Thought Exorcist

And in a few short months, no doubt our leaders will once more pronounce those meaningless words: "Never again"

2006-09-10T12:24:00.000-04:00

Pray for those in Darfur.

Bush and Torture

2006-09-10T11:57:00.000-04:00

Hey all. Once again, sorry for the prolonged absence--another busy week. I actually should be writing (well, figuring out what I'm going to write and then writing) a paper now, but I thought I should pass this along. The amount of lying that the President has done this week is unbelievable. dotCommonweal gives a pretty good round-up of the more pertinent discussion, though I'd check out Andrew Sullivan's whole blog since he's written several interesting things since the dotCommonweal was posted. Oh, and the Pope's back home in Bavaria. We'll see if anything too interesting comes of that. I'm much more intrigued by his planned trip to Istanbul for the Feast of My Patron at the end of November.

Mark Jordan, etc.

2006-09-05T11:39:00.000-04:00

So I finally finished Mark Jordan's The Silence of Sodom. I must confess, the last few chapters were challenging. Essentially they dealt with whether a gay man (this is the primary audience the text is written for) should stay in the Catholic Church. Jordan seems to lean heavily towards the "No" side, though he does nuance this. Unfortunately, the rationale is based entirely upon sociological evidence (and quite a bit of conjecture) that totally ignores ecclesiology or theology in general.

He speaks about gay Catholics needing to go to "another Eucharistic table." There is, however, a problem with this. There is only ONE Eucharistic table, and it is Christ's. The fellowship and communion that is there enacted is with all the faithful, whether they have any particular affection for us or not. This cannot be gotten around. Simply absenting oneself from the assembly to create one that is more gay-friendly is insufficient, for it either ceases to be the table of Christ; is another way of being in-communion, but with less visibility; or is a partial communion. I, for one, would much rather stay in full communion and struggle with these matters than simply give up on the Church I love. For Jordan, this seems to be masochism. I see it as love, which always entails a degree of suffering. Sadly, love (not merely eroticism) is a category which Jordan does not discuss all that often in this text.

Another problem I have is that Jordan seems a bit utopian. He criticizes the gay churches for creating too much of a hierarchy along Catholic lines. The problem is that it is impossible not to have a hierarchy and bureaucracy for any organization that wants to exist in a community larger than the merely local. Organization becomes a factor here, and that organization will always have the weaknesses of sin and human failing within it. Likewise, a key point that he fails to discuss is the fact that a constitutive aspect of Catholicism is the belief in the divine establishment of the episcopacy as a means of unity among the people. This is obviously not perfect--the scandal of Christian division illustrates it--but it is still the best model there is, in my opinion, if a community wishes to remain united to anyone outside of its walls.

This being said, Jordan's critiques earlier in the work are quite compelling, and simply acknowledging the necessity of an episcopacy in no way defends the mendacity and scandal which that body may cause. Jordan feels that this is an irredeemable element to any bueracracy, and perhaps he's right, but I am not yet to that point.

I wonder how many of our differences have to do with generational issues. He's of my parents generation (born, I believe, in the early 50s) and thus has both struggled with these matters for longer and lived through the entirety of the modern gay movement since Stonewall. An interesting piece on the end of gay culture as was once understood can be found here. I wonder if our differences lie in the fact that he still seems to see a community that can be unifyingly labeled "queer," while I see a multiplicity of groups and people (particularly since I fit within so few of them).

Also raised is the question of how far charity can go. Does it have a limit? Does my desire to give any interlocutor--including the Vatican--the benefit of the doubt infringe upon justice owed to other gays who, like me, suffer greatly by these pronouncements? Can justice trump love, and if not, how do we bring them both together with such diverse interests? It seems to me that James Alison tries (see his reflection on the recent Vatican ban on gay priests), but is it effective? These are questions I need to ponder, but I fear they shall have to wait awhile. Back to homework.

P.S. I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" kicking off Al Gore's presidential campaign and "Little Miss Sunshine" this past weekend. Both get enthusiastic thumbs up and deserve more comment than I have time to give. So go see 'em. Peace.

St. Gregory

2006-09-04T13:16:00.000-04:00

Wow, ok, so it's been a week since I posted and for the few of you who actually find my blathering interesting, apologies. Just been a pretty hectic week trying to get things done, but I do have some ammo for a few more posts, hopefully they'll get done this afternoon. Anyway, though yesterday was a Sunday, I couldn't let the feast of Gregorius Magnus pass without mention. St. Gregory the Great died in the early 7th century and is often considered the last Western Father of the Church. He was also a pope who did a great deal of service for the poor and did not believe that there should be a "universal patriarchate" over the rest of the Church (pay attention Curia members!), but that the papal primacy must be exercised with humility. His favorite title for the pope was Servus servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God), and he meant it. Anyway, he's also a great role model for current politicians, since he had to be both the ecclesiastical and civil head of Rome and he also had renounced his wealth and birthright as the son of a Roman Senator. Anyway, since yesterday was Sunday, say a prayer to good pope Gregory today!

