Liberal Confusion, Part 2

Also from Body and Soul is this post:

Jesus is the most controversial human being to ever walk the face of the planet, and people don't want to hear his name. -- Franklin Graham

If that were true, a man who said Jesus was his favorite philosopher would not be president and would not have asked Franklin Graham to pray at his inauguration. The Pope would not be on the front page of the newspaper. Tim LaHaye's books would be on the remainder tables.

Over the centuries, Jesus' name has proved itself to be a money-maker and a power-builder. Many people have become rich and powerful hiding behind that name.

It's not the name, it's the ideas people have a hard time with.
posted by jeanne d'arc | 9:58 AM

I post this because I have read cutting and incisive critiques of the Catholic church by Catholic bloggers. One thing those critique's bring to the table is credibility. Those critics (a) know what they are talking about and (b) understand that they are part of the institution they are criticising. Heck, I have to respect even Gary Wills for his commitment to his version of the Catholic church. I think one of the things that sets my teeth on edge when I hear criticism of Christians or Catholicism or the United States from the left is a certain tone in their comments which makes it sound like their allegiances are always provisional and always conditioned on the institution measuring up to their standards. The post on the social scientists debating whether they should refuse to cooperate with the military is another example. Apparently, because the American military doesn't measure up to their standards, they feel compelled to sit on the side lines while the people who pay their salaries are murdered.

"Fortitude" is a moral virtue. Fortitude insures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. Fortitude does not involve making provisional allegiances. It does involve standing not just for something, but - and this is more difficult - standing by someone even when "all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you." Standing for an ideal is easy because ideals are by their nature perfect and uncompromising; standing by someone - a friend, a spouse, a church or a country - is a somewhat harder proposition because those things are real and carry with them a real history of surprising virtue and predictable weakness.

I think that "d'arc's" hit and run criticism of John Paul II or the religiousity of other people - or the social scientists concern about their involvement with the American military - would carry more weight if there was a sense from them that they had a commitment to the real which was at least as strong as their commitment to the ideal.