quote from NewAdvent is forced to hedge his evaulations with words that indicate he’s summarizing, construing, and placing various perspectives on Arian theology as necessary to define its error. For example, the sentence you quote is preceded by a summary in which the author accounts for the "drift" and tenor of Arian ideas, qualifying his analysis with the statement that the sentence is the "genuine" doctrine of Arius. Even then, he must conclude by saying these heretical tenets were held by the "Arian sectaries who reasoned logically." In short, the author’s summary is limited by the fact that Arians made up their theology as they went along, modifying and altering it frequently to suit challenges of opponents and the perceived necessities of its own terms. In so doing, Arianism developed any number of distinguishable sub-schools and movements whose ideas may or may not have directly mimicked the proposition so bluntly summarized and put into the mouths of the "Arian sectaries who reasoned logically." If there were Arians who reasoned logically, surely there were Arians who reasoned illogically, nonsensically maintaining divnity in Jesus despite the logical consequences of their initial views which are so readily and easily identified after the time. Cardinal Newman notes that this is the way of all development of doctrine -- true and false doctrine. He does not say that doctrine can be known to be true or false depending simply on whether it develops -- heresy and orthodoxy both develop themselves according to the typical and universal conditions of debate, discussion, uncertainty, deduction, and induction which are involved in human activity. Newman resorts to other criteria than the fact of "development" to prove that one or another strain of Christian thinking is inauthentic, a "false" development as opposed to a true development. Consequently, the Pope’s ruling on the validity of Arian baptism cannot be read as a straightforward answer to the question: "Can a valid baptism deny the binding teaching of the Church on the godhood of Jesus Christ." The state of Arian and orthodoxy thinking was much more nuanced, complicated, and diverse for that to stand as a summary of the issue the Pope faced.
The author whose article you quoted goes on, almost immediately, to distinguish the bulk of what can be called "Arianism" from the stark tenet he derives for the "sectaries who reasoned logically."
The situation Pope Siricius faced, therefore, was not a pat, cut-and-dried question well and easily settled by more than a thousand years of research and magisterial development. It was a fluid and confused situation populated by all the kinds of error one sees in the Church today on other issues. I know of Catholics who are baptized and confirmed in RCIA who believe, quite wrongly, that contraception is a matter of personal choice. Yet they profess, as part of the rite, that they hold and believe everything the Church teaches and believes. Do they have a defect of intent, or a defect in understanding about what that intention requires? They sincerely and genuinely believe that Jesus Christ established and founded the Roman Catholic Church and made the Bishop of Rome the visible head of that Church on earth. They sincerely and genuinely believe that they must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. But they have been betrayed by false or stupid teachers into not realizing that their intention -- to believe in communion with the Pope -- requires them to condemn and eschew contraception. Their baptisms are valid, even though their faith is materially heretical. So, I think, with the Arians living sixty years after Nicea. Few, if any, of them were hard, "logically-reasoning" Arians who flatly and completely denied the redeeming divinity of our Lord. They had been betrayed by false or stupid teachers into not realizing that their belief in that divinity demanded and required other beliefs about Him as well.
In this regard it’s worth noting that baptism, like all the sacraments, is less of a reward than an act of condescending mercy -- we do not receive communion or baptism because we are right-acting, decent, and doctrinally-sound folks. Even if we are all those things, and we should strive to be so, we’re still unworthy of the divine communion that occurs in the Mass, of the absolving mercy that is expressed in Baptism. We have all those wonderful things not because we’re "ready" to have them, but because God gives them to us despite our unreadiness. God absolves me today in the confessional, even though He knows I will sin next week. He grants me a proleptic share in the life of the Trinity this Sunday even though He knows that I have very sloppy, stupid and incorrect beliefs about this or that subject of dogmatic theology. This isn’t an argument for valuing indifferentism or sloth of conscience; it’s meant to point out that all Christian life is essentially a witness to God’s sovereignty and our enduring need for His undeserved mercy. Even the Incarnation whose nature was disputed by the Arians and the others was an act of undeserved condescencion by God. As He reaches out to us in our sins, overcoming them, undoing their presence in our souls, so He also reaches out to us in our foibles, stupidies, and obstinacies, undoing their presence in our minds. In His time, of course, which is oddly incongruent with our expectations. We cannot grant baptism in the name of the Trinity to someone who doesn’t believe the fullness of the Gospel teaching on the Trinity. We cannot grant it even if we know that baptism in the name of that same Trinity will be efficiacious despite his positive ignorance. But this is as much a part of our own conscientious duty to honor God as we know Him as it is a part of the candidate’s formation and eligibility for the sacrament. If God has suffered some of His children to be claimed for the Trinity by heretical ministers (Arian baptisms followed the Trinitarian formula), our duty to approve or disapprove of the act has been vacated by circumstances not of our making. It only remains for us to follow the commandment that baptism, however stupid or ill-formed a recipient may be as regarding the more advanced realms of human theological knowledge about the Nicene meaning of homoousion, admits him into membership in the Church. Pope St. Siricius was doing no more than following this law, recapitulated some 900 years later by St. Thomas: "[R]ight faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God." Summa, III, a. 68, q. 8.
Homoousion was the word chosen by the Nicene fathers to express the unity of Son and Father. A further glimpse of the theological quagmire of orthodoxy’s relationship with Arians and Semi-Arians can be gained by looking up the word in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
This permissible difference between orthodoxy and an imperfect conception of it is implied by the very teaching that, in order to be valid, the minister of the sacrament must have the intention of doing what the Church does. Christ is the final minister of all the sacraments to everyone; His priests and (in the case of Baptism) lay disciples minister these sacraments as His servants. (See, e.g. Summa, III, a. 64, q. 1). Now, consider the servant whose master tells him to store hay in a loft against the coming winter. If the servant were better educated, more quick of wit, he would know that his master does not wish him to pick up each straw individually and carry it to the loft. Nor would the servant entertain all sorts of silly ideas given to him by equally uneducated (or even wicked) fellow-workers about how each straw must, upon arriving in the loft, be sorted and stacked with other straws according to length. And he would not have listened to their silly or malicious stories about how the hay will be used in the winter time to make gold cloth. But the servant doesn’t know all this -- he’s ignorant, misinformed, and not particularly acute to begin with -- and so he spends the next fifty days carrying straws up into the loft and sorting them by length. Yet with all this stupidity, error, and departure from the truth, the servant still intends to do what his master is doing -- getting the hay into the loft to be used in the coming winter. So with the sacrament of baptism (or all the sacraments, in their various ways); if the minister knows that he is to baptize with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in order to bring a child into unity with God and His Church, then he has the intention of doing what the Church does even if he has really bad ideas about some of the particulars which follow the event.
If orthodoxy were required, then the formula would be quite different. It would be said that in order for a sacrament to be valid, the minister must act in unity of belief and doctrine with the Church, and that would be Donatism by another name with all its attendant difficulties. There was a time when Dominicans hotly disagreed with the idea of Mary’s Immaculate Conception -- how could their baptisms have been valid, if the constant and orthodox faith of Christ’s bride, expressed in Ineffabilis Deus, was otherwise? They couldn’t have been, unless we adopted a definition of "unity with the Church’s doctrine" that very closely mirrored the actual requirement and its ability to tolerate some ministerial deviation from doctrinal purity. So I don’t think Pope St. Siricius dropped the ball on this one. I think he ended up saying what St. Thomas said 900 years later. And who can be a heretic if he says what St. Thomas says? :))
Random Catholic, in comment to my blog on baptism immediately below, asks as follows:
Wurt? Arian baptisms were valid? From New Advent:I think Pope St. Siricius' decision should be set in its proper context. First, while modern writers have concise summaries of Arianism, and while we can easily compare the fruits of that scholarship with the equally-concise definitive teaching of the Church, things at the time could be rather less clear. This is a case in which we must "rewind" our understanding and put ourselves in the shoes of an ordinary Christian living without the benefit of Catechisms, the fully-developed Magisterium which produces them -- or even (perhaps) the Council of Nicea itself, the magisterial act by which pure Arianism was declared heresy in such a way as to bind all Christian consciences.
"Using Greek terms, (Arianism) denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity."
How is baptizing in the name of such a god not a defect of intent? Watchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?
I say "pure" Arianism because it was a slippery doctrine, its tendrils variously rooted in the subtleties of Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics as well as equally-subtle misunderstandings of those metaphysics. It can be very difficult to pin down all those variations, quasi-departures, and sub-deviations. Even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article you quote from NewAdvent is forced to hedge his evaulations with words that indicate he’s summarizing, construing, and placing various perspectives on Arian theology as necessary to define its error. For example, the sentence you quote is preceded by a summary in which the author accounts for the "drift" and tenor of Arian ideas, qualifying his analysis with the statement that the sentence is the "genuine" doctrine of Arius. Even then, he must conclude by saying these heretical tenets were held by the "Arian sectaries who reasoned logically." In short, the author’s summary is limited by the fact that Arians made up their theology as they went along, modifying and altering it frequently to suit challenges of opponents and the perceived necessities of its own terms. In so doing, Arianism developed any number of distinguishable sub-schools and movements whose ideas may or may not have directly mimicked the proposition so bluntly summarized and put into the mouths of the "Arian sectaries who reasoned logically." If there were Arians who reasoned logically, surely there were Arians who reasoned illogically, nonsensically maintaining divnity in Jesus despite the logical consequences of their initial views which are so readily and easily identified after the time. Cardinal Newman notes that this is the way of all development of doctrine -- true and false doctrine. He does not say that doctrine can be known to be true or false depending simply on whether it develops -- heresy and orthodoxy both develop themselves according to the typical and universal conditions of debate, discussion, uncertainty, deduction, and induction which are involved in human activity. Newman resorts to other criteria than the fact of "development" to prove that one or another strain of Christian thinking is inauthentic, a "false" development as opposed to a true development. Consequently, the Pope’s ruling on the validity of Arian baptism cannot be read as a straightforward answer to the question: "Can a valid baptism deny the binding teaching of the Church on the godhood of Jesus Christ." The state of Arian and orthodoxy thinking was much more nuanced, complicated, and diverse for that to stand as a summary of the issue the Pope faced.
