When did Catholic apologists become Kantian absolutists?

Catholic ethics puts a great deal of emphasis on the concept of whether something is properly ordered to a proper end.

Lying in the circumstances that have unmasked the lies and crimes of Planned Parenthood may be an evil, or it may not be an evil, but it is certainly trivial compared to the material aid being given to Murder, Inc. by certain Catholic apologists, not to mention the calumny against people who - for all we can tell - are acting altruistically.

//What’s the last thing you’d expect right now? That putative pro-lifers would start condemning all this evidence of moral advancement, claiming that the Center for Medical Progress used evil means to uncover the truth about Planned Parenthood — so evil that Christians should denounce the CMP for employing them, so sinister that these videos themselves will backfire and discredit the pro-life movement. Because, you see, the CMP’s investigators told Planned Parenthood employees things that weren’t true. And that is evil. By this logic, the Planned Parenthood videos are the fruit of a poison tree, and should not even be made public or shared. Like Nazi doctor Josef Mengele’s experimental results, or sins we overheard in someone else’s confession, we should shun them and keep them secret.

Catholic writer Mark Shea is leading the charge against Planned Parenthood’s critics. On July 21, Shea condemned the Center for Medical Progress in an online Catholic radio broadcast, where he also said that families sheltering Jews during the Holocaust would have sinned by deceiving the Nazis who hunted those Jews. At 35:30 he quipped, “The issue is not and never has been figuring out how to lie well; the issue is figuring out how to hide your Jews well.” Then he chortled heartily.

Curiously, Shea has no previous track record of condemning the use of deception by police trapping pedophiles, CIA operatives fighting terrorism, or animal rights activists infiltrating factory farms. But over several years, Shea has spilled tens of thousands of words denouncing pro-life investigative reporters who infiltrated Planned Parenthood, even alleging that these pro-lifers had endangered their immortal souls by “tempting” professional abortionists into sin. You see, the prolife investigators of Live Action, including Lila Rose, showed up at abortion clinics and made fake appointments, trying to see if the clinics were willing to violate relevant laws. According to Shea, Rose was playing the evil temptress by doing that, urging someone to sin … because they intended to give her an abortion, so they sinned as gravely as a murderer who shoots but misses. She “tempted” them to do that, so she is just as guilty. Really?

Clearly Shea doesn’t understand the difference between entrapment and legitimate undercover work. If someone is already in the business of habitual acts of evil, presenting him an opportunity to express that fixed intention in order to stop him is not considered entrapment under law. Nor is it a sin. By Shea’s logic, if a sniper were picking off pedestrians, police who shoved out a mannequin to draw away his fire would be “tempting” him to murder, since he intended to shoot a real person. To say that such policemen were guilty of “incitement to murder” would not just be false; it would be slander.//

Mark Shea channels his inner...

...Chesterton.

So unlike the rigid ideologies which are coming to dominate the culture, the supreme irony is that infallibility does not mean never having to say you're sorry. For the gift of infallibility necessarily implies that the Church receiving it needs it. It is because those Borgia Popes, pedophile priests, radical nuns (and worst of all, because people like me) fail in their individual lives to obey that which the Spirit infallibly reveals through the Church that the Church must be supported by Christ at every step or she is ruined. That's the point of all those Acts of Contrition. Not exactly prideful--especially in contrast to the arrogant noise from the academy that all is Race War, Class War and Gender War (accompanied by threats against chattel students who dare to differ). In comparison to these snarls from elitists in the Vanguard of History, the Church's claim of infallibility is refreshingly humble and hopeful. For it is just another way of expressing confidence in Christ's promise to guide us none-too-bright sheep into truth, freedom and love "even unto the end of the age."

Freedom and love were what my liberal mentors (in the warm mood of the 70s) once taught me to desire. And they taught me so well, I desire it still. May they soon come to their senses and remember the wisdom of their youth--a wisdom preserved, not by the mood of the 70's, but by the infallibly guarded creed of the ages.//

Waiting for Civilization 3.0

Mark Shea

A post-Christian culture will be a slave culture because slavery is the normal state of fallen man. It is the brief period in history where Christian civilization, after a labor of centuries, finally threw off slavery, that is the exceptional thing. It is the other 200,000 years where slavery is taken for granted that is what we are absolutely guaranteed to see–unless we repent and believe the good news.

Modern life is full of these kinds of irony.

Lucky us.

