The good, the bad and the clerical.

Father Joseph Krupp's response to the Burrill scandal is a great one because it points out the most important aspect, which the Pillar's critics do so grudgingly, if they bother at all.

Here's another great and necessary observation by Father Krupp. 

Followed by another great take on the harm done to good priests by the misconduct of the bad. 

Followed, alas and expectedly, in the comments section of the first, by a lot of garbage takes from laity and the clerical caste alike.

Not a one of whom here can muster up even a pro-forma "priests should not use hook-up apps."

No, the witness of priestly immorality is entirely irrelevant to them.

Lord in heaven. 

Anyway, on to the takes:

First, it's "the ends don't justify the means!!!!"

A very popular, very question-begging, and very incorrect take. 

The ends do not justify every means. Cleaning a cat box with a scoop is fine. Cleaning it with a 10 gauge in your front yard while kids ride by on bikes is not. But if ends never justified means, you'd be up to your waist in cat crap.

Or it would get to the point where it crawls into your ears and takes up residence.

As an aside, this particular bad take is from Henry Karlson, who (1) has spent decades letting everyone know how smart he thinks he is, and (2) is what happens when you get your pseudo-intellectuals from a thrift store.

Second: Burrill used his own money. 

Which is a fascinating angle. And guaranteed to be wrong, at least as far as his office travel to get his rocks off involved reimbursed expenses from the USCCB. Rental cars, hotels, etc--are not out of pocket expenses.

Third: did you have to point out he used gay apps? 

The apps he used facilitate abuse of underage boys. The objection should be to G----r and similar profit-raking techs. But it never is, because Eros is never so powerful as when he allies with Mammon. The blessings of liberty.

Fourth, BUT FATHER ALTMAN IS BEING TEH PERSECUTED. 

Leave it to a conservative to play the whataboutism card in such a cringeworthy fashion. And yet it reminds us how priestly misbehavior is readily excused when the cult of personality is at full power.

Five: this is dystopian and unethical and if you're silent when they come for the compulsive priestly users of unverified age gay sex apps they'll come for you, too!  

How it is dystopian and unethical is not spelled out, but ipse dixit is sufficient for the cult of Eros Mammon. Points for a new spin on Bonhoeffer, too, I guess?

The same twitterer also argues that McCarrick was simply a pedophile who did not prey on adults. Which is so factually wrong that I am forced to invoke the Star Fleet Regulation: he seems to be emotionally compromised by the mission.

Six: Teh jurrnlism iz suspect! Also, boinking like a meth-addled rabbit while on the clock is not morally black and white, it's gray. 

Quite probably 50 shades, in fact. 

Neither of these criticisms are spelled out, but he doesn't have to--he uses a Latin handle which reminds us that brains die, too.

Seven: it's a politically-motivated hit job on the USCCB and the pontiff and Burrill is just like the woman caught in adultery!

Wait: I thought the USCCB was in opposition to the Holy See. 

Oh, that was last month. As to the rest...yikes yikes yikes yikes.

Eight: WHAT ABOUT PRIVACY WHO CARES WHO HE SCREWS AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE BISHOPS WHO HAVE BOYFRIENDS?

Candor forces me to concede partial credit for this one.

Which brings me around to the real reason for the reactions to this story, which in some cases can only be described as worried panic:

The moral rot is coterminous with its institutional structures. And far too many in the institution know this to be the case, but choose omerta. Otherwise decent institutional people have moral certitude that corruption sloshes around them. Not simply that there is a lack of celibacy or misuse of the funds of the faithful or similar problems, but that such are endemic. 

But silence is the order of the day. And one justification for it seems to make sense from the inside: revelation that the Church is wormed with the foulest of hypocrites of all kinds would be faith-destroying.

Yet, in the end, all the silence does is demonstrate that the church that has made a separate peace with corruption, preferring that to the conflict which comes from genuine moral reform. The corruption will still come to light, either via stories like the Pillar's or less spectacularly via the bad witness of the corrupt to individuals here or there.

Big bombshells or distant reports in the night, there's only so long you can pay lip service to moral standards while endlessly excusing your supposedly God-ordained leadership's flouting of them. 

And so the parishes continue to empty, and the spiral reinforces itself.

Enjoy the exile in Babylon, Church. You richly deserve it.

 

 

Mater et Pedisequa, Part I.

I hate to do the multi-parter thing again so soon, but this one is important, and requires it.

There are times, in Catholic life, when one stumbles across something so gobsmackey that you have to read it twice and walk away to enjoy a relaxing stroll through the autumn sunshine. Then, you return and read it again to make sure your eyes and brain had not, after all, decided to go on a general strike together. To your immense discomfort, you realize you read it correctly the first time.

This presentation by Oscar Andres Rodriguez Cardinal Maradiaga of Honduras is one of those times. Maradiaga is no ordinary prince of the Church--he has been appointed as coordinator of the Pope's "Gang of Eight" which is spearheading reform of the Vatican's bureaucracy.

Which means, naturally, that we should employ a lens of charitable presumption, assuming the best even in presentations which are clearly not ad hoc Night At The Improv oops-I-brainfarted-again gaffery.

I came up snake eyes. Unless the Cardinal is a prankster whose comic touch extends to preparing and lighting bags of modernist poo on the doorsteps of Catholic ministry folks and university students the week before Halloween...in which case--Zany!

Would that it were. No, no it's not.

No, this one is a humdinger, and needs to be explored closely.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NEW EVANGELIZATION

Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga SDB
Archbishop of Tegucigalpa
University of Dallas Ministry Conference
Irving Convention Center
25 October 2013

The title is rather interesting, because as you will see it's not exactly clear, in light of the entire presentation, where evangelizing fits in. No, really, it's that bad. Despite citing them, the Cardinal untethers himself completely from the documents of Vatican II and seems to use the conciliar spirit as a sort of ecclesial feng shui, an astonishing effort to harmonize the Gospel with the world.

Which is a shame--and then a horror--because it gets off to something of a good start. With one caveat.

1. Introduction: It is not possible to talk about the Church, or about the Church today, without referring to the crucial moment in contemporary history that Vatican II has been for her, both as an event of grace and a paradigmatic reference.

During a pre-conclave speech, the then-Cardinal Bergoglio issued a warning about what happens when the Church becomes "self-referential." While Cardinal Maradiaga would no doubt disagree, his speech is loaded with one of the more common self-referential sins of modern Catholic churchmen: the endless appeal to the 21st ecumenical council.