The author whose article you quoted goes on, almost immediately, to distinguish the bulk of what can be called "Arianism" from the stark tenet he derives for the "sectaries who reasoned logically."
But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism form an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. . . . They approached, in strict argument, to the heretical extreme; but many of them held the orthodox faith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length to Catholic teaching. The[y] attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind. Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside the school of Alexandria, touching this last head of doctrine.Pope St. Siricius wrote his decree in 385 A.D., some sixty years after the Council of Nicea. Even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia allows that Arianism became watered down considerably almost immediately after its "founding." After Nicea, when the divinity of Jesus Christ was infallibly proclaimed, Arianism had taken the form described by the second quotation -- a motley collection of fuddle-headed thinkers who insisted on the divinity of Jesus Christ but who disputed the full measure of Christian orthodoxy either because of subtle differences in theological/philosophical terminology or local prejudices, men and women who both maintained and denied the teaching of Nicea simultaneously via confused lines of thought and self-contradictory formulae. Even orthodox Christians continued to be plagued by difficulties in Christological theology. Nicea did not end dispute about what it means to say that Jesus Christ was God and man; several more bitter and vituperative controversies ocurred before councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon the main outlines of our Christology were settled.
The situation Pope Siricius faced, therefore, was not a pat, cut-and-dried question well and easily settled by more than a thousand years of research and magisterial development. It was a fluid and confused situation populated by all the kinds of error one sees in the Church today on other issues. I know of Catholics who are baptized and confirmed in RCIA who believe, quite wrongly, that contraception is a matter of personal choice. Yet they profess, as part of the rite, that they hold and believe everything the Church teaches and believes. Do they have a defect of intent, or a defect in understanding about what that intention requires? They sincerely and genuinely believe that Jesus Christ established and founded the Roman Catholic Church and made the Bishop of Rome the visible head of that Church on earth. They sincerely and genuinely believe that they must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. But they have been betrayed by false or stupid teachers into not realizing that their intention -- to believe in communion with the Pope -- requires them to condemn and eschew contraception. Their baptisms are valid, even though their faith is materially heretical. So, I think, with the Arians living sixty years after Nicea. Few, if any, of them were hard, "logically-reasoning" Arians who flatly and completely denied the redeeming divinity of our Lord. They had been betrayed by false or stupid teachers into not realizing that their belief in that divinity demanded and required other beliefs about Him as well.
In this regard it’s worth noting that baptism, like all the sacraments, is less of a reward than an act of condescending mercy -- we do not receive communion or baptism because we are right-acting, decent, and doctrinally-sound folks. Even if we are all those things, and we should strive to be so, we’re still unworthy of the divine communion that occurs in the Mass, of the absolving mercy that is expressed in Baptism. We have all those wonderful things not because we’re "ready" to have them, but because God gives them to us despite our unreadiness. God absolves me today in the confessional, even though He knows I will sin next week. He grants me a proleptic share in the life of the Trinity this Sunday even though He knows that I have very sloppy, stupid and incorrect beliefs about this or that subject of dogmatic theology. This isn’t an argument for valuing indifferentism or sloth of conscience; it’s meant to point out that all Christian life is essentially a witness to God’s sovereignty and our enduring need for His undeserved mercy. Even the Incarnation whose nature was disputed by the Arians and the others was an act of undeserved condescencion by God. As He reaches out to us in our sins, overcoming them, undoing their presence in our souls, so He also reaches out to us in our foibles, stupidies, and obstinacies, undoing their presence in our minds. In His time, of course, which is oddly incongruent with our expectations. We cannot grant baptism in the name of the Trinity to someone who doesn’t believe the fullness of the Gospel teaching on the Trinity. We cannot grant it even if we know that baptism in the name of that same Trinity will be efficiacious despite his positive ignorance. But this is as much a part of our own conscientious duty to honor God as we know Him as it is a part of the candidate’s formation and eligibility for the sacrament. If God has suffered some of His children to be claimed for the Trinity by heretical ministers (Arian baptisms followed the Trinitarian formula), our duty to approve or disapprove of the act has been vacated by circumstances not of our making. It only remains for us to follow the commandment that baptism, however stupid or ill-formed a recipient may be as regarding the more advanced realms of human theological knowledge about the Nicene meaning of homoousion, admits him into membership in the Church. Pope St. Siricius was doing no more than following this law, recapitulated some 900 years later by St. Thomas: "[R]ight faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God." Summa, III, a. 68, q. 8.
Homoousion was the word chosen by the Nicene fathers to express the unity of Son and Father. A further glimpse of the theological quagmire of orthodoxy’s relationship with Arians and Semi-Arians can be gained by looking up the word in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
(Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Lat. consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of Philo, the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth by the free will of God. (See ARIANISM) Homoousion was indeed used by philosophical writers to signify "of the same or similar substance"; but as the unity of the Divine nature wasn't questioned, the word carried the fuller meaning: "of one and the same substance". However, not only is homos ambiguous; the word ousia itself was often taken as equivalent to hypostasis (person), as apparently is the case in the anathema attached to the Nicene Symbol. And therefore the affirmation of the identity of nature might be taken in the heretical sense of the Sabellians, who denied the distinction of person. It was only after many years of controversy that the two words acquired their distinct meanings, and the orthodox were able to describe the Trinity as one in ousia and three in hypostasis or persona. Previously to the Council of Nicaea, Tertullian had already used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Praxeas the Sabellian that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance, but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). And Dionysius of Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome (Athan., "De dec. Syn. Nic.", xxv, 26) and again in his letter to Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in his vocabulary, expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by calling the Son "Heteroousion". The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, "of other or different ousia". Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Homoousion the fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean "of the same of similar substance". But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the Sabellian sense "of the same substance or person", and thus compelled the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the expression. Now, if we may take Hilary's explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like substance). When one considers how the four creeds formulated at Antioch (341) by the Semi-Arians approached the Nicene Creed as nearly as possible without the actual word Homoousion, there may be a temptation to think that the question was one of words only; and the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) may seem to have been well advised in their conciliatory formula "that the Son was like the Father in all things, according to the Holy Writ". But this very formula was forced from the Fathers by the Emperor Constantius; and the force and fraud which the Semi-Arians used throughout the greater part of the fourth century, are proof sufficient that the dispute was not merely verbal. The dogma of the Trinity was at stake, and Homoousion proved itself to be in the words of Epiphanius "the bond of faith", or, according to the expression of Marius Victorinus, "the rampart and wall of orthodoxy." (See ARIANISM; TRINITY.)Got that? Jesus is either homoousion with the Father or not, depending on the metaphysical context one brings to the words homos and ousia -- some of those contexts and interpretations are heretical, some of them are orthodox. Now we can say, rightly I think, that it would be a very cruel God who would give us a faith to which questions like this is very important without giving us a Church who could answer them infallibly. But we can also say, with equal rightness, that God would be very cruel to give us a faith which depended on our ability to answer all these questions correctly on our own. That’s part of the mercy of Catholicism’s teaching on the sacraments; they operate by their own working, both de jure and de facto, without our having to become dogmatically perfect.
This permissible difference between orthodoxy and an imperfect conception of it is implied by the very teaching that, in order to be valid, the minister of the sacrament must have the intention of doing what the Church does. Christ is the final minister of all the sacraments to everyone; His priests and (in the case of Baptism) lay disciples minister these sacraments as His servants. (See, e.g. Summa, III, a. 64, q. 1). Now, consider the servant whose master tells him to store hay in a loft against the coming winter. If the servant were better educated, more quick of wit, he would know that his master does not wish him to pick up each straw individually and carry it to the loft. Nor would the servant entertain all sorts of silly ideas given to him by equally uneducated (or even wicked) fellow-workers about how each straw must, upon arriving in the loft, be sorted and stacked with other straws according to length. And he would not have listened to their silly or malicious stories about how the hay will be used in the winter time to make gold cloth. But the servant doesn’t know all this -- he’s ignorant, misinformed, and not particularly acute to begin with -- and so he spends the next fifty days carrying straws up into the loft and sorting them by length. Yet with all this stupidity, error, and departure from the truth, the servant still intends to do what his master is doing -- getting the hay into the loft to be used in the coming winter. So with the sacrament of baptism (or all the sacraments, in their various ways); if the minister knows that he is to baptize with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in order to bring a child into unity with God and His Church, then he has the intention of doing what the Church does even if he has really bad ideas about some of the particulars which follow the event.