Mark Shea observes:

One of the Weirder Aspects of the Abortion Debate in America

…is that it’s the pro-aborts who resort to all sorts of preposterous mystical claptrap to support their position while it is the prolifers who just point to the science. Prolifers say obvious things like “Dude. Does it have 46 human chromosomes (47 if we are talking humans with Down’s Syndrome)? Is it performing functions like metabolism? Then it’s human. Deal with it.” Meanwhile pro-abort mystics go off on fanciful searches for a soul and personhood and all kinds of other ghostly entities undetectable by the sciences. Most hilarious of all, when you point out that this is all mystical claptrap they say, “See! There’s no scientific basis for the prolife position!” You can’t make this stuff up.

Don't fall for it...

Mark Shea on St. Stephen Hawking and the Really True Story of How Catholics are Forbidden to Study Creation...as if Catholics haven't been studying Creation for 2,000 years.

I like this bit:

It’s the sort of thing only believed and circulated by members of the English Chattering Class (and, of course, by Americans who feel an instinctive sense of inferiority both to the English and to guys in lab coats). And since it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church hates and fears science, such a claim doesn’t need to be verified since we’re all, you know, on the same page here. I mean just look at the way the Church has always persecuted scientists such as Galileo and… well, oh, you know everyone!

In related English Secular Upper Class News, Hawking concluded his presentation with a Q&A session, and the the last question he answered earned one of the night’s biggest laughs.

“We’re in an era where we can control machines with our thoughts,” began the questioner, so besides Hawking’s motorized wheelchair, what else would he like to use that for?

“What I’d really like to control is not machines, but people,” the professor responded.

Something you don't see every day.

Particularly when it is backwards in the Eastern Orthodox fasion, plus a shout out to Mt. Athos.

Christians - particularly ancient Christians - need to be more visible.

“How does my gay neighbor’s marriage to his partner affect me?”

Well, not much, unless casting a pinch of incense at the altar of gay marriage becomes a requirement of civil society, in which case a great deal.

And sacrificing at the altar of gay marriage is becoming a requirement of civil society according to Rod Dreher:

If the Obama administration has its way, all US military chaplains will have to do so. Excerpt:

The Obama administration “strongly objects” to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of military property for same-sex “marriage or marriage-like” ceremonies, and protect military chaplains from negative repercussions for refusing to perform ceremonies that conflict with their beliefs, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

If this goes through, the Catholic and the Orthodox chaplains will have to be withdrawn from the US military. Many Evangelical chaplains will choose to leave. If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized by Supreme Court ruling, then I don’t see how even a legislative exemption would be possible. This is another one of the answers to the question, “How does my gay neighbor’s marriage to his partner affect me?”

Erin Manning, who sent this link along, writes about possible implications beyond the military:

What it’s going to come down to, eventually, is this: “Oh, I’m sorry, Catholic Church/Orthodox Church/Protestant churches who agree with them re: marriage: you either perform gay “marriages,” or we take away your right to participate in civil marriage licensing. Everyone else can get married in a church and have it “count” for the purpose of their civil marriage license, but Catholics and other “bigots” will have to “marry” in front of a judge or something and then have the church ceremony which won’t mean anything in the eyes of the state.”

It’s coming.

Mark Shea observes:

This is the hubristic tyrant who, just this past December, tried to decree to the Lutherans who they could and could not ordain and got smashed flat by a 9-0 decision by SCOTUS. The arrogance of this Administration is boundless. Anybody who thinks they don’t mean to punish orthodox Christians for incorrect thought simply doesn’t grasp the Left’s bottomless capacity for self-righteousness.

Brave New World - Obama Style.

Darwin Catholic points out how creepy last week's Obama campaign effort, "the Life of Julia," really was:

I'm sure that Obama campaign would not have put out such a highly visible advertisement if they didn't think that it displayed all that was most wonderful about ObamaWorld. But to those who don't see their primary relationship in life as being with the all-protecting state, it's actually a mildly spooky piece of work. Julia is utterly alone. You never see her with parents, siblings, friends, boyfriend (or girlfriend, for that matter), or spouse. We see her pregnant once when she "decides to have a child", and we see her with her six-year-old son Zachary once when he goes off to his federal-program-filled kindergarten. But he's never seen again, nor is any other human being. Clearly, once Zach is under the sheltering arm of the state, he has no need to see his mother again. Nor does Julia need to see parents or siblings. She doesn't even need a spouse or other "life partner". She's got the state to watch out for her, and she has a fulfilling life with equal pay, a SBA loan to start her web design business, and a community garden to work in when she retires on social security. So in each image she appears alone. Safely cocooned from the need to rely on or interact with others. All she needs is the state.