Some of you are probably crying foul, itching to throw a yellow flag, but think about it--how do you think constant, self-praising references to Vatican II sound to non-Catholic ears? 

"We gathered together, thought and talked about the modern world for three years and bam--I tell you! Wow, it just hit us! Now we know how this utterly unique and unprecedented modern world thing works! We even prepared several mission statements! Minds. Blown! Let me tell you humbly--it's the most important event in our recent history, and we are just brimming with insights from our big meeting that we just gotta share! Let us hit you with some knowledge. Incessantly."

Note that he says it is simply "not possible to talk about the Church" without referring back to it. And, my, does he ever refer to it. Over and over and over again. Let me humbly submit that constantly talking about your fabulous insights seems to be the dictionary definition of self-referential.

The Church is rising. There is a significant increment of the faith in Africa, where the Church has grown tremendously during the 20^th century. Such vitality can also be seen in some sectors of the Church in Asia –in India, Vietnam, the Philippines. But, at the same time, we are seeing in Europe institutions of considerable size but little energy, as well as a very hostile culture, fed by secularism and laicism. At the same time, we are watching a continent that “is committing demographic suicide at an alarming pace.” Similarly, here, in the United States of America, not everything is gloom, not everything is scandal and sin. No. Here, the Gospel of Christ is also alive and effective. For instance, George Weigel assures us in The Courage To Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church (Basic Books, 2000) that, 200,000 people embraced the Catholic faith in the United States in Easter of 2002, a number that for us is cheerful, and optimistic, and “a vital sign.”

A fair assessment. Perhaps a little over-optimistic, but fine.

2. Vatican II
The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20^th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.

Well, that certainly is....

I mean you have to agree....

Looked at one way....

Holy hopping snot. I can't make sense of it, at least not without a friend employing some herbal assistance.

"No, dude, it totally makes sense. You see, the Church and modernism are like oil and water, but if you have, like, God's totally ultimate hand mixer, you could make a kind of oil and water vinaigrette without, you know, vinegar. Just like that water-burning car the oil companies are hiding from us, man. Hey? Where are the Cheetos?"

Okay, still no help. 

Oooof. Well, let's see what Vatican I says:

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

As StrongBad might say, "I'm no theologist, but I think 'anathema' is bad."

And, if I may be so cheeky, let me point out what modernism meant to the Saint who decided to brain it:

Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself. 

Soooo...Vatican II was an armistice with the enemies of the cross of Christ? Who were just poor ol' misled social justice crusa--er, collaborators trying to make the world a better place?

No no no. NO. Modernism is better thought of as an attempted palace coup against God Himself, staged within the Church herself. Sure, all revolutions cloak themselves in good motives, in terms of justice. That doesn't justify them, much less their tactics.

Oy, vey. One fears that the Cardinal is writing Anthony Cekada's ad copy for him. Really, there's no salvaging this--it's a clusterfark. If the Cardinal's argument is accepted, the Church isn't descending into a hermeneutic of rupture. It's worse than that--it's a hermeneutic of malleability, with Vatican II the funhouse mirror-shaped lens used to examine Tradition. 

And then burn it like ants on a sidewalk.

The Vatican II Council officially acknowledged that things had changed, and captured the need for such a change in its Documents, which emphasized truths such as these:

Is that what the Council officially acknowledged--that modernism had a lot  of really, really good points? Turning previous councils like Vatican I on their head?

Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race, it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission. This it intends to do following faithfully the teaching of previous councils. The present- day conditions of the world add greater urgency to this work of the Church so that all men, joined more closely today by various social, technical and cultural ties, might also attain fuller unity in Christ.

Emphasis added even though it shouldn't have to be.

So, we're just jettisoning the documents and winging it now, I guess? Vatican II: I'm OK, You're OK.

1º) The Church is not the hierarchy, but the people of God. “The People of God” is, for the Council, the all-encompassing reality of the Church that goes back to the basic and the common stuff of our ecclesial condition; namely, our condition as believers. And that is a condition shared by us all. The hierarchy has no purpose in itself and for itself, but only in reference and subordination to the community. The function of the hierarchy is redefined in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant, not as“Pantocrator” (lord and emperor of this world); only from the perspective of someone crucified by the powers of this world it is possible to found, and to explain, the authority of the Church. The hierarchy is a ministry (diakonia = service) that requires lowering ourselves to the condition of servants. To take that place (the place of weakness and poverty) is her own, her very own responsibility.

The Suffering Servant is one of my favorite images of Christ. However, it is far from the only valid one. It's not, as anyone with a fleeting grasp of the New Testament can admit. Christ Pantocrator arose out of that NT datum that He is Lord. Also, that the wind and waves obey Him. That at His Name, every knee is to bow. That He is the Son of Man. 

And Christ Pantocrator--Christ the King--was--and is--a handy reminder to those who hold power, from Emperors all the way down to drain commissioners, that they answer to a King who stands over all. One who expects them to do justice to all.

The examples can be multiplied--I mean, I haven't gotten into the really heavyweight stuff in John. But the point remains--a vision of the Church based on only one facet of Jesus is going to be an impoverished and distorted one. Yes, I want ordained deacons, priests and bishops to serve, but I also expect them to rule when necessary--as did Jesus. The Holy Spirit gave us four gospels, with a plenitude of images of Christ and the Church. Why fixate on only one? Be all things to all men, so that you might save some, as a wise man facing a world of multiple beliefs--and no beliefs at all--once said.

Part II to follow.

Just another day of Resurrection denial.

Yeah, the Reporter again, this time by Carol Meyer:


Artist Ron DiCianni spent two years painting the largest mural ever of the resurrection, some 12 feet high and 30 feet wide, soon to be housed at the Museum of Biblical Arts in Dallas.

Sounds cool. Looks good, from a small version. Probably have to see it in person to get the full effect.

In a video about this work, he says, “The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the single act in history that separates Christianity from every other religion, every other philosophy, and every belief system. God gave me this incredible idea of having Christ emerge from the tomb which I've never seen done before. I wanted to stop a moment in time, when Jesus grabbed the sides of the tomb and walked out.”

Yep--that's the bold, central claim of Christianity--the Easter faith in the Risen Lord.

Naturally, Ms. Meyer will have none of this crass, fleshy misinterpretation.

As much as I admire DiCianni’s artistic skills and honor his perspective, I don’t agree with it. Like many, he takes a very literal approach to the resurrection, focusing on the biblical accounts as historically accurate. Even top-notch biblical scholars cannot fully unravel the mystery of what happened after Jesus’ death based on the resurrection narratives — what might have been fact, myth, or projection by the early Christian community. After all, no one caught it on camera.