If orthodoxy were required, then the formula would be quite different. It would be said that in order for a sacrament to be valid, the minister must act in unity of belief and doctrine with the Church, and that would be Donatism by another name with all its attendant difficulties. There was a time when Dominicans hotly disagreed with the idea of Mary’s Immaculate Conception -- how could their baptisms have been valid, if the constant and orthodox faith of Christ’s bride, expressed in Ineffabilis Deus, was otherwise? They couldn’t have been, unless we adopted a definition of "unity with the Church’s doctrine" that very closely mirrored the actual requirement and its ability to tolerate some ministerial deviation from doctrinal purity. So I don’t think Pope St. Siricius dropped the ball on this one. I think he ended up saying what St. Thomas said 900 years later. And who can be a heretic if he says what St. Thomas says? :))
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Baptism Question
A reader writes: "I have a friend that asked me the question, why is it bad to be baptized more than once? I tried to answer logically, and by the good old, "because you can't" line, but neither worked. I wonder what your answer would be. "
Briefly, my answer is that baptism is the second birth of which our Lord spoke when He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," and "[e]xcept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:3 & 3:5. To baptize more than once would depart from our Lord's teaching, for He taught that we are to be born only "again" and not "again, and again, and again and again" for as many times as we might wish for sentimental or other reasons. To be perfectly accurate, we cannot be "baptized again." We can only be baptized.[1]
St. Paul preached there was one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Ephesians 4:5. He taught that baptism was the fulfillment of circumcision, a sign of the new covenant just as circumcision was a sign of the old. Col. 2:11-12. Every sacrament has an aspect of singularity. One can be baptized only once, consecrated to holy orders once, confirmed only once, baptized only once. The Mass is celebrated many times, but what is celebrated is one, single Sacrifice. We may and should confess frequently, but only to return to one Mercy granted by that single Sacrifice. And if one may marry more than once, each marriage is still unique, an unrepeatable wedding of lives and bodies. Not to sound pompous, but our God is not interested in mulligans, do-overs, rewinding and starting over again. He wants perfection, either intrinsically or by the redemption of what is imperfect. But He doesn't tolerate pretense about what is or what has happened.
Another reason, I think, has to do with faith. Faith in God, faith in His promises. He has promised that the rebirth achieved by grace through baptism is indelible, permanent. Even the damned will be distinguishable from one another by the presence or absence of the mark of baptism. His forgiveness achieved by grace through confession is permanent. Sometimes He wills that we not "feel" forgiven after confession. It is time to enjoy the gift of faith then, the gift of believing that we are forgiven because He forgives us, not because our emotions or psyches have reassured us of the fact. Go and try to confess to a priest a sin you have already confessed -- he will not allow it. He may pray over you, beseech God's mercy, but he will not countenance the idea that, absent some culpable flaw in your earlier confession, you were not forgiven because you don't "feel" that way. So, looking at baptism, we can see that the unrepeatability of the sacrament is actually also a gift, an opportunity to exercise the same gift of faith in His promises as opposed to our fleeting and frivolous desires to feel or experience certain things.
This has always been the Christian understanding of baptism. From the Council of Arles, 314 A.D.: "Concerning the Africans, because they use their own law so as to rebaptize, it has been decided that, if anyone from a heretical sect come to the Church, he should be asked his creed, and if it is perceived that he has been baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, only the hand should be imposed upon him, in order that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if upon being questioned he does not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized." Even the baptisms of heretics, if they believe in the Trinity, are valid; hence the heretical convert may have been baptized in his former sect, if it was in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Notice that the Council does not say, that if he has not been baptized in the name of the Trinity, he should be "re-baptized," only "baptized." Baptism could only be administered once.
In 385 A.D. Pope St. Siricius wrote a letter about this question, saying "And so on the first page of your letter you have indicated that very many baptized by the impious Arians are hastening to the Catholic faith and that certain of our brothers wish to baptize these same ones again. This is not allowed since the Apostle forbids it to be done and the canons oppose it, and after the cessation of the Council of Arminium general decrees went to the provinces by my predecessor Liberius of venerable memory prohibit it. These together with the Novatians and other heretics we join to the company of the Catholics through the sole invocation of the sevenfold Spirit by the imposition of a bishop's hands, just as it was determined in the Synod, which, too, the whole East and West observe. It is proper that you also do not deviate from this course henceforth, if you do not wish to be separated from our company by synodal decision."
**************************************************
[1] There are occasions when the validity of a baptism is made dubious, either because of what is known about its circumstances or what is not known about its manner. In such cases the Church allows a "conditional" baptism, namely a baptism which is intended by the Church to be administered only if the previous rite was fatally flawed and which leaves the determination of which baptism is valid to God’s secret judgment.
A reader writes: "I have a friend that asked me the question, why is it bad to be baptized more than once? I tried to answer logically, and by the good old, "because you can't" line, but neither worked. I wonder what your answer would be. "
Briefly, my answer is that baptism is the second birth of which our Lord spoke when He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," and "[e]xcept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:3 & 3:5. To baptize more than once would depart from our Lord's teaching, for He taught that we are to be born only "again" and not "again, and again, and again and again" for as many times as we might wish for sentimental or other reasons. To be perfectly accurate, we cannot be "baptized again." We can only be baptized.[1]
St. Paul preached there was one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Ephesians 4:5. He taught that baptism was the fulfillment of circumcision, a sign of the new covenant just as circumcision was a sign of the old. Col. 2:11-12. Every sacrament has an aspect of singularity. One can be baptized only once, consecrated to holy orders once, confirmed only once, baptized only once. The Mass is celebrated many times, but what is celebrated is one, single Sacrifice. We may and should confess frequently, but only to return to one Mercy granted by that single Sacrifice. And if one may marry more than once, each marriage is still unique, an unrepeatable wedding of lives and bodies. Not to sound pompous, but our God is not interested in mulligans, do-overs, rewinding and starting over again. He wants perfection, either intrinsically or by the redemption of what is imperfect. But He doesn't tolerate pretense about what is or what has happened.
Another reason, I think, has to do with faith. Faith in God, faith in His promises. He has promised that the rebirth achieved by grace through baptism is indelible, permanent. Even the damned will be distinguishable from one another by the presence or absence of the mark of baptism. His forgiveness achieved by grace through confession is permanent. Sometimes He wills that we not "feel" forgiven after confession. It is time to enjoy the gift of faith then, the gift of believing that we are forgiven because He forgives us, not because our emotions or psyches have reassured us of the fact. Go and try to confess to a priest a sin you have already confessed -- he will not allow it. He may pray over you, beseech God's mercy, but he will not countenance the idea that, absent some culpable flaw in your earlier confession, you were not forgiven because you don't "feel" that way. So, looking at baptism, we can see that the unrepeatability of the sacrament is actually also a gift, an opportunity to exercise the same gift of faith in His promises as opposed to our fleeting and frivolous desires to feel or experience certain things.
This has always been the Christian understanding of baptism. From the Council of Arles, 314 A.D.: "Concerning the Africans, because they use their own law so as to rebaptize, it has been decided that, if anyone from a heretical sect come to the Church, he should be asked his creed, and if it is perceived that he has been baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, only the hand should be imposed upon him, in order that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if upon being questioned he does not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized." Even the baptisms of heretics, if they believe in the Trinity, are valid; hence the heretical convert may have been baptized in his former sect, if it was in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Notice that the Council does not say, that if he has not been baptized in the name of the Trinity, he should be "re-baptized," only "baptized." Baptism could only be administered once.
In 385 A.D. Pope St. Siricius wrote a letter about this question, saying "And so on the first page of your letter you have indicated that very many baptized by the impious Arians are hastening to the Catholic faith and that certain of our brothers wish to baptize these same ones again. This is not allowed since the Apostle forbids it to be done and the canons oppose it, and after the cessation of the Council of Arminium general decrees went to the provinces by my predecessor Liberius of venerable memory prohibit it. These together with the Novatians and other heretics we join to the company of the Catholics through the sole invocation of the sevenfold Spirit by the imposition of a bishop's hands, just as it was determined in the Synod, which, too, the whole East and West observe. It is proper that you also do not deviate from this course henceforth, if you do not wish to be separated from our company by synodal decision."
**************************************************
[1] There are occasions when the validity of a baptism is made dubious, either because of what is known about its circumstances or what is not known about its manner. In such cases the Church allows a "conditional" baptism, namely a baptism which is intended by the Church to be administered only if the previous rite was fatally flawed and which leaves the determination of which baptism is valid to God’s secret judgment.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Sorry to Hear That
The Shea / Johansen pilgrimage to France has been canceled for lack of reservations. I would have gone, but that was a lot of dough for me, my wife, and our new daughter, not to mention paying someone to nurse the dog through his separation neuroses. May I suggest some alternative venues for future plans?
They're in the US, so you can drive or take a bus. Accomodations might be less expensive too, and there's the possibility of stopping off on the way there or back to visit relatives. Just a thought.
The Shea / Johansen pilgrimage to France has been canceled for lack of reservations. I would have gone, but that was a lot of dough for me, my wife, and our new daughter, not to mention paying someone to nurse the dog through his separation neuroses. May I suggest some alternative venues for future plans?
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
Our Lady of Victory Basilica and National Shrine
Shrine of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
The Ukrainian Catholic National Shrine of the Holy Family which is close to the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center.
They're in the US, so you can drive or take a bus. Accomodations might be less expensive too, and there's the possibility of stopping off on the way there or back to visit relatives. Just a thought.
American Fascism's Possible Future
It's important to understand that, when it comes to examining the moral value of a political system, the Holocaust may serve as a potential distraction. Its horror is so great that we tend to focus solely on it, allowing it to exclude consideration of the philosophies that truly enabled the crime. The root of genocide was not simply anti-Semitism. It was the widespread acceptance of the idea that state and society were the supreme entity, the only one cognizable by man, capable of telling us all what is good and what is evil, who is human and who is not, that gave the Nazis the intellectual "power" and "freedom" to do what they did. The evil of Anti-Semitism had its role to play in the crime. But even Christian anti-Semitism at its worst could not provide a society with the intellectual and moral framework required to conceive and implement the Final Solution. Fascism's idea that the state, and nothing else, defines human identity did that. It's worth bearing in mind because of the first quote's author.