I just hope they've legalized drugs too. It's a brave new world out there.

Via Mark Shea.

One of my guilty pleasures...

...is that I'm sort of a fan of Shep Smith.

Here's why:



Via Mark Shea.

Apropos of the risk that those who need the "perfect" book or the "perfect 'oral tradition'" lest they lose their faith...

...Mark Shea writes:

The Bible is not written to be the Big Perfect Book of Everything. It is written to relay firmly, faithfully and without error those truths God wished us to know for the sake of our salvation. Eyewitness accounts which do not record “ipssissima verbi” (the exact tape-recorded words) are not “contradictory”. They get at the gist of what happened. They can leave out details that don’t concern the author or his readers and include details that do (as, for instance, when both Paul and Luke record that Jesus said the cup is the “new covenant” and not merely the “covenant” in His blood. But varying details do not (except for flat-footed fundamentalists) “prove” the story is worthless. They merely prove that the witnesses are human beings telling about an intensely important memory in a human way. The only thing more foolish than trying to enforce a foolish hyper-consistency on such testimony is to lose your faith when you fail to do so.

Mark Shea is kindly referencing my podcast on Apologetic Thomas - Thomas v. Bart Ehrman, but after the back and forth with Steve Hays at Triablogue, it is palpably clear that the fundamentalist and the atheist are driven by the same foolish need to see perfect consistency.

We don't need to "see" a perfect consistency because "seeing" is not univocal with "believing."

Notice how different this need to "see" is from the approach of St. Thomas Aquinas on dealing with what Bart Ehrman calls - and a wooden literalist like Steve Hays might fear is - a contradiction, i.e., the difference between the Gospel of Mark that implies that Christ was crucified at the "third hour" and the Gospel of John that implies that it was "about the the sixth hour." Ehrman would - actually he does - ullalate in victory, "See, there's a contradiction, it must be all wrong." A wooden literalist would do back-flips trying to explain how "third" really means "six."

What does St. Thomas Aquinas do? Read for yourself:

Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): "'It was about the sixth hour' when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be crucified," as John relates. For it "was not quite the sixth hour, but about the sixth--that is, it was after the fifth, and when part of the sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended--that the darkness began, when Christ hung upon the cross. It is understood to have been the third hour when the Jews clamored for the Lord to be crucified: and it is most clearly shown that they crucified Him when they clamored out. Therefore, lest anyone might divert the thought of so great a crime from the Jews to the soldiers, he says: 'It was the third hour, and they crucified Him,' that they before all may be found to have crucified Him, who at the third hour clamored for His crucifixion. Although there are not wanting some persons who wish the Parasceve to be understood as the third hour, which John recalls, saying: 'It was the Parasceve, about the sixth hour.' For 'Parasceve' is interpreted 'preparation.' But the true Pasch, which was celebrated in the Lord's Passion, began to be prepared from the ninth hour of the night--namely, when the chief priests said: 'He is deserving of death.'" According to John, then, "the sixth hour of the Parasceve" lasts from that hour of the night down to Christ's crucifixion; while, according to Mark, it is the third hour of the day.

Still, there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due to the error of a Greek transcriber: since the characters employed by them to represent 3 and 6 are somewhat alike.

In other words, the first thing that Thomas does is not to read the text of the Bible as a wooden literalist does, ie., like Bart Ehrman. Thomas suggests that maybe, just maybe, the times were collapsing an entire series of events into a single time, which, you know, when you think about it, is what people often do.

The second thing he does is even more interesting - and more precious as a character trait: Thomas says, "Hey, maybe there's an error in the Bibles we are reading."

Thomas points out that there could have been a scribal error because in Greek "three" and "six" are "somewhat alike."

Notice the casual way he concedes the fargin' obvious? Thomas isn't suffering a crisis of faith because of it. He isn't saying, "Woe is us; we can know nothing." To the contrary, he says, in essence, "well if there is a problem, let's work it out."

Jeepers, you mean, just like a scholar?

Also, think about why Thomas might not have been overly-shocked about this prospect, unlike Bart Ehrman and modern folks. Namely, because Thomas actually worked with scribes, who undoubtedly made errors all the time, unlike Bart Ehrman and his audience who think that everything should look like a "Xerox"(TM) brand copy.