Ever notice how the cultured despisers and intellectual wreckers come pouring out of the woodwork around Holy Week?

Even those who insist on calling themselves Catholic have to get in on the fun.

Not to be crass, but WTH? Historical accuracy in the Resurrection accounts interferes with the Triduum these days? What are you celebrating this week, then?

Why, the "he's alive in our hearts!" pseudogospel, apparently.

It’s freeing that we don’t have to spend our precious energy trying to figure it out. Faith is a lot more than an intellectual belief in a doctrine, which does little to give us the inspiration we so sorely seek.

Who's this "us," kemosabe? Frankly, I'm not inspired to pattern my life on the example of a grotesquely misunderstood failure who spent hours suffocating to death after being scourged to within an inch of his life. Hell, if I have to pick Roman execution victims, I'm going with Spartacus--at least he got to whomp on his tormenters for a while. Die with your boots on, and all that.

What we want is to have “our hearts burning within us,” experiencing the same thrill as the Emmaus disciples who knew that Jesus still walked beside them, not in an occasional physical way, but a constant spiritual one.

Which has to be the right way to read the Emmaus Road account:

And their eyes were opened, and they recognized their sorrow had caused them to hallucinate the whole thing. And once they realized this, he "vanished" from their sight, having not really been there in the first place, but somehow still alive in their hearts, kind of like when you remember a loved one who's reached room temperature unexpectedly. They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, or could it have been bad mutton? What about when Mr. Sublimated Agony of Loss projected himself onto certain passages we fixated on from the Scriptures? That's kinda like him being right here, when you think about it!" And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, "OK, he's still deader than Herod, but can't we agree that he's really alive in our hearts anyway, because we really miss him? Especially Simon, who may or may not be feeling guilty, depending upon how you regard the historicity of the denial/cockcrow scenes." Then they told what had happened on the road, and how they felt really bad about him still being dead, but fixated back on that last possibly Passover-like meal, which Jesus really went through all that hard work of preparing--well, maybe, depending on how you feel about the historical accuracy of the whole thing, which may or may not be some kind of projection in and of itself--even breaking of the bread and all that, before dying his pointless death."

Sign me up!

The question we might profitably ponder this Easter is: What profound reality is God trying to communicate through the resurrection and how can that have significance and power for us today?

Apart from taking it literally, you poor poor soul whose ahistorical, delusional perspective I nevertheless assure you I honor. Deeply.

God knows our world is a mess, so surely a reality this central to Christianity has something vital to say, some great grace to impart. It's not just something that happened once and for all in the past.

As I look around me, I see a lot of fear and hopelessness, which is quite understandable if we just look at the material side of things, which is what Jesus’ disciples did after his death.

Which was understandable, given that he was irrevocably dead and had died for nothing. Major buzzkill.

Things appeared totally dismal to them. But God awakened in them an intense realization that Jesus’ courageous death resulted in new life for him, them, and the world.

And that realization was....?

To help them and us to “get it,” the resurrection is portrayed in the Bible as an event bigger than life. There’s power, glory, dazzling angels, the earth quaking, stones miraculously moved —a n explosive, brilliant event, big enough to convince us that God’s saving love permeates the universe and is always with us even in the face of loss and change.

Ta-daaaaaah! The good news is that God's saving love permeates the universe! And how do we know it? Because the Gospel writers made up, whole cloth, some inspiring, earthshaking bullshit story about Jesus rising from the dead and added some Michael Bay-esque special effects to the tale! Think of it as Jesus' last parable, even if he was in no condition to tell it.

I mean, don't misunderstand--he's still deader than a doornail, probably even eaten by wild dogs in a trashheap somewhere, but still--can you feel it? God's saving love permeates the universe and is always with us!

This Easter, God is once again calling us to trust that death is a precondition for rebirth, disintegration undergirds reintegration, and dying seeds sprout new life, not only in our personal lives, but on a cosmic level.

I have no idea what this means. I am certain, however, it does not mean anything about life after death as understood by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants prior to the madness of the 20th Century.

One of the reasons I stay hopeful in the face of so much bad news is that I know something of evolutionary history, and how God and the universe have always fashioned something wonderful and unexpected out of the demise of the old. With this inspiration and the witness of Jesus who went willingly to his death, maybe we too can embrace the death of much of what we hold dear, confident that something better will replace it.

Poor Darwin--press-ganged into shilling for something outside of the scientific purview again. Usually, it's an atheist doing it or possibly some cad defending his caddishness by citing to evolutionary biology. This time, it's a panentheist playing Wayland Flowers to Darwin's Madam.

Our problem is that we’ve only put stock in the physical aspect of things, and failed to see the numinous, divine light that infuses it, and goes beyond it.

Thank you, Yoda. No, seriously--that's a paraphrase of dialogue from The Empire Strikes Back.

We’re stuck, scared and quivering, in a confining tomb, when God has rolled back the stone of unconsciousness and invited us to emerge into the light. We are more than matter. We are cosmological, spiritual beings yearning to experience God and the infinity of which we are a part.

Perhaps panentheism is not quite right--the disdain for the physical is starting to redline the gnostic meter.

Quantum Theology author Diarmuid O’Murchu expresses it this way, “The concept of resurrection helps us to contextualize our affinity to mystery, to make real and tangible the awe and apprehension that is deep within our being. It embodies our yearning for infinity, stretching back over billions of years and serving to connect us with the infinite eons that still lie ahead.”

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?

Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.

Dole Office Clerk: What?

Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a
viable and meaningful comprehension.

Dole Office Clerk: Oh--a bullshit artist!

Comicus: *Grumble*...

Dole Office Clerk: Did you bullshit last week?

Comicus: No.

Dole Office Clerk: Did you *try* to bullshit last week?

Comicus: Yes!

This is something of how I felt when I read Embraced by the Light many years ago. As the author described her near-death experience with its glimpse of unbounded existence and awareness, my heart thrilled as it went on the journey with her in imagination. I knew in my soul that I was part and parcel of this divine matrix which filled the universe.

Back to panentheism. I'll only add that it is interesting to contrast the complete credulity here with the skepticism toward the Resurrection accounts.

It helped me to see that there is no duality, no opposition between earthly existence and the spiritual realm.