One of the first

2006-08-29T10:13:00.000-04:00

Today is the feast of one of the first martyrs for the truth about who Christ is: John the Baptist. Thus, have a wonderful memorial of St. John's arrival in paradise on this feast of his Beheading.

Marriage and Principle

2006-08-29T10:07:00.000-04:00

An interesting reply to some of Robert George's statements which I referenced below. I was persuaded by them, but I have to admit, on further reflection, they don't seem to fit too well with what I believe to be intrinsic morality. Things are not really right or wrong based upon their nature, I think, but based upon whether they harm or build up the human person and human community. Thus, perhaps the best arguments against polygamy are the practical ones of the harm it would do rather than trying to find them in the nature of marriage itself. After all, polygamy was practiced by many of the saints of the Old Testament. Were these not marriages? So hard to figure out, considering the way marriage has changed and developed. But unfortunately, I haven't much time to ponder, since I still have a ton of Troeltsch to read for class at 12:30.

Ok, one more

2006-08-28T18:22:00.000-04:00

Alright, so I already talked about St. Augustine, but then I turned to today's Office of Compline in the Divine Hours, which has the following passage from the good Doctor. I've read this paragraph many times, but it never fails to touch me deeply with its real passion and manifold affection:

Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved
you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I
searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things
which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created
things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have
been at all. You called, you shouted, and you shattered my deafness.
You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your
fragrance on me; I drew breath and now I pant for you [PANT!]. I have
tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned
for you peace.

How well today's reading from the First Letter of St. John captures this:
"Love, then, consists of this:
not that we have loved God,
but that he has loved us
and has sent his Son as an offering for our sins."

Update

2006-08-28T17:54:00.000-04:00

Well, as I mentioned below, classes re-commenced last week and because of that, I have a crap-load of reading to be doing. Ergo, many of the blogs that I try more religiously to look at may have several day interludes. So if there's something interesting, and you rely on me to show it to you, it may take awhile. But there you are.

Oh, but to tide you over, I was given this chart by the prof. I'm TAing for on poverty in the world, and some of the stats are just jaw-dropping. Have a look see.

"You have made us for yourself, O Lord...."

2006-08-28T17:42:00.000-04:00

Well, happy feast of St. Augustine to all you happy western Christians out there. And all you easterns who just don't get our thing for this guy.........happy Monday. I'll also give a shout out to his rather persistent mama since she kinda got screwed this year, her feast falling on a Sunday. Still, I doubt St. Monica minded being overshadowed by the Resurrection too much.

It seems, depending on how you think of him, that Augustine is either responsible for everything that's right in the Church, or he's the one who started it on its long, downward path. I personally do not subscribe to either of these, finding his writings on sin and grace (the anti-Pelagian stuff) particularly helpful and his stuff on sex much less so, not to mention the volumes of stuff he did on neither of these subjects (if you're in the mood for a wonderful headache, read some of De Trinitate but only this linked translation if you don't have the "Augustine for the 21st Century" series translation. And shame on you for that!).

Anyway, happy Auggie day to all!

(NB: I've started linking to the Wikipedia sites for the saints because they tend to avoid some of the more excessive kinds of hagiography and also because they oft give really good bibliography if you want to read more. Enjoy!)

"Evening," by G.K. Chesterton

2006-08-24T21:23:00.000-04:00

Here dies another day
During which I have had eyes, ears, hands
And the great world round me;
And tomorrow begins another.
Why am I allowed two?

The Great G.K.

2006-08-23T16:32:00.000-04:00

As classes start up, I'm quite blessed to be in one that focuses on the theological work of one Gilbert Keith Chesterton. He is a wonderful writer and one who takes a joyous delight in simple being, as he says, "in the sheer wetness of water and muddiness of mud." He is a great counter-weight to much that I've been reading that is critical of Catholicism and, instead, he reminds me once again of what I love about it--those core, essential truths that I so often lose sight of. So there's a good chance that various passages by him will start appearing on this page, with or without my rather bland commentary and thoughts. So just a head's up!

Santa Rosa

2006-08-23T10:38:00.000-04:00

Happy St. Rose of Lima day! She's particularly significant because she's the first canonized saint of the Americas. She is not too sympathetic to modern eyes, having engaged in some VERY serious mortifications (including sleeping on a bed of broken tiles and wearing a crown of thorns). Very likely she had some pretty serious mental issues, including probably being bulemic. Nonetheless, she did a great deal of loving service for the poor and sick, and frankly, being crazy, I like the idea that being off your rocker doesn't disqualify one from sanctity.