On the other hand, if you listen to the podcast, if you listen closely and pay attention, you may just hear the dog that didn't bark in the night.

You know who should have suggested that the so-called discrepancy might be a scribal error? Bart Ehrman, that's who. Ehrman has written books on scribal errors. Yet, he never suggests - as does St. Thomas - that maybe we can answer the question of "contradiction" on the basis that both texts once said "three" or "six," until a scribe came along and confused one for the other because in Greek "three" and "six" are "somewhat alike."

But Bart Ehrman doesn' offer that possibility because he's on record as saying that if the Bible were really and truly God's word, then God would have prevented there ever being any confusion, such as perhaps by inventing photocopiers in the First Century.

Which when you think about it has the same structure as Steve Hays' argument: if God had wanted His truth to be communicated, He wouldn't relay on impermanent, easily confused oral communications; He would only have allowed His word to be communicated in something permanent and less easily forgotten, like a written text.

Fundamentalism and atheism - both want to tell God how He could do His job so much better.

No one wields the scalpel of sarcasm like Mark Shea.

Here he tackles Andrew Sullivan's recent tantrum on Catholicism sponsored by Newsweek:

Anyway, Rod Dreher rolls his eyes at this rather unconvincing article that is what passes for intelligent commentary on Christianity at Newsweek. Sullivan’s piece will, of course, be hailed as profound and he will courageously face the applause for the now white-whiskered assumption in our post-Protestant culture that Jesus and his Body are opposites. One can only arrive at that view by ignoring large amounts of what Jesus himself says (“He who listens to you listens to me, and he who listens to me listens to him who sent me” is but one such teaching of Jesus that doesn’t get much MSM press). But since virtually nobody saying “I think Jesus is okay, it’s his followers who have it all wrong” actually knows anything about what Jesus said or did and would be shocked if they did, that’s not surprising. Sullivan deals with this problem by the expedient of hailing Thomas Jefferson for scissoring out of the New Testament anything that gets in the way of what Andrew Sullivan wants. In a culture that takes The Da Vinci Code as sober history (while lecturing Christians on their gullibility) we should not be too surprised then that Sullivan is a prophet suitable for our age.

For me, the curious thing about the conflict between Sullivan and Dreher is that, in addition to everything else, it seems to me to illustrate something I noticed a while back about the difference between cradle Catholics and many converts. Namely, that cradles tend to approach the Church on a familial basis, while many converts approach her on a doctrinal basis. Doctrinally, Dreher (who has, in fact, left the Catholic communion over the abuse scandal and other things) is closer to the Church (and Jesus) in his understanding of consistent obedience to her moral teaching than Sullivan is. Sullivan’s preposterous Jeffersonian cut and paste job is convincing only to himself and like-minded people who just want a frisson of Faith as a cover for their narcissism.

But at the same time, Sullivan remains closer to the Church on a familial basis (i.e, ecclesially), like a son who can’t stand Mom but would never think of changing his name or disowning the family.

Good stuff, and I think that Shea is dead-on with regard to the difference between cradles and converts.

Playing "Spot the Idiots."

A fourteen year old girl dares - dares! - to defend traditional marriage and the tolerant forces of the Enlightenment immediately call for her death:

If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.”

Wake up America. The voices that preach tolerance are turning violent. This time the target is an innocent young girl, Sarah Crank, who testified before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in support of traditional marriage.

The calm, truthful testimony of a 14-year-old minor – without profanity or harsh language – generated vulgar attacks, threats of violence and even death wishes divulged on numerous pro-homosexual websites, blogs, and comment entries. In fact, pro-homosexual activists unleashed a campaign of harassment against the Maryland family, including a call to have the mother’s parental rights revoked for simply encouraging her daughter to defend the reality of marriage between one man and one woman.

Violent Reactions

“And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what its like to be harassed and bullied…” reads a comment posted on LGBTQNation.com

From YouTube: “My god I hate people like this. Most (not all) Americans are [expletive] retards. If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.”

Other entries: “Her parents should be exterminated.”

“The [sic] is why abortion must stay legal – to prevent little bigots like this from being Born…”

“Kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.”

“Her belief is hurting other people. I will attack her as much as I please.”

“Parents like hers should be sterilized…”

Mark Shea also points to this example of a 16 year old atheist who blew the whistle on a "school prayer" banner long-ensconced on the walls of a high school auditorium. Apparently, although we aren't told what was said, the angry reaction prompted her to get a police escort for some period of time. Given human nature and what passes for public discourse in this era, we can probably write out what is being said by cutting and pasting from atheist/homosexual hate screeds against theists.