The first quote, which calls for civilized secular states to do battle against the primitives who cling to religious sources of identity and direction, is from Robert Reich. Reich's brilliant career propelled him to one of the most powerful positions in American government. He now teaches at a prestigious university and writes extensively for respectable journals. That he can do so while being himself a fascist (and he is not new to the cause) is a sign of the times, of the corruption of the society in which we live. The new fascists have been busy fostering the idea that the state is the only arbiter of right and wrong, even of who is human and who is not. They rail today, as they did seventy years ago, at the Church which tells them they are wrong:
Yes, perhaps the Catholic Church ought to be destroyed as a visible, influential social institution if it's going to "delve into politics" by telling fascists like Clay and Reich that human beings do, in fact, owe their allegiance and identity to something higher than the state:
Here's a religious dogma for Mr. Reich: There can be no more harmony between Catholicism and fascism than that which exists between Christ and Belial. The fascists will try to destroy the Church, here, in this country, just as they have done in other countries where men who think like Clay and Reich, Diocletian and Trajan, have ruled:
You think you can subdue Christ's Church with tax laws, Mr. Clay? How little you know Him. Be our guest, if it must come to that. Revoke our 501(c)(3) status. Make us the only body of Christians in America who are deprived of the benefit of your laws. Send us into poverty, make us social outcasts, fugitives from the state's "righteous" claim to total power. Then blame us for the chaos and suffering that will happen when our hospitals close, our schools shut down, and our charities lock their doors. Nero did it. Why shouldn't his children delight in their inheritance? His modern children will reap the same harvest as their father, increasing our numbers tenfold. When that happens, and we threaten to overwhelm America's new tinpot theocracy, other men will come along and do even harsher things, as they always have, confident that Christ can be killed by the state, eager for men to have no king but Caesar.
Let them come, if come they must. Let them revoke the laws that let us vote, own property, hold decent jobs. Let them do their worst, if that is what God wills. It will not matter. In the end their Empire will be dead and gone. Its ruins will echo with the laughter of children.
The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma.The second quote is from Benito Mussolini. He -- not Adolf Hitler -- was the author and progenitor of fascism. Hitler's Germany was merely a variation on the theme of Mussolini's Italy, adding a hazy concept of biological determinism to the country's extant anti-Semitism to create Nazism's particular loathesomeness.
* * *
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.
It's important to understand that, when it comes to examining the moral value of a political system, the Holocaust may serve as a potential distraction. Its horror is so great that we tend to focus solely on it, allowing it to exclude consideration of the philosophies that truly enabled the crime. The root of genocide was not simply anti-Semitism. It was the widespread acceptance of the idea that state and society were the supreme entity, the only one cognizable by man, capable of telling us all what is good and what is evil, who is human and who is not, that gave the Nazis the intellectual "power" and "freedom" to do what they did. The evil of Anti-Semitism had its role to play in the crime. But even Christian anti-Semitism at its worst could not provide a society with the intellectual and moral framework required to conceive and implement the Final Solution. Fascism's idea that the state, and nothing else, defines human identity did that. It's worth bearing in mind because of the first quote's author.
The first quote, which calls for civilized secular states to do battle against the primitives who cling to religious sources of identity and direction, is from Robert Reich. Reich's brilliant career propelled him to one of the most powerful positions in American government. He now teaches at a prestigious university and writes extensively for respectable journals. That he can do so while being himself a fascist (and he is not new to the cause) is a sign of the times, of the corruption of the society in which we live. The new fascists have been busy fostering the idea that the state is the only arbiter of right and wrong, even of who is human and who is not. They rail today, as they did seventy years ago, at the Church which tells them they are wrong:
Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.The fascists didn't like it then, and they don't like it now: "I think Archbishop Burke has gone too far; he is now delving into politics," says pro-abortion fascist William Lacy Clay, a congressman from St. Louis, "Perhaps the Catholic Church should surrender their 501-C status."Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, ¶ 8 (1937)
Yes, perhaps the Catholic Church ought to be destroyed as a visible, influential social institution if it's going to "delve into politics" by telling fascists like Clay and Reich that human beings do, in fact, owe their allegiance and identity to something higher than the state:
This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.When the Church tells us to obey the civil authority, men like Clay and Reich nod and smile, comfortable with the healthy role the Church is playing in politics. But when the Church preaches an uncomfortable truth, the Clays and Reich of the world thunder imprecations, and recite totalitarianism's dark and threatening litanies. The fascists, you see, know that the Church should serve God. They just disagree with her about who God is, and they get angry when their divinity isn't properly recognized.Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, ¶ 10 (1937)
Here's a religious dogma for Mr. Reich: There can be no more harmony between Catholicism and fascism than that which exists between Christ and Belial. The fascists will try to destroy the Church, here, in this country, just as they have done in other countries where men who think like Clay and Reich, Diocletian and Trajan, have ruled:
And yet a hackneyed reproach of old date is leveled against her, that the Church is opposed to the rightful aims of the civil government, and is wholly unable to afford help in spreading that welfare and progress which justly and naturally are sought after by every well-regulated State. From the very beginning Christians were harassed by slanderous accusations of this nature, and on that account were held up to hatred and execration, for being (so they were called) enemies of the Empire.The old Romans, like the new fascists, have some truth in their accusations. We are enemies of an Empire, the one ruled by principalities and powers, by spiritual wickedness that encourages men to regard themselves as gods, with the rights and powers of gods.Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, ¶ 2 (1885)
You think you can subdue Christ's Church with tax laws, Mr. Clay? How little you know Him. Be our guest, if it must come to that. Revoke our 501(c)(3) status. Make us the only body of Christians in America who are deprived of the benefit of your laws. Send us into poverty, make us social outcasts, fugitives from the state's "righteous" claim to total power. Then blame us for the chaos and suffering that will happen when our hospitals close, our schools shut down, and our charities lock their doors. Nero did it. Why shouldn't his children delight in their inheritance? His modern children will reap the same harvest as their father, increasing our numbers tenfold. When that happens, and we threaten to overwhelm America's new tinpot theocracy, other men will come along and do even harsher things, as they always have, confident that Christ can be killed by the state, eager for men to have no king but Caesar.
Let them come, if come they must. Let them revoke the laws that let us vote, own property, hold decent jobs. Let them do their worst, if that is what God wills. It will not matter. In the end their Empire will be dead and gone. Its ruins will echo with the laughter of children.
Monday, July 12, 2004
A Caffienated Brain
. . . has produced these random thoughts:
. . . has produced these random thoughts:
It seems that for many Catholics who are politically conservative, "prudence" plays the same part that "conscience" plays in the theology of many Catholics who are politically liberal.
What is a Trill but a secularized, "science-fictionized" fantasy of the Real Presence?
Because God alone is good, He alone is the unconditional value; creation is a hierarchy of descending goods, each in its place, none having meaning except in relationship to Him. Thus does Christianity free men from all inhuman tyranny, for each human act can only be conditionally valued and never respected for its own sake.
Evil cannot give life. Thus, if evil is to progress, make headway in the world, it must rely on the life of others, creations and creatures brought to a point where they are corrupted and die, coming within the expanding necrosis that increases the evil realm -- not by growth or change -- but by adding to the sheer number of dead things.
Only belief in the Resurrection can allow men to overcome their circumstances without changing them, thus preserving their human dignity from all oppression and disdain.
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." If there's nothing in my life which isn't an intolerable burden to me, if I am not suffering from an injustice which should not have to be suffered, there's probably something very wrong with my life.
Not all good things will be offered for the improvement of a person, a cause, or a situation. Sometimes God may will that we offer good things as a judgment on those who will reject them, like the houses or cities who refused to hear Him through the Apostles.
If you suffer for long because of the hardness of another's heart, think what great coldness, what awful hardness, you are trying to rescue the poor fool from!
Worldly men are hard, cold, and rigidly press their rights. To paraphrase St. Paul, the world will not tolerate suffering, and is cruel; the world envies and vaunts itself, puffing itself up it behaves unseemly, seeks its own, and is easily provoked. The thoughts of worldly men are consumed with evil, the evil they wish to do, and of the evil they fear from others. Such men are brittle and inflexible. They cannot accept true challenges or salutary changes. They cannot make a way. So they must be compensated for by men who are able to suffer, to give up their rights, their due, what the world "owes" them, in order to make way for new things.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Thursday, July 08, 2004
A Mystery.
I can think of several possibilities for this and this:
I can think of several possibilities for this and this:
1. Not enough people clicked the "paypal" button during the last CAEI fundraiser to pay the ransom.
2. Chris Gaines.
3. A devilishly-clever anagram for "Mark Shea."
4. Taichung is a lot closer to Seattle than I thought it was.
5. There's a movie currently in production that stars Dan Ackroyd, Eddie Murphy and Jamie Lee Curtis in some surprising roles. (The scene where Mark Shea is evicted from the College of Cardinals because Ratzinger and Lustiger have framed him for stealing a JPII coin is hilarious).
6. I missed some kind of announcement.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Around St. Blog's
With a few minutes to spare, and with nothing to offer from my own pen, here are some interesting posts on some of the blogs I read.
Courtesy of Southern Appeal we learn that Sunday was the birthday of Calvin Coolidge, one of America's great presidents. We also see this hilarious photograph of John Kerry being as dishonest about gun ownership as he is about his religion. Commenters at SA have rightly -- and instantly, they must be gun owners themselves -- noted that Kerry is holding a shotgun with his finger on the trigger while paying no attention to where his firearm is pointed. A fellow (or lady) known as The Angry Clam wisely comments: "That's why they're all about banning guns. None of them are smart enough to use them safely, and assume the same thing about all the rest of us gun owners." So I'm announcing a gun buy-back program for Democratic politicians. I will pay $1.00 -- NO QUESTIONS ASKED -- for every Purdey, Bertuzzi, Chapuis, and Famars di Abbiatico and Salvinelli shotgun delivered to me within the next 180 days. Let's keep our gated communities of well-heeled liberals safe for the children they could have aborted, OK?