Mozart and Catholicism

2006-08-23T10:34:00.000-04:00

There's a fascinating section in John Allen's All Things Catholic column over at NCR about Mozart, his Catholicism, and his membership in the Masons. Particularly pertinent is this section:

How to reconcile this Catholic piety with Masonry?
One way is to recall that down the centuries, criticism of individual churchmen or of ecclesiastical systems by Catholics often had little to do with one's faith. Moderns may reject Catholicism if they become frustrated with the church, but that's not how
someone like Mozart thought.
Perhaps the best glimpse of this comes in a 1771 letter to his father, after Mozart had a falling out with the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, Hieronymus Colloredo, who among other indignities insisted on lodging him with household servants.
Noting that "I hate the archbishop to insanity," Mozart wrote:
"Always remember, as we do, that our Mufti [Colloredo] is an idiot, but that God is compassionate, merciful and loving."

Something I well hope to remember and wish more lesbigays could see too. Check out the whole piece.

Drug Prices

2006-08-21T19:19:00.000-04:00

An interesting series has begun today over at Busted Halo that discusses the drug industry and some of the issues surrounding high prices and low access, particularly in the Third World. Today's piece is a book review of a text written by a former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine that essentially takes the drug industry to task for lying to the public about why prices are so high. Admittedly, I don't think the review is that in-depth, but I may need to read this book. Anyway, check it out.

St. Sarto

2006-08-21T13:30:00.000-04:00

Well, since it was the name of my parish and school growing up, I'd be much remiss to not mention today's feast of Pius X. Pope from 1903-14, I must confess that I have mixed feelings about him. He was no doubt quite holy personally and devout, and he really did great things for the church by beginnning the reform of church music and allowing much younger children to communicate (since I believe they should be allowed to take communion once they're baptized, this rocks for me). But he was also the pope behind the Modernist crisis who essentially stalled Catholic intellectual life for decades. So I guess it just goes to show that no one's perfect, not even the saints. Here's some largely non-hagiographical work on him.

A Blessed Assumption to all!

2006-08-15T10:33:00.000-04:00

Today is the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother of God into Heaven (isn't that a great name?). A good primer for anyone who might be confused about this feast is available here. Here's the statement of Pius XII in 1950 making this a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church (be sure to say munificentissimus a few times out loud, it's fun). It's a day to remember both our mortality (I, for one, am quite convinced that Mary did die, though there's debate on this point) and the promise of eternal life as the humans we are--both body and soul. A happy feast to all!

There's a great icon of the Orthodox equivalent of this feast, the Dormition or "Falling Asleep" of Mary here. For some reason, I'm having trouble posting images.

Happy St. Max Day!

2006-08-14T11:21:00.000-04:00

Today is the Feast of St. Maximilian Kolbe, priest and martyr of charity. The well known case of Fr. Kolbe occurred at Auschwitz during the Second World War, when Kolbe volunteered to take the place of another man who was randomly selected for execution since that man had a family at home. The canonization was controversial, due largely to a fear that this was "Christianizing" the Shoah, but I personally find it a courageous example of a that love above all others, whether Christian or Jew.

What makes Catholic identity?

2006-08-14T10:27:00.000-04:00

Interesting discussion going on over at dotCommonweal. I am in complete agreement with J. Peter Nixon on the intrinsic and imbuded nature of much of Catholicism. I am, obviously, of the post-Vatican II generation, but I definitely have that deep Catholic sense. To me, criticizing Commonweal because it isn't more explicitly Catholic is silly, because it's Catholic character is evident on every page. I realize that this isn't any longer the standard among younger people, but it does leave me with a rather amused view of all those who are trying to make Catholic character more apparent on university campuses. Richard John Neuhaus seems to think that reading Veritatis splendor in philosophy classes will make Notre Dame more Catholic. I laugh at that, because this place is already saturated in Catholicism. Anyway, check out the piece and give it a think.

In those days there were giants..........

2006-08-14T09:31:00.000-04:00

A great piece over atFIRST THINGS by Michael Novak on two of my favorite politicians of the 20th century. If he could've fit Moynihan in, I'd have been in heaven.

Alison and Jordan

2006-08-13T20:52:00.000-04:00

I've just finished (finally) the chapter in Jordan's Silence of Sodom that gives a rhetorical analysis of Vatican and US Bishop statements on homosexuality. Though I can't claim to agree with it in its entirety, I have to admit that, on the whole, it's quite damning. This is particularly true of his observations about how they talk about queers while refusing to actually talk to us, treating us as though we aren't really members of the Church at all, but rather some outside threat that must be dealt with. Still, I'd like to see what Jordan and James Alison would say, since Alison tends to take a more dismissive and sanguine view of much of what comes from the powers-that-be on this matter. Would definitely be an interesting discussion.