Needless to say, if there was anything said similar to what was said by against the 14 year old traditional marriage supporter, shame on them. From the article, I couldn't see anything like that, albeit, perhaps, calling the girl "evil" is over the top, but even that statement is qualified by the observation that "it's not her fault." What I saw was speech well within the bounds of civil discourse as compared to the steaming pile of hate that I can read in any number of comment threads on liberal/homosexual sites.

The amazing thing to me is how this banner has managed to remain in place for the last 60 years. One would have thought that by now the principle that prayers are not permitted in schools would have reached every corner of this great "naked public square" we call America. Of course, one answer is that no one really saw this as a prayer; rather it was probably understood as being a motto, a set of pious platitudes, much like "In God we Trust."

The War against the Normal can be seen in the Left's hooting about the death of Andrew Breitbart.

This only makes sense insofar as the Left has staked its claim to existence on the "virtue" of "authenticity" as well as on challenging the authority of tradition.

Acting civilized is a learned habit. It's not "authentic" and it is inculcated in people only on the basis of tradition.

The authentic reaction of uncivilized people who have not happened to have been distorted, or transformed, by the conventions of civilization is to hoot and jeer and exult when we learn that people who are outside our tribe have suffered an untimely death. It takes an inauthentic suppression of that reflex to utter the socially conventional expressions of sympathy to people outside the tribe who are grieving.

And that takes an ability to see that people outside the tribe are fellow children of God and entitled to respect.

A case in point, when Christopher Hitchens died - and assumed what he repeatedly described as a meaningless return to room temperature in other people - Christians uniformly uttered sincere expressions of sympathy and regret.

On the other hand when a conservative like Andrew Breitbart passes away at 43, leaving a wife and four young children, leftists put on their warpaint and whoop and holler around the tribal campfire. As Mark Shea points out:

Proving that few people can be as disgusting as the self-righteous lefty, here are the paladins of love and tolerance on the Left celebrating the death of Andrew Breitbart.

Slate’s Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias), who tweeted: “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.”

AlmightyBob ‏ @AlmightyBoob : @AndrewBreitbart haha youre dead and in hell being a gay with hitler

Jeff Glasse ‏ @jeffglasse : Andrew Breitbart now enjoying afternoon tea with Hitler #goodriddanceyouhack

Kellie Allen @thirtyseven : Breitbart helped destroy the career of someone I know. Good riddance, scumraker.

Scott On Da Rox @ridinchillwaves : RT GOOD RIDDANCE..fascist prick @Gawker: Andrew Breitbart Dead? gawker.com/5889586/

Josh M ‏ @TheSocialest : Good riddance Breitbart. Hopefully they put James O’Keefe in your casket

There’s a lot more where that came from. There’s a peculiar sort of hatred and rejoicing at the death of ideological enemies on the Left (think of Christopher Hitchens habit of kicking corpses) that, for whatever reason, seems to me less common on the Right. Oh sure, the Right will delectate over the corpse of a bin Laden. But as a general rule, I don’t see outpourings of glee when, say, a Christopher Hitchens dies. You have the normal period of prayers, respectful words and “do not speak ill of the dead” that is part of the culture. But on the Left, the white hot gust of hatred hits you in the face. It’s not a healthy sign. When you regard death as simply the most effective way to get rid of political enemies, it’s just a matter of time before you start deploying it as a tool.

Why knowing history is important.

Having recently read books on the Kulturkampf and the Nazi state's relationship with the German Catholic Church, I am struck by the fact that every single move in the Obama's administrations effort to sweep Catholicism from the public stage has happened before.

The Obama's administration's argument that Catholic conscience and practice is protected only when it involves the administration of the sacraments to Catholics? The Nazis made the same distinction for the same purpose, namely to eliminate Catholic influence in "political" life. See this and this.

The Obama's administration use of Catholics who identify themselves as Democrat or liberal or progressive first, and Catholic second? That is a gambit, again, right out of Nazi Germany.

The intrusion of state power and politics into every facet of life so that dissenting from the State's policies on maters of conscience is made into a risky "political" decision? The Nazis, again.

Using State power to suppressing Catholic moral doctrines on the grounds that such doctrines are "superstitious"? The German Kulturkampf - a period of oppression and persecution initiated and sustained by German liberals.