Over at El Camino Real Jeff Culbreath tells of his family's politically-incorrect fourth-of-July celebration. Not only did they attend a bullfight over the weekend, but they -- gasp! -- sang a religious song for the occasion:
The Curt Jester notices a recent "dissenting movement" among Catholics and has, as always, provided appropriate visual aids for the occasion.
Dale Price manfully handles critical reactions to one of his blogs, providing some interesting thoughts along the way. For example, "[P]ersonal holiness is no proof against awful judgment." Yes, that's quite true.
John da Feisole -- whose writings about the Bishops and Catholic politicians are not always agreeable to me -- has asked an interesting question: "What doesn't make sense to me is why they're [Catholics who are upset about the Church's antipathy to pro-abortion Democratic politicians] angry at the bishops, for teaching that the minor premise is true, and not (as far as I can tell) particularly angry at a major political party for teaching that abortion is a public good. I can't think of a flattering explanation for the selective indignation." Neither can I.
With a few minutes to spare, and with nothing to offer from my own pen, here are some interesting posts on some of the blogs I read.
Courtesy of Southern Appeal we learn that Sunday was the birthday of Calvin Coolidge, one of America's great presidents. We also see this hilarious photograph of John Kerry being as dishonest about gun ownership as he is about his religion. Commenters at SA have rightly -- and instantly, they must be gun owners themselves -- noted that Kerry is holding a shotgun with his finger on the trigger while paying no attention to where his firearm is pointed. A fellow (or lady) known as The Angry Clam wisely comments: "That's why they're all about banning guns. None of them are smart enough to use them safely, and assume the same thing about all the rest of us gun owners." So I'm announcing a gun buy-back program for Democratic politicians. I will pay $1.00 -- NO QUESTIONS ASKED -- for every Purdey, Bertuzzi, Chapuis, and Famars di Abbiatico and Salvinelli shotgun delivered to me within the next 180 days. Let's keep our gated communities of well-heeled liberals safe for the children they could have aborted, OK?
Over at El Camino Real Jeff Culbreath tells of his family's politically-incorrect fourth-of-July celebration. Not only did they attend a bullfight over the weekend, but they -- gasp! -- sang a religious song for the occasion:
. . . And there's another country, I've heard of long agoFr. Jim has blogged some very interesting ruminations about our country, including some positive views about what I had thought is our greatest weakness -- the lack of a sense of history. He concludes, "The American Experiment is 228 years old today, and it has been a great success." Yes, by many measures -- perhaps by almost any measure fit to measure secular regimes -- it has. But I take some comfort in the fact that a great nation will always have room for obscure, crabby, pessimists like myself.
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
we may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
and soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
and her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.
The Curt Jester notices a recent "dissenting movement" among Catholics and has, as always, provided appropriate visual aids for the occasion.
Dale Price manfully handles critical reactions to one of his blogs, providing some interesting thoughts along the way. For example, "[P]ersonal holiness is no proof against awful judgment." Yes, that's quite true.
John da Feisole -- whose writings about the Bishops and Catholic politicians are not always agreeable to me -- has asked an interesting question: "What doesn't make sense to me is why they're [Catholics who are upset about the Church's antipathy to pro-abortion Democratic politicians] angry at the bishops, for teaching that the minor premise is true, and not (as far as I can tell) particularly angry at a major political party for teaching that abortion is a public good. I can't think of a flattering explanation for the selective indignation." Neither can I.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Interesting Poems
By David Gascoyne (1916-2001), an English poet. You can read Ecce Homo as a poem that says "away with your religious Christ, let us worship the Christ of us!" Or you can read it as a call for something deeper, vital, in the religion whose history and rituals Gascoyne seems to discard. Of Pieta, I can only say it leaves me stunned.
By David Gascoyne (1916-2001), an English poet. You can read Ecce Homo as a poem that says "away with your religious Christ, let us worship the Christ of us!" Or you can read it as a call for something deeper, vital, in the religion whose history and rituals Gascoyne seems to discard. Of Pieta, I can only say it leaves me stunned.
Ecce HomoDoes anybody know more about Gascoyne and his poetry? I'd love to learn.
Whose is this horrifying face,
This putrid flesh, discoloured, flayed,
Fed on by the flies, scorched by the sun?
Whose are these hollow red-filmed eyes
And thorn-spiked head and spear-stuck side?
Forget the legend, tear the decent veil
That cowardice or interest devised
To make their mortal enemy a friend,
To hide the bitter truth all His wounds tell,
Lest the great scandal be no more disguised:
He is in agony till the world's end,
And we must never sleep during that time!
He is suspended on the cross-tree now
And we are onlookers at the crime,
Callous contemporaries of the slow
Torture of God. Here is the hill
Made ghastly by His spattered blood
Whereon He hangs and suffers still:
See, the centurions wear riding-boots,
Black shirts and badges and peaked caps,
Greet one another with raised-arm salutes;
They have cold eyes, unsmiling lips;
Yet these his brothers know not what they do.
And on his either side hang dead
A labourer and a factory hand,
Or one is maybe a lynched Jew
And one a Negro or a Red,
Coolie or Ethiopian, Irishman,
Spaniard or German democrat.
Behind His lolling head the sky
Glares like a fiery cataract
Red with the murders of two thousand years
Committed in His name and by
Crusaders, Christian warriors
Defending faith and property.
Amid the plain beneath His transfixed hands,
Exuding darkness as indelible
As guilty stains, fanned by funeral
And lurid airs, besieged by drifting sands
And clefted landslides our about-to-be
Bombed and abandoned cities stand.
He who wept for Jerusalem
Now sees His prophecy extend
Across the greatest cities of the world,
A guilty panic reason cannot stem
Rising to raze them all as He foretold;
And He must watch this drama to the end.
Though often named, He is unknown
To the dark kingdoms at His feet
Where everything disparages His words,
And each man bears the common guilt alone
And goes blindfolded to his fate,
And fear and greed are sovereign lords.
The turning point of history
Must come. Yet the complacent and the proud
And who exploit and kill, may be denied--
Christ of Revolution and of Poetry--
The resurrection and the life
Wrought by your spirit's blood.
Involved in their own sophistry
The black priest and the upright man
Faced by subversive truth shall be struck dumb,
Christ of Revolution and of Poetry,
While the rejected and condemned become
Agents of the divine.
Not from a monstrance silver-wrought
But from the tree of human pain,
Redeem our sterile misery,
Christ of Revolution and of Poetry,
That man's long journey through the night
May not have been in vain.
Pieta
Stark in the pasture on the skull-shaped hill,
In swollen aura of disaster shrunken and
Unsheltered by the ruin of the sky,
Intensely concentrated in themselves the banded
Saints abandoned kneel.
And under the unburdened tree
Great in their midst, the rigid folds
Of a blue cloak upholding as a text
Her grief-scrawled face for the ensuing world to read,
The Mother, whose dead Son's dear head
Weighs like a precious blood-incrusted stone
On her unfathomable breast:
Holds Him God has forsaken, Word made flesh
Made ransom, to the slow smoulder of her heart
Till the catharsis of the race shall be complete.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Four Reasons Why I Love Christopher Hitchens
Taken from his review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (courtesy of Mark Shea's blog):
Taken from his review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (courtesy of Mark Shea's blog):
One: He's got wit.: "I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out."Unless he's writing about Catholicism, a subject which for some reason always unbalances him, Christopher Hitchens is one tough cookie and, to that extent, a hero of mine.
Two: He's Got a Healthy Sense of Proportion.: "The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then . . . half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup."
Three: He Thinks.: "The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings . . . the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. . . . But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing."
Four: He Don't Back Down.: "I notice from the New York Times . . . that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. . . . However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo [their debate at] Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of. . . . If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed."
Movies
Via Poncer's blog, here are the movies I've seen from the top 100 grossing films of all time. Movies I've seen are in bold. Movies that I thought to be a total waste of my time are in italics.
1. Titanic
2. Star Wars
3. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
4. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
5. Spider-Man
6. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
7. Passion of the Christ
8. Jurassic Park
9. Shrek 2
10. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
11. Finding Nemo
12. Forrest Gump
13. Lion King, The
14. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
15. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
16. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
17. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
18. Independence Day
19. Pirates of the Caribbean
20. Sixth Sense, The (1999)
21. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
22. Home Alone
23. Matrix Reloaded, The
24. Shrek
25. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
26. How the Grinch Stole Christmas
27. Jaws
28. Monsters, Inc.
29. Batman
30. Men in Black
31. Toy Story 2
32. Bruce Almighty
33. Raiders of the Lost Ark
34. Twister
35. My Big Fat Greek Wedding
36. Ghost Busters
37. Beverly Hills Cop
38. Cast Away
39. Lost World: Jurassic Park, The
40. Signs
41. Rush Hour 2
42. Mrs. Doubtfire
43. Ghost (1990)
44. Aladdin
45. Saving Private Ryan
46. Mission: Impossible II
47. X2
48. Austin Powers in Goldmember
49. Back to the Future
50. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
51. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
52. Exorcist, The
53. Mummy Returns, The
54. Armageddon
55. Gone with the Wind
56. Pearl Harbor
57. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
58. Toy Story (1995)
59. Men in Black II
60. Gladiator
61. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
62. Dances with Wolves
63. Batman Forever
64. Fugitive, The
65. Ocean's Eleven
66. What Women Want
67. Perfect Storm, The
68. Liar Liar
69. Grease
70. Jurassic Park III
71. Mission: Impossible
72. Planet of the Apes
73. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
74. Pretty Woman
75. Tootsie
76. Top Gun
77. There's Something About Mary
78. Ice Age
79. Crocodile Dundee
80. Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
81. Elf
82. Air Force One
83. Rain Man
84. Apollo 13
85. Matrix, The
86. Beauty and the Beast
87. Tarzan (1999)
88. Beautiful Mind, A
89. Chicago
90. Three Men and a Baby
91. Meet the Parents
92. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
93. Hannibal
94. Catch Me If You Can
95. Big Daddy
96. Sound of Music, The
97. Batman Returns
98. Bug's Life, A
99. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
100. Waterboy, The
Via Poncer's blog, here are the movies I've seen from the top 100 grossing films of all time. Movies I've seen are in bold. Movies that I thought to be a total waste of my time are in italics.