Hmmm, so Moore really is a liar

2006-08-12T18:58:00.000-04:00

Am in the middle of a fascinating piece that I found on Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 dealing with the way in which Moore took things that were often narrowly true and molded them together to create a false impression. It's an excellent analysis of how propaganda works. I had actually enjoyed the movie (it was certainly well made and paced) and thought that the over-all impression it created was probably accurate if exaggerated. I now have almost nothing positive to say about it. Here's a link to a similar piece on Bowling for Columbine (but I haven't read this one yet).

Happy St. Clare!

2006-08-11T13:03:00.000-04:00

Ok, we're slammin' at work today, so I haven't much time, but did want to wish a Happy St. Clare day to all, especially all those 2nd Order Fransiscans out there and couch potatoes (she's the patron saint of TV too). Party hard!

Gibson

2006-08-11T09:20:00.000-04:00

For a much more enlightening and productive discussion on this whole Mel Gibson episode, see dotCommonweal. I think I agree almost verbatim with Gregory Popcak, particularly on the Passion being an excellent Rorschach test.

I would like to clarify my below comments however. In them, I claimed that I thought the film was not anti-Semitic. This was more a response to those (like Sullivan) who were rather strongly proclaiming it was than I true statement of my views. It seems to be that it certainly has elements that could be legitimately interpreted as anti-Semitic (ie, the earthquake that destroys the Temple) and those that seem to challenge that thesis (ie, the clear place of Jesus within the Jewish community, the way the words of Passover are so ingrained in the too Marys). On the whole, however, I did not find the experience to be one of attacking Jews as a devout Christian trying (and, I feel, largely failing) to make a statement of what Christ did and does.

Poland and Clergy Collaboration

2006-08-10T10:55:00.000-04:00

An interesting piece in The Tablet. Though it would be unfairly damaging to overstate this issue in face of the huge amount of good done by the Church in Poland during the Communist years, in the interests of truth, it seems that the bishops should be taking a larger role in clearing the air, not making it cloudier. Especially since, to this point, the world has gotten a very one-sided account of the heroic Catholicism of Poland, which was used by Benedict as a model for EU nations. A more nuanced account would be helpful in understanding the much more complicated reality.

Twit

2006-08-10T10:15:00.000-04:00

I'm trying to avoid replying to idiocy, either on the left or the right, for it would simply take too much time. There is one posting over at FIRST THINGS from yesterday though, that I simply can't avoid. In it, Joseph Pearce makes the following astonishing claim about Pope Benedict's recent trip to Spain and his indirect rebuke of its socialist government:

Pope Benedict's words resonate powerfully in a nation that endured a bloody
civil war seventy years ago, during which Spain was divided between those
desiring Christian tradition and those demanding Socialist revolution.

WHAT?!? This was a war between Christianity and socialism? Not between socialism and, well, FASCISM (though I admittedly have trouble with the notion of any war claimed to be fought between ideologies rather than people, but I'm afire)? Franco and "Christian tradition" are here synonymous? Good lord. This is the problem when either ideological spectrum tries to re-write history for its own ends. Pearce goes on to discuss the atrocities committed by the Republican side (and there were many), but totally ignores those of Franco and his forces. Apparently the fact that Pope Paul VI delayed the canonziation of Catholics martyred by the Republicans precisely to avoid giving added legitimacy to a dictator who already had too much Catholic support doesn't count. Ugh.

Gay marriage

2006-08-10T10:06:00.000-04:00

I'm still debating with myself over whether gay marriage can really be turned into a civil rights issue or not. I confess, though, that I haven't done enough really reading on the matter to come to a conclusion, though my hesitency is discussed elsewhere. I hope to get around to the works of Andrew Sullivan and Jon Rauch soon though. Until then, here's some negative stuff on the matter by Robert P. George and Rauch's resposne. As far as the in principio point about gay marriage arguments being just as effective for polyandry or polygamy, I must confess myself to find George persuasive. Not to say I think that gay marriage should thus be prohibited, but that perhaps it cannot be moved to the column of human/civil right and be dealt with by the courts.

"I'm done on this side.........."

2006-08-10T09:59:00.000-04:00

Happy feast of St. Lawrence, particularly to all you deacons out there. Good Larry is the one who is most know as the ancient deacon who was roasted alive on a grill (hence his depiction in art seemingly carrying a ladder). Traditionally, his humor is well known, with the famous quip concluded above and beginning "I think you can turn me over now......" Would that we could all face hardship with such good grace and humor, confident in the loving care of our Maker. Ora pro nobis. Here's a sermon preached by Pope St. Leo the Great on his feast day.