In the same vein, Mark Shea writes:

As I mentioned, the strategy of states seeking to dominate the Church is–as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, the Nazi, and the Chinese Commies have all demonstrated–to foster a Patriotic Church, docile to the will of the Ruling Class, and then encourage devotion to that as “real Christianity” in contrast to the actual Catholic Church in union with the Pope and the bishops. We don’t live in a confessional country, so the state can’t actually make Obama the Head of the Church. But Obama can certainly help foster the perception of lickspittle bureaucrats, dissenting theologians, and sundry cringing suckups on the Catholic left as an alternative magisterium. That appears to be precisely the tactic he is taking with, of course, the willing and eager help of the MSM, who naturally portray the whole thing as Plucky Rebel Alliance of forward-thinking Catholics vs. Evil Empire of Sexually Retarded Bishops. Nobody even bothers to ask why the Church might have qualms about contraception or abortifacients. The meme machine is revved, ginning up the public to cheer for the crushing of Catholic conscience by a tyrant who has usurped the power to murder and indefinitely detain American citizens as a triumph of the human spirit. Sin does indeed make people stupid.

Uber-cool!

Scale of the universe - from Quantum Foam to the Cosmos.

Via the King of Cool.

Mark Shea counsels an atheist grieved that someone might say something ever so slightly askance about Hitchens...

...to get real.

Mark Shea got a comment, like the one I got by some atheist, bravely defending the notion that their hero's only destiny is to become worm food with the following:

Dude. Hitchens made a career out of insulting people’s memories in the hour of their family’s keenest grief–on national and international television. It was one of his most revolting traits and a living illustration of how courage, unhinged from the other virtues, can be deployed to do great evil–since it takes “courage” (of a sort) to defy healthy social convention and revile somebody’s loved one in the hour of their death.

In contrast, all Douthat did was offer some kind words. So: Cry me a river, wimpy self-absorbed atheist wuss, if a Christian states a) that he believes Hitchens now knows how wrong he was about God and b) does so in a generally kindly piece that tries to say something generous about a man who reviled his most cherished beliefs. Letters like yours just demonstrate that, yes, lots of atheists seem to suffer from some sort of personality disorder that renders them incapable of picking up the normal social and affective cues that normal people normally perceive. Lots of them are also, like you, full of self-pity and boasting that would embarrass a high school sophomore.

That you exhibit this adolescent cluelessness, O Future of Human Evolution, while simultaneously boasting of superior intelligence simply demonstrates yet again that those who worship the intellect seem particularly hampered in using it. Get over yourself.

More on "Why I am not a Catholic."

My latest interaction with the defender of Dr. Ruckman's book on
Why I am not a Catholic."

The great thing is that after the onslaught from Mark Shea's blog, my one star review will always be the first review that people see.

Oo-rah!

There is a method to my madness.

First, S. Wilder's post:

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2011 11:40:37 PM PST
S. Wilder says:
Dr. Ruckman's style is harsh and blatant, but what he's saying concerning the Pope compared to Jesus Christ is true. If the pope is Christ' s substitute on earth, there should be many similarities in their lives. Let' s see:

While on earth, Jesus never controlled great wealth. The pope controls one of the wealthiest corporations in the world.
Jesus dressed like a common man. The pope, on the other hand, is never seen in anything but regal apparel.
Jesus lived in simple surroundings, but the pope views opulence at every turn.
Jesus tirelessly served the multitudes, while the pope travels the world on his private jet, meeting with world leaders from every nation.
Most people eventually rejected and hated Jesus because He told the truth. The pope is worshipped and adored by millions worldwide.
The pope gladly welcomes the praise of men, but Jesus directed all worship to the Father, and said of Himself:

"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Mark 10:18

Should popes accept the worship of multitudes? Look how "Pope" Peter reacted when Cornelius tried to worship him:

"And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." Acts 10:25-26

The Catechism claims that:

"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" Pg. 246, #937

According to God's Word, the pope is not the head of the true church of Jesus Christ. That position is reserved exclusively for the Lord Jesus:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church..." Ephesians 5:23

Concerning the pope' s title of "Holy Father," Jesus Himself instructed us to:

"...call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

Yet, the pope not only accepts the title "Father," but "Holy Father" as well, a title reserved for God alone:

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy..." Revelation 15:4

It is not wise to assume a name reserved for God, for He will not share His glory with anyone:

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." Isaiah 42:8

Catholic tradition (Matthew 15:3,6) and Scripture ( 2 Timothy 3:15-16) certainly disagree:
Why didn't God tell us in the Bible that He was sending the pope as the Vicar of Christ?
Why does the Bible insist that Jesus is still the head of the church, if He isn't?
Why does the Catholic church want the pope to be the final authority instead of Jesus?
Why does the Catholic church want the pope to be your teacher instead of the Holy Spirit of God?