Except, of course, that earthly existence comes to an irrevocable end in this philosophy. Not to mention the spiritual is pitted against any kind of physical resurrection. At that point, the duality becomes the Berlin Wall.

The resurrection does not imply that we should merely endure life in this world because all that matters is life after death, an error that has resulted in many sad consequences throughout history.

And no trashing of the orthodox understanding of the Resurrection would be complete without the Ceremonial Ignition of the Straw-Man.

Foomph!

God is one and our world is one in all its dimensions. The resurrection proclaims that the Cosmic Christ is with us fully, permeating every atom of matter, working redemption in all things, even in the groaning of creation. There is a seamless continuity and unity between matter and spirit, death and life, this world and the next.

Except, of course, once you shed this cloak of crude matter--Tik Tok--you ain't coming back.

So let us not be disbelieving, but believing, living out of the powerful, loving, creative force of Jesus’ enduring presence, allowing Him to transform us into heroic disciples, so desperately needed in today’s world, then our minds and hearts are free to soar with new insights to transform our lives.

Woot--he's with us in spirit. Careful you don't get yourself killed.

Jesus’ enemies thought they could be rid of him by killing him, but they were wrong. They didn’t count on the fact that, bound no longer by physical limitations, his spirit would be unlimited in its influence. The resurrection proclaims to those who destroy, “You can kill the body, but you can’t kill the soul. There’s another whole spiritual realm to be reckoned with over which you have no power.”

Yeah, you crucified him as the false messiah and king, and, OK, fine--he's still dead. The stone's still over the tomb, you aren't accountable for your crime and you've triumphed utterly--but you can't stop us, 'cause we've got spirit--neener, neener, neener!"

On the surface, evil often seems to win out, but it never does ultimately. There is more than meets the eye. Good always has its reward and prevails. The lesson might be to be bold in doing what is right and standing up for justice and God’s values no matter the cost because you will be vindicated in the end. The story doesn’t end with death. Death is just a transition into another realm, not the end of you.

Here's the funny part--I agree with her here. But...only because the Resurrection really, physically happened. If Ms. Meyer's version were the truth, the Jesus movement would have been as dead as he was by 40 AD, with as many followers today as those still following the false messiahs chronicled by Josephus. Who no doubt also really, really didn't want their messiahs to be executed by the Romans, either, yet still didn't hallucinate a faith into being.

I see the tomb and stone in front of it as symbolic. Often we live in a cramped, limited space of our own making. It’s very time and earth-bound, and ego-based with minimal consciousness. But once we let God roll the stone away, we emerge glorious as Jesus did, our eyes opened to the infinite possibilities in front of us.

In death, we let go of our bodies, and are released into a potential relationship with the whole of universal life. Easter is symbolic of victory after suffering for what is right. Evil doesn’t prevail. You can kill the body, but not the soul.

Yes, that's Easter faith all right. Welcome to the universe, nice and glowy in your Jedi suits--unless God decides he wants Hayden Christensen redigitized over you, in which case, gnashing of the teeth. This is the faith delivered unto the saints? Sadly, it isn't. And the last four words are particularly wrongheaded as we prepare to greet the Risen Lord on Sunday.

Seinfeldian Catholicism.

The Church of "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That."

Or, Would You Mind Removing the Dagger of Christian Fellowship From Between My Shoulder Blades, Thanks?

America Magazine offers its diagnosis of the problem with Obama being given an honorary degree at Notre Dame. And, in a shocking twist, the real problem is the group of unwashed hooligans who made the Baby Jenkins cry.

"The clouds roll with thunder, the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth, and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak—'We are the only Christians!'" So wrote St. Augustine about the Donatists, a perfectionist North African sect that attempted to keep the church free of contamination by having no truck with Roman officialdom.

And, we're off--to a very, very bad start. As in First--and file this away for later--note that the editorialist starts off with an accusation of heresy. Then compare it to the Kumbaya ending.

The second problem is that it is a stupid analogy. The Donatists didn't have a problem with those "having truck with Roman officialdom." The Donatists had a problem with those clerics who had caved in to Roman persecution, giving up the sacred books ("traditors," from which the term "traitor" is derived) and generally selling out the faithful.

Um....

Anyway, the Donatists challenged the ability of clerics who had given in to the Romans to administer the sacraments after the persecution ended. St. Augustine rightly fought against that. It's not remotely the same situation as complaining about festooning public officials with honors and platforms, but it makes for a handy self-righteous label, so why not?

Oh, and the Church fought the Donatists with repeated condemnations by popes and councils, so the analogy really sucks wind if you have the slightest grasp of Google. Moving on.

In the United States today, self-appointed watchdogs of orthodoxy, like Randall Terry and the Cardinal Newman Society, push mightily for a pure church quite unlike the mixed community of saints and sinners—the Catholic Church—that Augustine championed. Like the Circumcellions of old, they thrive on slash-and-burn tactics; and they refuse to allow the church to be contaminated by contact with certain politicians.

Except, of course, that that's not what Donatism was about. And why the fearbabe references to noted publicity whore Randall Terry, and, not, say, to Bishop D'Arcy of South Bend, or one of 70 or so of his colleagues? Gosh, this wouldn't be an exercise in well-poisoning now, would it?

Oh, and the Circumcellion (see above link for details) reference is a nice touch, given that group's propensity for physical violence. I guess I should be thankful that the editorialist didn't make a reference to the Taliban.

For today’s sectarians, it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program. They scorn Augustine’s inclusive, forgiving, big-church Catholics,

Who positively carpet-bombed the Donatists with condemnations, excommunications, mandatory penances and denials of communion, not to mention calling in the Emperor to drop the legal hammer, who imposed confiscatory fines and exile. But ignore the historical record--we have a narrative to push here.

who will not know which of them belongs to the City of God until God himself separates the tares from the wheat. Their tactics, and their attitudes, threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States, the effectiveness of its mission and the credibility of its pro-life activities.

Well, of course. There's no provocation here, none whatsoever. Aside from honoring the most explicitly pro-abortion President we've ever had. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Apparently. It certainly doesn't compare to making Catholic university administrators uncomfortable, at least in the editorialist's mind.

The sectarians’ targets are frequently Catholic universities and Catholic intellectuals who defend the richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition.

So, that's what they call the screaming flight from Ex Corde Ecclesiae these days. Lest we forget, the broad tent encompasses such time-honored elements of the Catholic tradition as annual royalty payments to third-rate playwrights, internships at abortion clinics, supporting ESCR, encouraging cohabitation, and cutting theology programs. To name but five things defended by our smart set.