[Picture credit (speaking of the homoerotic): http://www.wga.hu/]

Happy St. Dominic Day!

2006-08-08T14:37:00.000-04:00

Happy St. Dominic Day all, especially to all those Dominicans out there. Here's some info, from our trusty Catholic encyclopedia (that's a fun word to type).

Um, there's a lot of space here still, so I'm just going to write some random stuff.

Lalalala, tra la doo.

How bout them Mets?

Ok, guess that's enough.

Ok, so I vanished again.

2006-08-08T14:15:00.000-04:00

Apologies for my lack of posts again. I've simply been in a rather lazy mood the past week, ripping CDs on the new laptop, not really reading and--as much as possible--not thinking. I have not been too successful.

Finishing up Jordan's The Invention of Sodomy and it is very interesting in its presentation of the way the term originated and how unclear it's meaning was (for much of the time, anyone who masturbated at any point would be as much a sodomite as the most promiscuous bear). It also shows the problems deep in moral speech by illustrating the craziness of medieval moral though (incest with one's mother was better than sex with another man because then at least "the seed was entering the proper receptacle." Also great is the way bestiality is better than sodomy because "only one party was going to hell"). Will some of our assertions ("gravely disordered") be seen as such eight-hundred years hence? Have yet to read his chapter on Aquinas and his conclusion though, more to come.

I don't have much to say in way of critique of Jordan in this work because it's essentially a historical study of an era and of texts that I'm not too familiar with. I suspect that his other book I've just started, The Silence of Sodom: Homosexuality in Modern Catholicism will be a bit different though. Still, he is quite clear that he's just struggling to find an honest way of talking about the issue of gay Catholics when no language really exists for honest discourse. It will no doubt be hit and miss, but it will also no doubt be very interesting. A couple money quotes from the first chapter:

"Catholicism has been one of the most homoerotic of widely available modern
cultures, offering encouragement, instruction, and relatively safe haven to many
homosexuals. You will not understand modern homosexuality unless you
understand Catholic homosexuality, and you cannot understand Catholic
homosexuality unless you begin with the clergy."

This does seem to mesh with my own experiences, both of noticing the homoerotocism prevalent in Catholic life (quick example, many images of St. Sebastian, gazing skyward as he's being pierced with arrows, show a visual expression that I would usually associate with another biological process than death) and the way that that is both condemned and reinforced by clerics in charge.

"[Many Christian churches] seem cunningly designed to condemn same-sex
desire and to elicit it, to persecute it and to instruct it. I sometimes
call this the paradox of the 'Beloved Disciple': 'Come recline
beside me and put your head on my chest, but don't dare conceive of what we do
as erotic.' Perhaps it is more clearly seen as the paradox of the Catholic
Jesus, the paradox created by an officially homophobic religion in which an
all-male clergy sacrifices male flesh before images of God as an almost naked
man. How could such a religion not be officially homophobic--and also
intensely homoerotic."

I have some issues with this (after all, how can it really be proven). But I'm also left with a definite question in my mind as well. It certainly does seem to make sense, even if it's far from the only explanation for the relationship between Catholicism and gayness.

Requiescat in pace

2006-08-03T09:45:00.000-04:00

We've lost one the originators of Catholic ecumenism--Cardinal Willebrands, emeritus archbishop of Utrecht. Few did more for Catholic relations with other Christians and other faiths than he. Say a quick prayer that the flights of angels may not tarry.

Mideast Mess

2006-08-03T08:38:00.000-04:00

The Times today has an interesting analysis of what constitutes a "win" in Lebanon for Israel and for Hezbollah. Like the the US fighting the Vietcong, it seems very unlikely that Israel's venture into Lebanon will end with anything like a clear victory. This seems to already be understood by the Israeli government. If a multi-national force is in place, that's great and very important. But was all this blood really necessary to secure it, especially if Hezbollah doesn't ultimately disarm?

Orthodoxy discussion

2006-08-01T14:52:00.000-04:00

No doubt having nothing to do with me at all, a discussion is going on over at dotCommonweal about orthodoxy and the labels that get associated with it. I'll hopefully have my analysis of Dulles' rather disappointing article (discussed below) in a bit.

Dreadnought

2006-08-01T14:48:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting blog that I discovered the other day. It's by an Aussie named John Heard, who's an out, conservative, gay Catholic. It's a very interesting read, though I fear that our friend down under has some rather Manichaean tendencies when he rather blithely dismisses the importance of the physical in sexuality as easily as he does. There will most likely be more engagement with his ideas as time progresses, for he is quite helpful in clarifying my own thinking. As much as I may disagree with him, he's an excellent writer and asks the right questions.