Follow Catholic tradition if you want to, I'm believing my Bible - "And ye are complete in him (Jesus), which is the head of all principality and power:" Colossians 2:10

"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church..." Colossians 1:18

Then, my first response:

Your post: Dec 16, 2011 4:07:26 PM PST
Peter S. Bradley says:
In response to Mr. Wilder's recent post -

1. "Dr. Ruckman's style is harsh and blatant..."

No, Dr. Ruckman's style is that of an ignorant bigot. You are dissembling when you call someone who refers to "wine headed w*ps" and "Communist p*l*cks" and who delights in the pain of a Catholic woman who has seen her husband murdered.

Seriously, what don't you understand about this?

Pretend that you were Italian for just second. Apply the Golden Rule. How would you feel about being called a "wine headed w*p"? Ditto for the rest of his racist screed.

Stop using euphemisms. If you have an ounce of manners, you will denounce Dr. Ruckman's book for what it is.

2. People worship the Pope.

Who does this?

Evidence, please.

3. The Catholic Church as the "world's wealthiest corporation."

Evidence please.

4. Jesus dressed like a common man.

So, you are saying that Jesus will not return as the King?

Are you saying that Jesus is not adorned with a glorious resurrected body?

You have a puzzling theology.

5. "The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" Pg. 246, #937

Yes, it does and for good reason since Peter was given the keys and the power to bind and loose.

6. "...call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

Take it up with St. Paul who constantly referred to himself as a "father" of his followers.

7. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church..." Ephesians 5:23

This is very true. But what do you think it meant when Christ gave the keys to Peter?

And why did Christ tell Peter, " Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers"? (Luke 22:31 - 32.)

Hey, maybe Jesus thought it might be nice to have someone who would chiefly represent him with respect to His "pilgrim church on Earth."

Hmm...maybe the reference to the keys is a kind of "typology" referring to Isaiah 22, in which "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda."

Boy, wouldn't it be weird if that was what was meant?

It would almost be like the Catholic Church was carrying out the express desires of Jesus Christ, which, you know, might be, like, a good thing.

It might even make Catholics the real "bible Christians."

Mr. Wilder, I understand that you have issues with the Catholic Church, but, honestly, cutting and pasting boring anti-catholic clichés is probably not the way you should approach the subject of dealing with your issues.
Edit your post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
In response to Mr. Wilder's recent post -

1. "Dr. Ruckman's style is harsh and blatant..."

No, Dr. Ruckman's style is that of an ignorant bigot. You are dissembling when you call someone who refers to "wine headed w*ps" and "Communist p*l*cks" and who delights in the pain of a Catholic woman who has seen her husband murdered.

Seriously, what don't you understand about this?

Pretend that you were Italian for just second. Apply the Golden Rule. How would you feel about being called a "wine headed w*p"? Ditto for the rest of his racist screed.

Stop using euphemisms. If you have an ounce of manners, you will denounce Dr. Ruckman's book for what it is.

2. People worship the Pope.

Who does this?

Evidence, please.

3. The Catholic Church as the "world's wealthiest corporation."

Evidence please.

4. Jesus dressed like a common man.

So, you are saying that Jesus will not return as the King?

Are you saying that Jesus is not adorned with a glorious resurrected body?

You have a puzzling theology.

5. "The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" Pg. 246, #937

Yes, it does and for good reason since Peter was given the keys and the power to bind and loose.

6. "...call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

Take it up with St. Paul who constantly referred to himself as a "father" of his followers.

7. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church..." Ephesians 5:23

This is very true. But what do you think it meant when Christ gave the keys to Peter?

And why did Christ tell Peter, " Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers"? (Luke 22:31 - 32.)

Hey, maybe Jesus thought it might be nice to have someone who would chiefly represent him with respect to His "pilgrim church on Earth."

Hmm...maybe the reference to the keys is a kind of "typology" referring to Isaiah 22, in which "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda."

Boy, wouldn't it be weird if that was what was meant?

It would almost be like the Catholic Church was carrying out the express desires of Jesus Christ, which, you know, might be, like, a good thing.

It might even make Catholics the real "bible Christians."