From the peanut gallery, that looks less like a big tent than a lunatic asylum. Then again, I haven't had years of modern Catholic education to help me suss these things out.

Here's the problem with that rich, broad tent: there are no walls. Catholic universities have let every cultural wind blow into the tent for the past two generations, taking stands only after taking cues from the zeitgeist first. All the while intoning "not that there's anything wrong with that" when faced with something that actually might implicate a Catholic witness to the world contrary to something held dear by their secular liberal pals.

If they actually start telling them no--there is something wrong with that--once in a while, I'll take their self-certified clean bill of Catholic health seriously.

Their most recent target has been the University of Notre Dame and its president, John Jenkins, C.S.C., who has invited President Barack Obama to offer the commencement address and receive an honorary degree at this year’s graduation.

Poor fellow. Given how above board and forthright he was about this from the start, it's a true injustice.

Pope Benedict XVI has modeled a different attitude toward higher education. In 2008, the pope himself was prevented from speaking at Rome’s La Sapienza University by the intense opposition of some doctrinaire scientists. The Vatican later released his speech, in which he argued that "freedom from ecclesiastical and political authorities” is essential to the university’s "special role" in society. He asked, "What does the pope have to do or say to a university?" And he answered, "He certainly should not try to impose in an authoritarian manner his faith on others."

I am at a loss as to how to characterize this section. "Misleading" fits, in the same sense calling a bundle of TNT a "noisemaker" fits. Here's the actual speech by the Pope, which was prepared specifically for La Sapienza, an explicitly secular, not Catholic, university. This is the section from which the quotes have been cribbed:

I am moved, on this occasion, to express my gratitude for the invitation extended to me to come to your university to deliver an address to you. In this perspective, I first of all asked myself the question: What can a pope say on an occasion like this? In my lecture in Regensburg, I indeed spoke as pope, but I spoke above all in the guise of a former professor of the university, seeking to connect memory and the present. But at the university "La Sapienza", the ancient university of Rome, I have been invited as "Bishop of Rome", and so I must speak in this capacity. Of course, "La Sapienza" was once the pope's university, but today it is a secular university with that autonomy which, on the basis of its founding principles, has always been part of the nature of the university, which must always be exclusively bound to the authority of the truth. In its freedom from political and ecclesiastical authorities, the university finds its special role, and in modern society as well, which needs institutions of this nature.

* * *

And so let me go back to the initial point. What does the Pope have to do or say in a university? He certainly should not try to impose in an authoritarian manner his faith on others, which can only be freely offered. Beyond his ministry as Pastor of the Church and on the basis of the intrinsic nature of this pastoral ministry, it is his task to keep alive man’s responsiveness to the truth. Similarly he must again and always invite reason to seek out truth, goodness and God, and on this path urge it to see the useful lights that emerged during the history of the Christian faith and perceive Jesus Christ as the light that illuminates history and helps find the way towards the future.


Faux-ultramontanism is all the rage these days. But the disingenuous chutzpa of trying to use the La Sapienza speech to defend actions in a Catholic university deserves some kind of award. It is, in fact, pure bullshit.

The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern.

For the folks at America, I have no doubt it is a matter of deepest concern. As to the Vatican...well, some actual, you know, quotes from someone in a position of authority would be nice. The faux-ultramontanist readings of cherry-picked L'Osservatore Romano articles and Vatican "silence" are getting pretty tiresome.

That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.

The trouble is, the partisanship argument (again, unsupported by actual examples) cuts both ways, and the reflexive special pleading on behalf of Democrats should be called by its proper name: political partisanship.

See how easy--and empty--that is?

Pope Benedict XVI has also modeled a different stance toward independent-minded politicians. He has twice reached out to President Obama and offered to build on the common ground of shared values. Even after the partially bungled visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Pope Benedict, Vatican officials worked quickly to repair communication with her.

Behold the special pleading and the cherry picking. They assert that Pelosi's trip was bungled because...they need it to be. For the Narrative. The Pope's denial of a photo-op to Pelosi and the instant release of his remarks to her speak louder than newspaper articles and supposedly-portentious "silence."

Furthermore, in participating in the international honors accorded New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson in Rome last month for outlawing the death penalty (See Signs of the Times, 5/4), Pope Benedict did not flinch at appearing with a politician who does not agree fully with the church’s policy positions. When challenged about the governor’s imperfect pro-life credentials, Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe responded on point, "We were able to help him understand our position on the death penalty.... One thing at a time."

"Imperfect pro-life credentials." The editorialist has a future in the law, no doubt.
Indeed, a guy who voted twice against the prohibition of ramming scissors into the skull of a partially delivered baby could be said to have "imperfect pro-life credentials." Here he is again, bewailing the ban on the campaign trail. Sounds like you have a long ways to go, Abp. Sheehan. But keep us updated, if you will.

As an aside, it must have been hard work getting a liberal Democrat to buck the fearsome death penalty lobby within his party, as exemplified by NERAL (the National Executioners' Rights Action League).

In all seriousness, it is asinine wordsmithing like this that raises red flags in the minds of pro-lifers--as in the ones who actually put time and money toward the effort. If you can't bring yourself to name the problem, you are part of it. Not only will your professed fealty be questioned, it is, by nature, questionable. Your "yes" means "mfrmrml" and your "no" means "mfrmrml."

Rather like UND's professed devotion to pro-life witness, in fact.

Finally, last March the pro-choice French president Nicolas Sarkozy was made an honorary canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the pope’s own cathedral.

Hoo, boy. This card has been played so much over the past month it is showing scorch marks.

I'll see your $2 and raise you $400: the person smugly playing this card has no clue what French abortion laws actually are. Here you go: only in the first 10 weeks, and after that only if certified by two physicians that there is a grave risk to the woman's mental or physical health.

Ask the President if he'd be willing to sign on to that kind of legislative scheme in place of what we have now. Here's a hint: NARAL would ask for his scalp if he proposed it.

In other words, the analogy compares apples to pomegranates on the legal system alone. France's abortion laws are, compared to the rest of Europe and especially the U.S., models of considered sobriety. Then there's the actual records of the two politicians in question--it doesn't appear that Sarko has ever opposed health care for infants who survive the chop shop thingy. I don't know about you, but that should be a mark in his favor.

And now, for the anti-Donatist tonic.

Four steps are necessary for the U.S. church to escape the strengthening riptide of sectarian conflict and re-establish trust between universities and the hierarchy.