1. Titanic
2. Star Wars
3. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
4. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
5. Spider-Man
6. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
7. Passion of the Christ
8. Jurassic Park
9. Shrek 2
10. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
11. Finding Nemo
12. Forrest Gump
13. Lion King, The
14. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
15. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
16. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
17. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
18. Independence Day
19. Pirates of the Caribbean
20. Sixth Sense, The (1999)
21. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
22. Home Alone
23. Matrix Reloaded, The
24. Shrek
25. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
26. How the Grinch Stole Christmas
27. Jaws
28. Monsters, Inc.
29. Batman
30. Men in Black
31. Toy Story 2
32. Bruce Almighty
33. Raiders of the Lost Ark
34. Twister
35. My Big Fat Greek Wedding
36. Ghost Busters
37. Beverly Hills Cop
38. Cast Away
39. Lost World: Jurassic Park, The
40. Signs
41. Rush Hour 2
42. Mrs. Doubtfire
43. Ghost (1990)
44. Aladdin
45. Saving Private Ryan
46. Mission: Impossible II
47. X2
48. Austin Powers in Goldmember
49. Back to the Future
50. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
51. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
52. Exorcist, The
53. Mummy Returns, The
54. Armageddon
55. Gone with the Wind
56. Pearl Harbor
57. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
58. Toy Story (1995)
59. Men in Black II
60. Gladiator
61. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
62. Dances with Wolves
63. Batman Forever
64. Fugitive, The
65. Ocean's Eleven
66. What Women Want
67. Perfect Storm, The
68. Liar Liar
69. Grease
70. Jurassic Park III
71. Mission: Impossible
72. Planet of the Apes
73. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
74. Pretty Woman
75. Tootsie
76. Top Gun
77. There's Something About Mary
78. Ice Age
79. Crocodile Dundee
80. Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
81. Elf
82. Air Force One
83. Rain Man
84. Apollo 13
85. Matrix, The
86. Beauty and the Beast
87. Tarzan (1999)
88. Beautiful Mind, A
89. Chicago
90. Three Men and a Baby
91. Meet the Parents
92. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
93. Hannibal
94. Catch Me If You Can
95. Big Daddy
96. Sound of Music, The
97. Batman Returns
98. Bug's Life, A
99. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
100. Waterboy, The
Monday, June 21, 2004
Here It Is
The official statement of the USCC on the problem of pro-death Catholic politicians receiving communion According to ZENIT, it was adopted by a vote of 183-6:
*******
We speak as bishops, as teachers of the Catholic faith and of the moral law. We have the duty to teach about human life and dignity, marriage and family, war and peace, the needs of the poor and the demands of justice. Today we continue our efforts to teach on a uniquely important matter that has recently been a source of concern for Catholics and others.
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will.
To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.
As our conference has insisted in Faithful Citizenship, Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public life do not threaten democracy or pluralism but enrich them and the nation. The separation of church and state does not require division between belief and public action, between moral principles and political choices, but protects the right of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life.
Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly. It is with pastoral solicitude for everyone involved in the political process that we will also counsel Catholic public officials that their acting consistently to support abortion on demand risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner. We will persist in this duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences.
Having received an extensive interim report from the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, and looking forward to the full report, we highlight several points from the interim report that suggest some directions for our efforts:
The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times.
The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world.
The official statement of the USCC on the problem of pro-death Catholic politicians receiving communion According to ZENIT, it was adopted by a vote of 183-6:
We speak as bishops, as teachers of the Catholic faith and of the moral law. We have the duty to teach about human life and dignity, marriage and family, war and peace, the needs of the poor and the demands of justice. Today we continue our efforts to teach on a uniquely important matter that has recently been a source of concern for Catholics and others.
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will.
To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.
As our conference has insisted in Faithful Citizenship, Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public life do not threaten democracy or pluralism but enrich them and the nation. The separation of church and state does not require division between belief and public action, between moral principles and political choices, but protects the right of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life.
Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly. It is with pastoral solicitude for everyone involved in the political process that we will also counsel Catholic public officials that their acting consistently to support abortion on demand risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner. We will persist in this duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences.
Having received an extensive interim report from the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, and looking forward to the full report, we highlight several points from the interim report that suggest some directions for our efforts:
We need to continue to teach clearly and help other Catholic leaders to teach clearly on our unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries.The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic life. Therefore, like every Catholic generation before us, we must be guided by the words of St. Paul, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). This means that all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life.
We need to do more to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves.
Catholics need to act in support of these principles and policies in public life. It is the particular vocation of the laity to transform the world. We have to encourage this vocation and do more to bring all believers to this mission. As bishops, we do not endorse or oppose candidates. Rather, we seek to form the consciences of our people so that they can examine the positions of candidates and make choices based on Catholic moral and social teaching.
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
We commit ourselves to maintain communication with public officials who make decisions every day that touch issues of human life and dignity.
The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times.
The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Appropos of Nothing
Here are the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, according to The Hobbit Name Generator:
Here are the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, according to The Hobbit Name Generator:
Popo Sackville-Baggins
Olo Bramble of Willowbottom
Drogo Sandybanks
Grigory Boffin of Needlehole
Bungo Boggy-Hillocks of Dwalling
Podo Bulge of Hobbiton
Esmereldat Bleecker-Baggins of Fair Downs
Mungo Burrows
Ruby Gamwich of the Bree Gamwiches
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Tootin' My Own Horn, Sort Of
I'm enjoying keeping up on my predictions for 2004 Here's another one that's come true, well, mostly. Responding to William Safire's prediction that the Supreme Court will deadlock (4-4, with Scalia recusing himself) on the constitutionality of using the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, I wrote:
Wrong. When I wrote that the Court will issue a "ridiculous, self-contradictory and tortured opinion that will reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision while leaving everything else undecided," I had in mind something on the order of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), in which Justice O'Connor swapped her judicial robe and gavel for a mumu and incense before gibbering, "At the heart of [the Fourteenth Amendment's idea of] liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." She -- and the two other judges who smelled the bong smoke -- proceeded to junk the trimester framework which was the centerpiece of Roe on the following grounds: (a) keeping the framework would allow advances in medical science to erode Roe beyond recognition; (b) doing so would allow the states to restrict the number of dead babies produced by Planned Parenthood abortion mills; and (c) since the Court has the power to say that something which was once essential is no longer essential, it should lift itself out of the dilemma by its own bootstraps.
Rather than repeat history as farce, the Supreme Court used the obscurities of federal "standing" law to duck the case. Basically, "standing" means that parties to a lawsuit have to have a sufficiently-recognizable stake in the outcome of the litigation before courts will decide their claims. The Pledge plaintiff, Michael Newdow, was suing because his poor daughter was subjected to a recitation of "under God" by California schoolteachers, thus interfering with his right to present her with a bunch of atheist twaddle, encouraging her (for example) to believe in an unfettered and inalienable right to define her own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life etc. -- perhaps even, someday, joining Justice O'Connor (and maybe Justice Souter, we're not sure about him yet) in the Mumu-ed Sisterhood of Judicial Goddesses. Unfortunately for Mr. Newdow a rare outbreak of judicial sanity in California left him without legal custody of his daughter. So the Court pounced: (1) If Newdow doesn't have custody, he doesn't have parental rights over his daughter. (2) If Newdow doesn't have parental rights over his daughter, the recitation of the pledge in her presence can't interfere with his rights. (3) If the recitation of the pledge can't interfere with Newdow's (non-existent) parental rights, he's got no business using the courts to get his fifteeen-minutes-of-fame. Next!
Right. The net effect of the Court's decision is to vacate the decisions of the District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on federal establishment-clause grounds. But only as to Newdow and his daughter. Whether using the phrase "under God" is constitutionally permissible is left undecided, save that everybody's shown their cards at this point. Californians know that federal district judges will invalidate the pledge's use of the phrase on first-amendment grounds whenever the case gets brought by somebody who has custody. They also know that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold that decision. Lastly, they know that when they get to the Supreme Court, five justices are so uncomfortable with the constitutionality of "under God" that they made themselves into judicial pretzels (read Justice Rhenquist's skewering of the "standing" opinion) to avoid saying one way or the other just right now. Not to mention Justice Sandra "Define Your Own Mystery of Life" O'Connor's adherence to the ephemeral "endorsement test" which can provide endless grounds for nitpicking pledge-recitations to death. (Does the teacher stand so close to the American flag as to suggest an "endorsement" of "under God" as an attribute of citizenship? Did Colonel Mustard define the mystery of life in the library with a candlestick?) Well, that question's going to be answered by someone who's stupid enough to write this:
Infirm enough to be swayed, the next time the issue metastasizes to supreme-court proportions, by evidence in the record that pictures of firemen, police officers, and soldiers were displayed simultaneously, thus suggesting to a neutral observer a symbolic endorsement of their offices as representations of divine authority. I could make a poster: "This is your brain. // This is your brain on strict scrutiny."