Mr. Wilder, I understand that you have issues with the Catholic Church, but, honestly, cutting and pasting boring anti-catholic clichés is probably not the way you should approach the subject of dealing with your issues.

Then, my second response:

Your post: Dec 16, 2011 4:37:13 PM PST
Peter S. Bradley says:


Mr. Wilder,

Let's take this tack for a moment.

Why are you so obsessed with this issue?

I clearly have a stake in not having my faith defamed. I think that is a reasonable motivation on my part for my responding to you.

But why do you have such a stake in saying such awful things about my faith?

Let's assume that you really believe that the Catholic Church is powerful and evil. Why is that a matter that makes you go out of your way to say things to other people that you know won't be accepted and are insulting?

It's not like any Catholics are going to run over to your house and force you to "worship" the Pope or whatever it is that really makes you afraid of Catholicism.

So, why the energy in insulting other people and defending a book that is a very clear exercise in a neanderthal kind of racist bigotry?

Good advice for the brave harbingers of the godless world of the future...

..."cowboy up."

Mark Shea writes:

"Atheists who screech like little girls at the sight of a world not to their liking are not going to be very effective Vanguards for the Revolution because, you know, sheesh! What a bunch of sorry pantywaists!

My advice: learn to cope with the fact that, with the exception of brief moments in history when people with major personality disorders who lack normal social and affective abilities take over and impose their will with blood and iron on a prostrate populace, atheists will always comprise a small minority, and even 21%of them are so confused about what “atheism” means they declare that they believe in God. So yeah, there’s a reason you feel like an outsider: you are. As a Catholic who is also an outsider in American culture, my suggestion is: have fun with it. One of the pleasures of outsideriness is that you get to be a subversive weirdo who is as exotic as a Hottentot. You can actually make friends who are fascinated by your counter-cultural lifestyle–that is, unless you are a sullen grouch who files suit and mutters about everybody around you praying. Then, you can just expect to be the unhappy isolated person you will inevitably be."

Wow!  They don't write poison pen letters like that anymore.

Robert Louis Stevenson responds to the slander of Father Damien of Molokai by the Rev. Dr. Hyde of Honolulu:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REVEREND DR. HYDE OF HONOLULU


SYDNEY,

FEBRUARY 25, 1890.

Sir, - It may probably occur to you that we have met, and visited, and conversed; on my side, with interest. You may remember that you have done me several courtesies, for which I was prepared to be grateful. But there are duties which come before gratitude, and offences which justly divide friends, far more acquaintances. Your letter to the Reverend H. B. Gage is a document which, in my sight, if you had filled me with bread when I was starving, if you had sat up to nurse my father when he lay a-dying, would yet absolve me from the bonds of gratitude. You know enough, doubtless, of the process of canonisation to be aware that, a hundred years after the death of Damien, there will appear a man charged with the painful office of the DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. After that noble brother of mine, and of all frail clay, shall have lain a century at rest, one shall accuse, one defend him. The circumstance is unusual that the devil's advocate should be a volunteer, should be a member of a sect immediately rival, and should make haste to take upon himself his ugly office ere the bones are cold; unusual, and of a taste which I shall leave my readers free to qualify; unusual, and to me inspiring. If I have at all learned the trade of using words to convey truth and to arouse emotion, you have at last furnished me with a subject. For it is in the interest of all mankind, and the cause of public decency in every quarter of the world, not only that Damien should be righted, but that you and your letter should be displayed at length, in their true colours, to the public eye.

And the next time you think about slandering your betters, consider this bit of prophecy:

Damien has been too much depicted with a conventional halo and conventional features; so drawn by men who perhaps had not the eye to remark or the pen to express the individual; or who perhaps were only blinded and silenced by generous admiration, such as I partly envy for myself - such as you, if your soul were enlightened, would envy on your bended knees. It is the least defect of such a method of portraiture that it makes the path easy for the devil's advocate, and leaves the misuse of the slanderer a considerable field of truth. For the truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy. The world, in your despite, may perhaps owe you something, if your letter be the means of substituting once for all a credible likeness for a wax abstraction. For, if that world at all remember you, on the day when Damien of Molokai shall be named a Saint, it will be in virtue of one work: your letter to the Reverend H. B. Gage.

As a bit of practical wisdom, and as guide on how to gracefully stick a literary knife into someone, the entire letter is worth reading.

Via Mark Shea.

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another...

...which is why Conservatives are now the principled defenders of Free Speech.



Via Mark Shea.