Has Sullivan lost it?

2006-08-01T14:39:00.000-04:00

Over at the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan seems to have a major problem with Mel Gibson, having a ton of entries dedicated to him and his escapades of last week. He also seems to think that there wouldn't be a problem in Lebanon or anti-Semitism if The Passion of the Christ was never released. It's kinda weird how much power he attributes to this guy.

I have made no secret of the fact that I liked the Passion in everything but the passion part. The Mary stuff, agony in the garden, shooting, acting, presentation of Satan impressed me. The rest was, and in this I agree with Sullivan, a sado-masochistic Christian porno. Still, it does seem to have been genuinely moving for some, and simply implying that all who felt this way--or simply didn't find it anti-Semitic (I didn't)--are right wing "Christianist theocons" is just weird.

Perhaps this movie is kinda like one of those blot tests, where people see in it what they bring. Some see a deeply powerful reflection on the sacrifice borne by Our Lord. Others see a salivating monster spouting anti-Semitic tropes. Some, sadly, may have their own prejudices re-enforced. Nevertheless, there were (to my knowledge) no attacks on Jews as a result of this blockbuster, and I doubt that it created any anti-Semites who weren't that way to begin with. To accredit the movie, Gibson, and its hype the space that Sullivan does seems simply bizarre.

The Dean of Moral Theologians

2006-08-01T08:38:00.000-04:00

Ah, I'm back.

Yes, faithful reader, I have returned. I apologize for my absence, but there have been myriad computer problems this past week. I will make up for it over the coming days though, I promise, cause I have lots of thoughts jangling around in the ol' skull.

Till then, today is the feast of St. Alphonsus Liguori, bishop and Doctor of the Church and quite possibly THE premier moral theologian in church history. Have a look (see above link) from the still pretty-good 1907 Catholic encyclopedia.

(Photo credit: http://www.stpetersbasilica.org/Statues/Founders/AlphonsusLiguori/ Alphonsus%20Liguori-vn.jpg)

Happy St. James Day!

2006-07-25T10:55:00.000-04:00

Here's some hagiographical info. on St. James the Greater. Also, if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that he probably never existed, today would also be the feast of St. Christopher. So to all you Jims and Chrises, happy patron day!

(I'd give a picture of a great statue in St. John Lateran, but my PC is being difficult.)

Testament to Forgiveness

2006-07-25T08:55:00.000-04:00

On this, the Feast of the martyrdom of one of the Twelve (see above), it's not inappropriate to remember some of those of the 20th century. Here is the beautiful testament of forgiveness and love composed by one of them, an Algerian Trappist.

And Methodists make three

2006-07-25T08:49:00.000-04:00

This is a huge step forward in ecumenism. These are precisely the kinds of agreements that can help move the Christian churches ever closer toward the full communion we so earnestly desire.

Catholic nationalism

2006-07-25T08:34:00.000-04:00

An interesting piece in the Times on the increasing linkage (again) between the Catholic Church and Polish nationalism. This was hugely important in the past, when Russia and Prussia battled over Polish terrain and then when the Communists were in power. I am a bit leery of the current government, however, especially since the current president, when Mayor of Warsaw, stifled the free speech of gays and lesbians since they can't produce children.

One more thing

2006-07-24T22:19:00.000-04:00

The following quote is especially pertinent when trying to figure out what's at stake in many of these "theocracy" debates. Apologies for forgetting to include it below:

No religion-infused movement can afford to be used by a political party as
a way to gain votes and nothing more. That's how the Democrats have used
the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson-era civil rights establishment and, sadly, how
the GOP has often used the Religious Right. But this is less of a danger to the nation's self-government than to the integrity of religious witness. When Tom DeLay cloaks himself in the 'perfect redeeming love of Jesus Christ' to brush off charges of corruption, it's not the separation of church and state that's in danger but DeLay's own Christian faith (p 29).

This seems a much more sound view of what's going on in contemporary politics than the fear that we will somehow get Jerry Falwell dictating environmental policy.

The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!

2006-07-24T21:50:00.000-04:00

Ross Douthat has a very interesting and, I think, persuasive piece on the rather overblown fear from many that America is in danger of becoming a theocratic state. Some, such as Andrew Sullivan, seem to think that any mention of a providential God in public discourse is evidence of a grand conspiracy among the Religious Right to overthrow the Constitution and put the Bible in its place.

This is not to claim that I believe many on the Religious Right to be simply innocuous; some are downright dangerous. But until we start seeing active policies to outlaw adultery or place the Ten Commandments in the stead of the Bill of Rights, I suspect that much of this is fear-mongering.