So, that's six more-than-possible "no God" votes the next time around, depending on what Justice O'Connor drank with lunch, and that's not even starting with the independent and adequate state grounds argument which could invalidate "under God" solely as a matter of the Californiaswiss-cheese scrap of paper Constitution. As noted, it's all up for grabs. Stand by for lots of hilarious to-ing and fro-ing as the solons who run America's school districts try to write "inclusive" and "neutral" pledges that express the shimmering, insubstantial essence of the Supreme Court's opinion to the satisfaction of the vengeful imps known as District Court judges. Or, if you like, exercise their liberty to define their own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
I'm enjoying keeping up on my predictions for 2004 Here's another one that's come true, well, mostly. Responding to William Safire's prediction that the Supreme Court will deadlock (4-4, with Scalia recusing himself) on the constitutionality of using the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, I wrote:
The Supreme Court wouldn't touch the Pledge of Allegiance with a barge pole. I'm betting it will issue a ridiculous, self-contradictory and tortured opinion that will reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision while leaving everything else undecided. I anticipate lots of hilarious to-ing and fro-ing as the solons who run America's school districts try to write "inclusive" and "neutral" pledges that will express the shimmering, insubstantial essence of the Supreme Court's opinion to the satisfaction of the vengeful imps known as District Court judges.Well, the Supreme Court recently held that it wasn't going to touch the Pledge with a barge pole. You can read the full text of the Court's opinion (in PDF format) here. The Court's opinion proves me both right and wrong. I'll elaborate.
Wrong. When I wrote that the Court will issue a "ridiculous, self-contradictory and tortured opinion that will reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision while leaving everything else undecided," I had in mind something on the order of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), in which Justice O'Connor swapped her judicial robe and gavel for a mumu and incense before gibbering, "At the heart of [the Fourteenth Amendment's idea of] liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." She -- and the two other judges who smelled the bong smoke -- proceeded to junk the trimester framework which was the centerpiece of Roe on the following grounds: (a) keeping the framework would allow advances in medical science to erode Roe beyond recognition; (b) doing so would allow the states to restrict the number of dead babies produced by Planned Parenthood abortion mills; and (c) since the Court has the power to say that something which was once essential is no longer essential, it should lift itself out of the dilemma by its own bootstraps.
Rather than repeat history as farce, the Supreme Court used the obscurities of federal "standing" law to duck the case. Basically, "standing" means that parties to a lawsuit have to have a sufficiently-recognizable stake in the outcome of the litigation before courts will decide their claims. The Pledge plaintiff, Michael Newdow, was suing because his poor daughter was subjected to a recitation of "under God" by California schoolteachers, thus interfering with his right to present her with a bunch of atheist twaddle, encouraging her (for example) to believe in an unfettered and inalienable right to define her own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life etc. -- perhaps even, someday, joining Justice O'Connor (and maybe Justice Souter, we're not sure about him yet) in the Mumu-ed Sisterhood of Judicial Goddesses. Unfortunately for Mr. Newdow a rare outbreak of judicial sanity in California left him without legal custody of his daughter. So the Court pounced: (1) If Newdow doesn't have custody, he doesn't have parental rights over his daughter. (2) If Newdow doesn't have parental rights over his daughter, the recitation of the pledge in her presence can't interfere with his rights. (3) If the recitation of the pledge can't interfere with Newdow's (non-existent) parental rights, he's got no business using the courts to get his fifteeen-minutes-of-fame. Next!
Right. The net effect of the Court's decision is to vacate the decisions of the District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on federal establishment-clause grounds. But only as to Newdow and his daughter. Whether using the phrase "under God" is constitutionally permissible is left undecided, save that everybody's shown their cards at this point. Californians know that federal district judges will invalidate the pledge's use of the phrase on first-amendment grounds whenever the case gets brought by somebody who has custody. They also know that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold that decision. Lastly, they know that when they get to the Supreme Court, five justices are so uncomfortable with the constitutionality of "under God" that they made themselves into judicial pretzels (read Justice Rhenquist's skewering of the "standing" opinion) to avoid saying one way or the other just right now. Not to mention Justice Sandra "Define Your Own Mystery of Life" O'Connor's adherence to the ephemeral "endorsement test" which can provide endless grounds for nitpicking pledge-recitations to death. (Does the teacher stand so close to the American flag as to suggest an "endorsement" of "under God" as an attribute of citizenship? Did Colonel Mustard define the mystery of life in the library with a candlestick?) Well, that question's going to be answered by someone who's stupid enough to write this:
Even if taken literally, the phrase ["under God"] is merely descriptive; it purports only to identify the United States as a Nation subject to divine authority. That cannot be seen as a serious invocation of God or as an expression of individual submission to divine authority.So if I say, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done," I'm only identifying myself as a person subject to divine authority, which cannot be seen as a serious invocation of God or as an expression of my individual submission to Him. Pity that Jesus didn't have Sandra O'Connor clerking for him. He would have been more clear. Seriously, though, how infirm is the mind which can produce such nonsense?Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, No. 02-1624 (O'Connor, J., burbling).
Infirm enough to be swayed, the next time the issue metastasizes to supreme-court proportions, by evidence in the record that pictures of firemen, police officers, and soldiers were displayed simultaneously, thus suggesting to a neutral observer a symbolic endorsement of their offices as representations of divine authority. I could make a poster: "This is your brain. // This is your brain on strict scrutiny."
So, that's six more-than-possible "no God" votes the next time around, depending on what Justice O'Connor drank with lunch, and that's not even starting with the independent and adequate state grounds argument which could invalidate "under God" solely as a matter of the California
We're Shocked, Shocked!
Crux News beat me to the reference, but the reaction of so many people to news that the Bush Administration is trying to find a legal justification for torturing people in order to (turn off your irony sensors, to avoid feedback) fight the war on terror reminds me of Captain Reneau, the Vichy policeman who was "shocked" to find gambling going on at Rick's Cafe Americain. Of course I haven't read the Bush torture memos. No one outside the apparatus of state security is supposed to read them. They're classified, and as any good fascist will tell you, the legal principles which guide the state must be kept secret in order to protect the people. We can't have a bunch of sleazy trial lawyers making stupid arguments about human dignity and the rule of law. There's a war on, you know.
But the documents are available nonetheless. Or at leas one of them is -- a Department of Defense memo classified by Secretary Rumsfeld himself. The best and brightest who came up with this stuff have performed to their usual "Vietnam's not a war, it's a police action" standard. For example, the memo explains why U.S. laws criminalizing torture do not make it a crime to torture people (Americans or otherwise) who are in the United States. (Section III(A)(1)). With respect to torture inflicted on persons (Americans or otherwise) who aren't living in Dubuque, the memo explains that since the statute only criminalizes actions "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain," it can't be violated by someone whose actions are specifically intended to obtain valuable information by means of severe physical or mental pain. (Section III(A)(1)(a)). A note to that section goes on to warn the Administration that juries are legally empowered to reject that argument and find specific intent despite the torturers' high-minded desire to protect schoolchildren from those identified (mistakenly or otherwise) as terrorists.[1] Nasty things, juries. A bunch of ignorant yahoos empowered to put spokes in the wheels, like they do in all those frivolous tort cases, at the behest of sleazy trial lawyers. We probably ought to get rid of juries too. There's a war on, you know.
What really bothers me is that there's nothing shocking about this. Our present Administration is searching for legal justifications for torturing U.S. citizens. So what? Back in Clinton's day, the U.S. Marine Corps conducted a study to find out if Marines would gun down "U.S. Citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government."[2] Bobby Kennedy had Martin Luther King's telephones tapped, as well as the phones at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, for reasons of "national security." [3] It gets beaten to death, but it's still true that the Nixon administration attempted to affect the conduct of a presidential election. The only thing that really ticks me off about the constant references to Watergate is the same thing that sticks in my craw about how "shocked" everybody is about Donald Rumsfeld's "the Dog Ate My Constitution" memos. This isn't shocking at all. It's business as usual.
Using law to evade the law is what governments do. All governments, all the time, everywhere. Hell, even King David used "national security" to get Uriah killed and sleep with Bathsheba. If I had to pick one text for required reading in every civics class, it wouldn't be Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, The Federalist Papers, Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France or any similar work. It would be 1 Samuel Chapter 8:
Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush suffer from depraved appetites and darkened intellects. As do we all. That fact, and not some good-government instinct for organizational tidiness, is the real reason for checks, balances, and governmental transparency. To paraphrase another President who was prone to tearing up the Constitution in the pursuit of noble goals, Satan can tempt some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but he can't tempt all the people all the time.
Whether George and company have deluded themselves into believing that the ends can justify the means, or whether they're suffering from a form of "combat fatigue" that's caused them to quail at the burden of defending the legal order while also obeying it, the fact remains that this is what happens to everybody, albeit on a much smaller scale on the order of worldly things. George Bush thinks he can inflict severe mental pain on people to get needed information. An assistant manager at Wal-Mart thinks he can humiliate a worker to get needed productivity. John Ashcroft thinks he should refuse to disclose the torture memos. A bank vice president thinks he should hide his bank's losses. And all these fellows have really, really, good reasons for what they're doing. It's all part of a whole, which is why our Lord exhorted us to be faithful in small things first, because the moral challenges that come with big jobs really aren't all that different.
Now that's shocking.
**************************************************
[1] You can find the memo in PDF format here.
[2] Col. Charles Dunlap, Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment, Tennessee Law Review, vol. 62, no. 3. Note #3. The text is available here. Colonel Dunlap attempts to minimize the implications of the story by saying that "the question turned out to be merely part of a graduate student's project aimed a studying unit cohesion and whether Marines understood the difference between lawful and unlawful orders." Sure it was. And it also "merely" a study which told the Marine Corps just how far Marines will go in enforcing federal law as well. The results of the graduate student's project are also classified.