Interesting formulation--it's just a clash between the hierarchy and the "elite" schools. Nothing whatsoever is owed to the Church as a whole, which makes for a telling window on the aggrieved mindset.

Care to guess whether there is any reciprocity involved--whether the universities have any responsibilities owed back to anybody else? You know the answer.

First, the bishops’ discipline about speakers and awards at Catholic institutions should be narrowed to exclude from platforms and awards only those Catholics who explicitly oppose formal Catholic teaching.

Which has the intended side-effect of "sectarianizing" the issue of abortion. Nah, the pro-life position can't be derived from natural reason--it's just a Catholic thing.

Nicely played, America.

Oh, and by the way--no. Note the continued word weaseling: "only those Catholics who explicitly oppose formal Catholic teaching." Nope--can't pilot a zeppelin through that one.

From the stuck-pig scream of the editorial, I'm thinking that only those Catholics who fail to genuflect before the Land O' Lakes Statement are subject to the suggested modification.

Second, in politics we must reaffirm the distinction between the authoritative teaching of moral principles and legitimate prudential differences in applying principles to public life.

More fudge. Mackinaw City is going to get nervous. Given the loophole in the first one, suspicion is warranted here. Frankly, the so-called elite Catholic universities' "application" of said principles usually involve distancing themselves from those fighting on the ground, where they aren't actively complaining about or trying to thwart them. Exhibit A--this editorial.

The fact is, trust has to be earned. Try pitching in instead of bitching on, and on, and on... Try showing the Catholic flag for once instead of saying "personally opposed" and "not that there's anything wrong with that."

Third, all sides should return to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI that in politics there are usually several ways to attain the same goals.

Fine sounding words. But ultimately empty, as they often break down in practice, especially where one side is fighting to change the legal landscape and the other side is carrying water for the status quo. There's no downloadable patch for this problem.

Finally, church leaders must promote the primacy of charity among Catholics who advocate different political options. For as the council declared, "The bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything which divides them" ("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," No. 92).

Here, we finish with a proffered olive branch.

Right in the ol' retina.

Yes, let us join together in a circle of Christian love--good people like us and benighted, divisive, embarrassing, bullying Donatist-Circumcellion jerks like you that we are working at cross-purposes with. Thanks, America, for the Tall-Fingered Sign of Peace. I'd shake hands, but you know--the swine flu and all.

One generation of imbecile is enough.

[Strong Foul Language Warning, most of which is not mine.]

John Edwards' (remember him? Yeah, it's getting tougher for me, too) former campaign blogger, the incomparable Amanda Marcotte, has propagated another intellectual car wreck attracting gawkers. You may remember Marcotte as the originator of such crippling idiocies as:

Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? [her response to the Duke lacrosse case--whoopsie!];

Of course, if you’re a perverted religious nut, the blood and the pain of 'cherry'-breaking is probably a de riguer part of a woman’s life, both to give the man a cheap thrill of actual blood while enacting the sex-as-violent-possession construction that is part of virginity fetishization and to remind the woman of her religious teaching that womanhood is suffering (see: Genesis);

[I]t appears the wingnut opinion on the proper lifecycle of the womb-body is–one begins as a bright-eyed, innocent virgin, loses your virginity in some weird post-wedding masculinity rite, preferably with maximum blood, fall pregnant immediately, and then die in childbirth so everyone can remember you fondly.

And my personal favorite, ranting against the growing movement to ban contraception:

[Here we'll break to let you push your retinas back into your eyesockets. Done? Good--on to the quote]:

One thing I vow here and now–you motherf*ckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f*ck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf*ckers. I’m not going to be "punished" with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.

[A Message from the Office for National Drug Control Policy: PCP is bad. But it's really, really bad to mix PCP with The Handmaid's Tale. Just don't.]

So, as you see, she's the feminist blogger answer to Andrew Dice Clay, hickory dickory dock.

If I ever find out who asked the question, I'll shoot him dead.

Notice a common thread? Yep--babyphobia. Mandy's pretty adamant the only fleshy thing that's ever coming out of her vagina is the wilting schwantz of her current inadequate boyfriend.

FEAR ME!

Her latest missive from the world of "The Patriarchs Are Coming After Us With Turkey Basters Full Of Semen!" is further proof, and probably tops the rant in the moron sweepstakes.

THE STUPID! IT BURNS!

The theory that women have a natural urge to have babies is one that’s got a long and ignoble sexist history, [...] None of that is to say that the urge to have children that some (but far from all) women experience isn’t real, and that’s my other giant problem with the ongoing preoccupation with evo psych theories to explain things that are cultural constructs. That something is a cultural construct doesn’t make it less real, it just means that it’s more changeable. This seems like a small distinction, but it’s an important one. I am routinely accused by evo psych fans of denying that men and women are different. I do think there are major culturally constructed differences, and I think most of them exist to demean and oppress women and should be changed in the culture. That’s not to say that they aren’t real, but just that they’re changeable.

As someone else noted, "In her world, a desire for children is a cultural construct, but transexualism and homosexuality are immutable."

No, she's not a top-rank commentator. Basically, she's a wholly derivative and shrill ideologue without a shred of real humor in her. But it's because she's so derivative (not to mention loud) that this latest foray into idiocy is important--she couldn't have dreamed it up on her own, which means there's a geyser of academic decerebration about to erupt under our feet. Coming soon to a Borders and NY Times puff piece near you.

Oh, and really, Ms. Marcotte--we get it--no babies for you! For which we thank the benevolent hand of Providence. Whatever it takes--tied tubes, diaphragms, hysterectomies involving backhoes--whatever. You have our blessing. And society's thanks.

McElvaineum.

Or, "Ignorance found to exist on the periodic table."

I have to say, I haven't been this entertained by distilled idiocy in a long time--"God as bi-sexual"!! Such pure comedy gold warrants plugging in the Fisk-o-Matic.

Robert McElvaine, professor of history at Millsaps College, cavort away! Dance, I say! Dance!

On Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI asked the crowd gathered in St. Peter's Square to pray that his first visit to the United States as pontiff this week would "be a time of spiritual renewal for all Americans." Surely spiritual renewal would be beneficial to all of us -- not least the pope and his Church.

That's the last time we hear a hint that McElvaine and the enlightened solons like him might not be immaculately conceived. From here on in, Mac jabs his arugula-stained fingers solely at the superannuated German and his even more antique Church.

Benedict's visit is an appropriate time for American Catholics to call upon him to recognize that spiritual renewal, like charity, begins at home.