That being said, it does give an example of my belief that labeling others with terms of an ideology allows one to quickly discredit them (at least to one's supporters) and not have to actually engage in argument with them. Here for example, is a selection from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Here's what debate in a secular country has now come to:
"It's part of God's plan for the future of mankind," explained Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.).
Rep. Bob Beauprez (R- Colo.) also found "the very hand of God" at work. "We best not be messing with His plan."
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) agreed that "it wasn't our idea, it was God's.""I think God has spoken very clearly on this issue," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a mustachioed gynecologist who served as one of the floor leaders yesterday. When somebody quarreled with this notion, Gingrey replied: "I refer the gentleman to the Holy Scriptures." ...Gingrey, the floor leader/gynecologist, posited that the debate was "about values and how this great country represents them to the world." After the vote, he elaborated: "This is probably the best message we can give to the Middle East in regards to the trouble we are having over there right now."
Target gays to appease Islamists? And people think I'm exaggerating when I write that large swathes of the GOP now fuse religion and politics as if there were no difference between the two.

Admittedly, I am not comfortable with this rhetoric either, but to pretend that using religion in this crass way is something new and extraordinarily dangerous is to ignore American history. By writing it off, it also prevents one from making actual, substantive arguments against what is being said (though, in this case, they would not be hard to make). It also takes that which is usually radical and posits it as the norm, which is a particular danger since blogs allow so many to give so many diverse opinions. It is not hard to pick one which happens to fit a given theory, whether or not it is genuinely representative of society-at-large.

The more-left (hard to figure where Sullivan falls anymore) is not alone in this, however. Extremists and moderates alike on both sides of the aisle engage in this ideological name calling. Note, for instance, Douthat's reference to "secularist hysterics" (p. 25). Painting diverse people with diverse (if intersecting) interests with the same brush may be helpful in creating a pithy or cohesive theory, but it does not make it true. Fore instance, many paint Richard John Neuhaus as the "theocon-in-chief" (a designation with which I am not unsympathetic) but then go on to make it sound like he is, therefore, a believer in the same rapture eschatology that is found in the "Left Behind" books and among right-wing evangelicals, a group to which he does not belong.

All of these movements, both on the right and left, are larger than their ideological labels, and it would be most productive to treat them as such, dealing with the persons and their arguments rather than the caste we conveniently create.

May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest

2006-07-24T21:40:00.000-04:00

The current FIRST THINGS has an excellent obit piece by Robert Louis Wilken on Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, who died earlier this year. Though accomplished in many areas of theology, he will most be remembered for his seminal, five volume history of doctrine: The Christian Tradition. This was a scholar in the best sense of the term, and he will be sorely missed.

Interestingly, considering some discussions that have occurred here (if only among myself and I), the following comment appears:

By doctrine Pelikan did not mean just any teaching. He meant the
central truths of Christianity: that God is triune, that Christ is fully God and
fully man--those teachings that were solemnly declared in the ancient councils
and are confessed in the ecumenical creeds.

This is an excellent definition of what makes up the material of orthodoxy, particularly its emphasis on the centrality of the ancient creeds. May this man of gift and scholarship know the eternal presence of the God he sought only to serve.

Ah, its August/September already

2006-07-24T21:33:00.000-04:00

Before I begin posting on the issue, perhaps it is important to make a quick comment. FIRST THINGS is a very good journal which takes the conservative view on most matters. It is equally exciting, interesting, thought-provoking, and infuriating (this last quality mostly resting on its primary contributor--Fr. Richard John Neuhaus). Due to this, it is quite likely that there will be extensive posts on its contents with the coming of new issues. Just a warning, and an invitation.

ROCK ON!

2006-07-24T14:13:00.000-04:00

This is exciting news.

Hmmmmmm.

2006-07-24T10:10:00.000-04:00

Don't know if I quite buy this. Apparently there's some kind of international Mr. Gay competition held in Palm Springs and one of the nations to be represented is............Vatican City?!? I must confess, I don't quite buy this and as yet have found little information on "Mr. Gay Vatican" other than that he's from Rome--which is not the same as the Holy See. Still, it amuses me. The link above will take you to the page with all the pics of the guys so far (don't worry, PG rated at worst) and I must confess, all seem to be worthy contenders for such an award. The link will be especially valuable to people like Mr. Andrew Knapp.

Ideology and Nuance

2006-07-24T09:53:00.000-04:00

Reading The Best and the Brightest, I'm struck by a major parallel between the early fight against Communism and the current war on terror. That is, in both instances, an abstract ideology was placed in the stead of concrete human and national forces. In the 40s and 50s, US policy was shifted into a battle with international communism, not one that focused on the differences between Russia, China, Indochina, Korea, etc. They were all placed under this larger abstraction and treated as if they were the same thing. This may have been the primary factor that led to US involvement in Vietnam and the great difficulty in extracting ourselves.