[3] David Garrow, The FBI and Martin Luther King, in The Atlantic. You can find the whole text here.
Crux News beat me to the reference, but the reaction of so many people to news that the Bush Administration is trying to find a legal justification for torturing people in order to (turn off your irony sensors, to avoid feedback) fight the war on terror reminds me of Captain Reneau, the Vichy policeman who was "shocked" to find gambling going on at Rick's Cafe Americain. Of course I haven't read the Bush torture memos. No one outside the apparatus of state security is supposed to read them. They're classified, and as any good fascist will tell you, the legal principles which guide the state must be kept secret in order to protect the people. We can't have a bunch of sleazy trial lawyers making stupid arguments about human dignity and the rule of law. There's a war on, you know.
But the documents are available nonetheless. Or at leas one of them is -- a Department of Defense memo classified by Secretary Rumsfeld himself. The best and brightest who came up with this stuff have performed to their usual "Vietnam's not a war, it's a police action" standard. For example, the memo explains why U.S. laws criminalizing torture do not make it a crime to torture people (Americans or otherwise) who are in the United States. (Section III(A)(1)). With respect to torture inflicted on persons (Americans or otherwise) who aren't living in Dubuque, the memo explains that since the statute only criminalizes actions "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain," it can't be violated by someone whose actions are specifically intended to obtain valuable information by means of severe physical or mental pain. (Section III(A)(1)(a)). A note to that section goes on to warn the Administration that juries are legally empowered to reject that argument and find specific intent despite the torturers' high-minded desire to protect schoolchildren from those identified (mistakenly or otherwise) as terrorists.[1] Nasty things, juries. A bunch of ignorant yahoos empowered to put spokes in the wheels, like they do in all those frivolous tort cases, at the behest of sleazy trial lawyers. We probably ought to get rid of juries too. There's a war on, you know.
What really bothers me is that there's nothing shocking about this. Our present Administration is searching for legal justifications for torturing U.S. citizens. So what? Back in Clinton's day, the U.S. Marine Corps conducted a study to find out if Marines would gun down "U.S. Citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government."[2] Bobby Kennedy had Martin Luther King's telephones tapped, as well as the phones at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, for reasons of "national security." [3] It gets beaten to death, but it's still true that the Nixon administration attempted to affect the conduct of a presidential election. The only thing that really ticks me off about the constant references to Watergate is the same thing that sticks in my craw about how "shocked" everybody is about Donald Rumsfeld's "the Dog Ate My Constitution" memos. This isn't shocking at all. It's business as usual.
Using law to evade the law is what governments do. All governments, all the time, everywhere. Hell, even King David used "national security" to get Uriah killed and sleep with Bathsheba. If I had to pick one text for required reading in every civics class, it wouldn't be Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, The Federalist Papers, Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France or any similar work. It would be 1 Samuel Chapter 8:
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beer-sheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.Or, as the legal scholar Roscoe Pound observed, the same elements of human nature which make governors a necessary part of civilization also make them a constant threat to civilized life. I'm not making an argument that "godly societies" shouldn't have kings, presidents, or national security agencies. I don't think that government is purely a consequence of the Fall. But I am reminding all and sundry that even if government isn't a consequence of the Fall, it's nonetheless a human phenomenon which is affected by the Fall.
And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.
Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush suffer from depraved appetites and darkened intellects. As do we all. That fact, and not some good-government instinct for organizational tidiness, is the real reason for checks, balances, and governmental transparency. To paraphrase another President who was prone to tearing up the Constitution in the pursuit of noble goals, Satan can tempt some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but he can't tempt all the people all the time.
Whether George and company have deluded themselves into believing that the ends can justify the means, or whether they're suffering from a form of "combat fatigue" that's caused them to quail at the burden of defending the legal order while also obeying it, the fact remains that this is what happens to everybody, albeit on a much smaller scale on the order of worldly things. George Bush thinks he can inflict severe mental pain on people to get needed information. An assistant manager at Wal-Mart thinks he can humiliate a worker to get needed productivity. John Ashcroft thinks he should refuse to disclose the torture memos. A bank vice president thinks he should hide his bank's losses. And all these fellows have really, really, good reasons for what they're doing. It's all part of a whole, which is why our Lord exhorted us to be faithful in small things first, because the moral challenges that come with big jobs really aren't all that different.
Now that's shocking.
**************************************************
[1] You can find the memo in PDF format here.
[2] Col. Charles Dunlap, Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment, Tennessee Law Review, vol. 62, no. 3. Note #3. The text is available here. Colonel Dunlap attempts to minimize the implications of the story by saying that "the question turned out to be merely part of a graduate student's project aimed a studying unit cohesion and whether Marines understood the difference between lawful and unlawful orders." Sure it was. And it also "merely" a study which told the Marine Corps just how far Marines will go in enforcing federal law as well. The results of the graduate student's project are also classified.
[3] David Garrow, The FBI and Martin Luther King, in The Atlantic. You can find the whole text here.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Thanks, All For Your Prayers
My wife is fine, except for being in post-op pain and very woozy when she stands up and tries to walk.
I, on the other hand, am having a heck of a time maintaining "overwatch" on the perpetual-motion activities of our daughter, Hannah.
Last night was the bear. Hannah took a perfect header off a chair she was standing on to visit with mommy (a/k/a "ummah"), forehead BANG into a large metal tablestand. She was very tired when she got home, kept trying to sleep on top of her Pooh Bear with the Magic Blankie, eschewing all play and even her evening milk. After thinking to myself, "I AM THE WORST FATHER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND," I decided I better stay up all night and wake her up every hour or so to be sure (a) that the large bruise on her forehead didn't start developing eyes and a nose, and (b) that she wasn't developing some mind-numbingly-terrifying brain injury.
So, with DVDs rented while Dad was watching Hannah, managed to see the Lord of the Rings third episode (nice movie, but I'm not a Tolkien fan) and just about the whole Band of Brothers cycle (again!), and a lot of caffiene, I kept waking her up. She was so cute, I was really teed off about having to wake her up. She'd open her little eyes, stare into my face, stare at the wall over my shoulder, and then -- FLOP! -- onto my shoulder and go back to sleep again.
She was fine, woke up singing. She sings a lot. Little soft songs that fill the air like silver clouds. La la, . . . loooooohhhhhh lalalalalaaaaahhhhhhh . . .
Ate a whole Jumbo-sized scrambled egg for breakfast with buttered toast-tips and some mango. She didn't like the mango, gave it the "chew - display - discard" treatment. She loved mango 6 weeks ago. Now mango's on the ash-heap of history.
The Dog's having serious rejection issues. Usually one of us (my wife or I) can pet him a bit and give him some attention. Right now that's not possible in the mornings. Poor dog hasn't had his morning walk in three days. He spends a lot of time moping around and giving moon-eyes. I tell him, "Dog, we bought the lot next door. The grass is high there. Go kill a zebra." And he does, usually, bring down a gazelle or two by lunch. Not to mention discovering the dynamite Nazi commandoes left to destroy the aircraft-factory. Gets a medal and a milk bone every evening. He's got a good life, that dog.
Off to do the bath thing, then MILK. That's all capitals, M I L K. It's the essential part of the bedtime routine -- warm milk in the microwave, counting down audibly from 10 to giggles, then off with Pooh and the Magic Blankie to sleep.
As my daughter says, BAI! BAI BAI! Bah bah . . .
My wife is fine, except for being in post-op pain and very woozy when she stands up and tries to walk.
I, on the other hand, am having a heck of a time maintaining "overwatch" on the perpetual-motion activities of our daughter, Hannah.
Last night was the bear. Hannah took a perfect header off a chair she was standing on to visit with mommy (a/k/a "ummah"), forehead BANG into a large metal tablestand. She was very tired when she got home, kept trying to sleep on top of her Pooh Bear with the Magic Blankie, eschewing all play and even her evening milk. After thinking to myself, "I AM THE WORST FATHER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND," I decided I better stay up all night and wake her up every hour or so to be sure (a) that the large bruise on her forehead didn't start developing eyes and a nose, and (b) that she wasn't developing some mind-numbingly-terrifying brain injury.
So, with DVDs rented while Dad was watching Hannah, managed to see the Lord of the Rings third episode (nice movie, but I'm not a Tolkien fan) and just about the whole Band of Brothers cycle (again!), and a lot of caffiene, I kept waking her up. She was so cute, I was really teed off about having to wake her up. She'd open her little eyes, stare into my face, stare at the wall over my shoulder, and then -- FLOP! -- onto my shoulder and go back to sleep again.
She was fine, woke up singing. She sings a lot. Little soft songs that fill the air like silver clouds. La la, . . . loooooohhhhhh lalalalalaaaaahhhhhhh . . .
Ate a whole Jumbo-sized scrambled egg for breakfast with buttered toast-tips and some mango. She didn't like the mango, gave it the "chew - display - discard" treatment. She loved mango 6 weeks ago. Now mango's on the ash-heap of history.
The Dog's having serious rejection issues. Usually one of us (my wife or I) can pet him a bit and give him some attention. Right now that's not possible in the mornings. Poor dog hasn't had his morning walk in three days. He spends a lot of time moping around and giving moon-eyes. I tell him, "Dog, we bought the lot next door. The grass is high there. Go kill a zebra." And he does, usually, bring down a gazelle or two by lunch. Not to mention discovering the dynamite Nazi commandoes left to destroy the aircraft-factory. Gets a medal and a milk bone every evening. He's got a good life, that dog.
Off to do the bath thing, then MILK. That's all capitals, M I L K. It's the essential part of the bedtime routine -- warm milk in the microwave, counting down audibly from 10 to giggles, then off with Pooh and the Magic Blankie to sleep.
As my daughter says, BAI! BAI BAI! Bah bah . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