Mac has the makings of an argument here, based on the so-not-over child rape scandals, but like many in academia, he quickly shows that he's over that and remains fixated on matters priapic.

The pope must take action to revive a Church in desperate need of revolutionary renewal by pushing significant reform in the area of its largest failings: policies concerning women and sex. Faced in recent years with what may be its greatest crisis since the abuses of the Renaissance papacy five hundred years ago stimulated the Protestant Reformation, the Church has to seize the opportunity to reverse two thousand years of misguided views on women.

Errrrrrrrr....what? Is he suggesting that the scandals were the result of the fact that Catholicism isn't laid back enough about sex and "reproductive rights"? It's hard to say, but since he quickly wings his way to More Feminist Than Thou country and himself never comes back to the issue, I suspect the Professor knows this is a nonsensical non-starter.

This pope's history offers little hope that he will do so.

Try "no hope" and he's nailed it.

Pardon the brief diversion to a musical interlude.

He was, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the principal author of the Vatican's 2004 letter to bishops, "On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." In that document the Church once more chose to blame the victim rather than to examine its own major role in the problem.

At this point, I'd like to express my sympathy for the Professor, who suffers from the condition known as Encyclicitis. Encyclicitis is a fairly common psychosomatic condition seen most often in secular progressives. It manifests itself in itching and the irrational fear that one is about to be infected with celibacy or break out in festering corneal boils if one actually reads a Vatican document, as opposed to cherry-picking from it.

Modern feminism is the trouble, the old men who cling to power in Rome contend. "Faced with the abuse of power," the Vatican letter complained of feminism, "the answer for women is to seek power." Well, yes. And if the men of the Church--and men more generally--had not been abusing power for thousands of years, there would be no need for women to seek ways to redress the balance.

An advanced case. He probably had an intern read it for him. That's why he missed sections like this:

Without prejudice to the advancement of women's rights in society and the family, these observations seek to correct the perspective which views men as enemies to be overcome. The proper condition of the male-female relationship cannot be a kind of mistrustful and defensive opposition. Their relationship needs to be lived in peace and in the happiness of shared love.

On a more concrete level, if social policies – in the areas of education, work, family, access to services and civic participation – must combat all unjust sexual discrimination, they must also listen to the aspirations and identify the needs of all. The defence and promotion of equal dignity and common personal values must be harmonized with attentive recognition of the difference and reciprocity between the sexes where this is relevant to the realization of one's humanity, whether male or female.

Yep--we're all about keeping them in the kitchen against their will.

Where the hell's my sandwich?

Perhaps even more disturbing is the homily Cardinal Ratzinger gave on the day before the convening of the conclave that selected him as pope. He denounced a "dictatorship of relativism" that, he contended, threatens to undermine the fundamental teachings of Christianity.

In the age of Google-Fu, McElvaine apparently doesn't trust you to read this one for yourself.

Money grafs:


Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceipt from truth.

Sometimes, the patient doesn't like the diagnosis, and it appears that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has the good professor tacked to the wall. Try to discern in McElvaine's piece if there is any interest in Jesus apart from use as a good luck charm against "anti-progressives." Rotsa ruck, as the dog would say.

What Benedict XVI and other anti-progressive Catholics fail to realize is that the current teachings of the Church on a host of interrelated issues -- women priests, clerical celibacy, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and, most basic of all, the sex of God -- are themselves the result of the Church at various times in the past having been, in Ratzinger's words the day before he became pope, "tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching" to conform to the practices and prejudices of societies now long gone.

This is a prime example of what I call "Nine Dollar Idiocy." What is that, you may be asking your good selves? Simple--a paperback Catechism has a list price of $9.

If you make a dumbass statement about Catholicism that doesn't even try to take into account the Catechism, you are engaging in NDI. Here, the foolery centers around such concepts as "Scripture," "Tradition," "Magisterium" and "Development of Doctrine." If you aren't going to try to learn the steps, don't bother coming to the dance.

"So's yer old man"/"I'm rubber, you're glue" may win you high-fives from co-religionists in the faculty lounge. But as David Niven so memorably said of the streaker at the Academy Awards, you are showing your shortcomings.

What Pope Benedict XVI should, but almost certainly will not, do is call a council of the Church to address these intertwined issues and to recognize that the Church's positions on them are not based on the teachings of Jesus.

Dear Lord, not another Vatican III tubthumper. Note also our first deployment of the Jesus Shield, and the continuing of the Nine Dollar Idiocy. Again, there is no interest in Jesus as such, just the flagging of the thought substitute of "Jesus never taught X, so I can Y my Z in/through/over/around ABC and/or exercising my rights as Z." I'll give the Professor this much--he's determined to spare us any contact with originality.

The Church established from the time of St. Paul onward was set up as a No-Woman's Land.

[Cue tinny laugh track.]

The general views on the inferiority of women come from Paul's interpretation of the literally incredible story of the creation of Eve from Adam,

Methinks as a good progressive, ProfMac has little truck with creation, miracles and the Resurrection, all of which strain credulity equally well. I'm not a 7-dayer or a young-earther, but I'd rather hang with them than with cultured despisers who see everything as an eternal power struggle against any form of received wisdom which is not approved by them.

Note also that he carefully avoids mentioning how the Church interprets Genesis, which would tend to derail his The Church Is Always And Everywhere Wrong Meme. Can't afford to concede any credibility to the old girl, right?

a story that men had made up to overcome their feelings of inferiority because of women's capacity to give birth.

My first belly laugh of the essay. And he knows this...how? I guess he borrowed Jim Carroll's time machine and went back to ask. Either that, or Progressives: Gifted With The Ability To Read The Minds of Safely Dead Patriarchal-Types. And Drunk Chicks. Yeah, they're just better than us in so many, many mystical ways.

The ban on women priests also emanates from Paul's reliance on Genesis

Wha--? Um, no. There have been no documented cases of eye boils--honest.

The reasoning is WDJD, actually.

The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: "The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way."

In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: "In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time."

In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood, the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord's way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry. Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles' mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.

There's nary a citation to either Paul or Genesis in the whole thing. Deep down, some people just have to enjoy being wrong.

and from the Early Church Fathers' rejection of the role of women around Jesus and particularly the centrality of Mary Magdalene as one equal to St. Peter.

Lord, this is tiring. Again, NO. Mary was revered as the Apostle to the Apostles by the Fathers. The fact that Gregory the Great screwed it up doesn't mean that she was being trashed in toto.

"Equal to St. Peter"? Danger, Will Robinson--Dan Brown Brainkiller Radiation detected.

Priestly celibacy was not established as a requirement until the Middle Ages and was based on the belief that women are unclean because they menstruate

Yeah. I'm certain that's exactly what it was based on. Let's unpack this particularly pungent brain-fart (snorkels ready? Good!). He's saying priestly celibacy--the idea that men who are ordained as priests may not have sex--was based upon the fact that women menstruate.

Mmm-kay.

The best thing I can say for this reasoning is that he must have been distracted by a shiny object while typing. It happens.

Not usually for an entire hour, but it happens.

Even though I know his thesis is nonsense, I can't believe anyone (without associate professor/professor-groupie status) could buy this lobotomy-with-a-URL. It would be like coming across a self-identified Muslim who claimed that Muhammad advocated the consumption of slivered ham and that mead is the lost Islamic sacrament.

Does...not...compute...

(another indication of the envy of female capacities that is the root of all the restrictions men place on women).

You know, I'm sure this line worked on the co-eds back when he was an undergrad, but now all I can hear is Butt-head chuckling and saying "Hey, baby. I en-vy you. Come to Butt-head."

When Thomas Aquinas declared in the thirteenth century that "woman is defective and misbegotten," he was echoing Paul, Genesis, and Aristotle -- not Jesus.

Here's Aquinas on women, which is not (surprise) as bad as Professor Prooftext makes him out to be. Note also that the Church does not cling (to use the popular word) to Aquinas as the unquestioned authority in all things. See, e.g., Conception, The Dogma of the Immaculate.

Oh, and Jesus never said anything about me whizzing in history department coffee pots, either. Not that that means anything, necessarily.

Bottoms up.

The Church's opposition to birth control and to abortion even early in pregnancy is largely an outgrowth of its all-male composition and those males' attempts to degrade women's physical powers by asserting that women and the intercourse into which they putatively tempt men are necessary evils ("It is well for a man not to touch a woman," Paul instructed the Christians of Corinth), the only purpose of which is procreation.

Professor McElvaine is to theology what Fred Phelps is to gay rights. Here are the relevant verses of 1 Corinthians 7 (you do know there were two letters "to the Christians of Corinth," right?):

1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

Yep--unadulterated, one-size-fits-all, sex-fearing, patriarchal domination.

The condemnation of homosexuals is based entirely on Old Testament rules established by men who feared anything that placed in question their insistence on the polarity of the sexes.

Entirely. If you take whiteout to Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:9 (remember he was citing the letter just a few sentences back) and 1 Tim. 1:10, it's all gone. And polarity of the sexes is a...telling formulation. Telegraphing the crowning silliness of the article.

The idea that God is solely male is the work of the Church Fathers who chose which gospel accounts to include in the official New Testament and excluded all the Gnostic Gospels that contain references to an androgynous God, and of the bishops who met at Constantinople in 381 and modified the Creed to say that the Holy Spirit is male.

Thank you, Pope Dan. The stupidity is so concentrated at this point that it bends light.

Well, for starters, there's this thing he made reference to earlier called the "Old Testament." It uses "he" and "father" in reference to the Almighty. In fact, if he had the remotest suspicion of a clue about which he was prattling, he would know that there are similes in the OT he could have deployed in his cause. In fact, reference is made to them in the Catechism--section 239, to be exact.

To the rest of the goofball jumbalaya, I can only reply with questions: which Church fathers? When? Why is the much-touted Gnostic drivel authoritative? Who wrote it and why? Cite your Gnostic supporting texts (and I'll ante with the Gospel of Thomas 114). Demonstrate that the change at I Constantinople was to call the Holy Spirit "male." That this blustering buffoon managed to get a book contract is proof positive that I'm driving down the wrong streets--the ones where the advances are tossed through every open window. And a few closed ones, like the Professor's.

The idea that a Creator could be of only one sex is absurd on its face.

Actually, Catholicism teaches that saying the Creator is of any "sex" is absurd, but that won't stop a gold-plated ignoramus with an agenda to push:

239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

Yet this nonsensical belief, which actually diminishes God, has been one of the main bases for the subordination of women and values associated with them -- precisely the values taught by Jesus -- throughout the history of the Church.

You mean the same Jesus who taught us the OUR FATHER?

But, on the other hand, worshipping the Great Big Hermaphrodite in the Sky is the essence of common sense?

Keep digging. That heat you're feeling is called "the mantle."

The bottom line is that none of the Church's positions on women and sex come from the teachings of Jesus.

And if there's one thing we've learned from this little excursion, it's that he is the very soul of infallibility, and not to be questioned.

Oh, and

**Coughcough DIVORCE coughcough**

Of course, it's up to him to prove that it has to come from Jesus, or IT DOESN'T COUNT. But I felt compelled to point out that he's wrong yet again.

All of them are the products of the very relativism that the current pope decries.

He's Trojan, you're glue--

Oops. Wrong rubber.

The relativism of an earlier day has become the dogma of today.

Robert McElvaine is, in fact, a maroon armadillo. Both of our confidently-stated-yet-unsupported declarations are equally valid.

A popular hymn asserts that the Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ. The truth, however, is that since the early centuries of the religion that took up the name of Christianity, the Church's one foundation has been male insecurity and its consequent subordination of women. Peter may have been the rock upon which Jesus sought to build his Church, but the rock upon which those who built Christianity in the early centuries after Jesus was the misogyny of their societies. Benedict XVI needs to lead the Church in a true revolution: a circling back to the actual teachings of Jesus and away from the perversions of those teachings by the early Church Fathers and their successors.

The Church's one foundation/
Is misogyny...

Nope--loses the meter.

The reign of error continues. Let's see--the very Church Fathers who were closest in time were the most likely to pervert it, but those two millenia after the fact in cultures even more removed from 1st Century Galilee can understand the "real" message with perfect clarity.

Anachronism, anyone?

During the second week of his papacy in 1978, John Paul I sensibly declared that God "is a Mother as well as a Father." Eighteen days later John Paul I was dead, only 33 days after his election. Despite that unfortunate example

John Paul I was whacked for saying what the Catechism essentially says. Sheesh-- behold the 9/28 Hermaphroditophile Truther.

and his own stance against desperately needed reform, Benedict XVI owes it to Catholics to take the bold steps needed to break the hold on the Church of earlier flings with relativism and to bring the institution he heads into line both with the needs of the modern world and with the teachings of Jesus.

Here endeth the lesson.