China wasn't Russia, as was evident by the mid-fifties when the Soviets had pulled their support and technical assistance to the Chinese. Vietnam certainly wasn't a front in the conflict with Russia, since Ho Chi Minh's was largely a nationalist movement that would have no more taken orders from Moscow or Mao than from Paris or Washington. These nuances and differences were lost, however, when all these nations were reduced to the level of ideology. Vietnam became a battle field because it would prevent communism from washing into the rest of south east Asia and it would prevent any kind of Soviet hegemony a la eastern Europe. This was the belief, but any concerted focus on the facts of the region, rather than esoteric ideological presuppositions would have exposed it as false.

The same thing, it seems to me, occurs when we talk about a "war on terror," painting everything from Iran, al-Queda, Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas and whatever with the same brush and treating them all as similar threats to the US, while ignoring regional and local matters. Hamas and Hezbollah, as horrible as their tactics and some of their goals may be, are largely nationalistic groups concerned with the status of Palestinians, not a larger war on the west (another abstraction) or desire to see Islam cover the face of the earth in some global caliphate.

Likewise, painting Iraq and Iran as the same thing in an "axis of evil," making them even sound like allies, ignored the clear historical fact that these nations HATE each other. By removing Saddam, it would by nature embolden Iran because one of their key enemies had been removed. This simple fact escaped those policy makers in Washington, however.

This is not to say that Saddam should still be in power or that terrorist groups should not be engaged, but simply that some nuance is essential in recognizing their inherent differences--nuance that may hopefully help us diplomatically to avoid the quagmires we've already been in.

Ferocious or humble?

2006-07-21T13:28:00.000-04:00

The name Charles Curran has an almost talismanic power among Catholics who watch such matters. He's often seen, by both sides, as a hero of the Left who is out to destroy all that which he sees as wrong in the Church. The truth is, this caricature of him is patently false. He is a very humble man, with a deep love the Church that is expressed in his constant attention and respect to her leaders and authorities.

Unfortunately, due to his notoriety, he is often difficult to bring into discussions, since many people already have a prejudiced opinion of him as either hero or anti-Christ, when in fact all he is or wants to be is a scholar.

And a gifted, careful one at that. His work, particularly in the area of methodology (showing that how we think about something greatly influences what we think about it) is deeply imbued with a love of the Catholic Church and her traditions, as well as a deep respect for reason and the dignity of the human person. I have found him very helpful and clear in all I've read by him, even when I disagree.

And I do disagree. Actually, I usually find him pretty right-on in his moral theology (even a bit too conservative at times), but there are some personal quirks that drive me nuts. He strikes me as a poster child for the clericalism of the left, that descries such things as collars or being called "Father" (much less their abhorence of cassocks which, I must confess, I find very cool attire), but that has no problem changing the words of the Liturgy at their whim and discretion. I can't do that at Mass, only the priest can, but apparently taking what is the wider Church's and molding it to fit one's personal tastes is not clericalism in their book. But I digress.

AMERICA has a great review of his recent memoirs (see next), which I have read and respect. He is, despite all, a gifted scholar and son of the Church who has remained loyal though he's been harshly treated. History will vindicate his place in Catholic theology:

"Whenever I assign a book by Charles Curran in a moral theology course, my students’ first questions are always: “Have you met him? What is he like?” It is not surprising that they are curious about Curran. As this newly released memoir recounts, at a relatively young age Curran became, by choice and circumstance, the most infamous American Catholic theologian of his time. It is not surprising either that my students look confused when I respond that the qualities I most associate with Charles Curran are his warmth, his humility and his love for the church. For as he admits, Curran is the very symbol of dissent in the church.

In the ecclesiastical climate that has prevailed for much if not all of my students’ lives, public disagreement with the magisterium, particularly on highly charged issues of sexual morality, cannot be reconciled with a sincere desire for the good of the church. My students are accustomed to the casting of theological disagreements between conservative and progressive Catholics as mortal battles between those who love the church and those who would destroy it.

The details of Curran’s confrontation with church authorities over Humanae Vitae are well known: the seven-year investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that ended with the declaration in July 1986 that Curran was “not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology,” the subsequent loss of his tenured position at The Catholic University of America, and his eventual move to Southern Methodist University as the Elizabeth Scurlock University Professor of Human Values. There have been several scholarly treatments of the theological and political issues surrounding Curran’s case, including his own Faithful Dissent. The virtue of Loyal Dissent, his personal memoir, is its ability to place his public choices, and ultimately their costs, in the context not only of deeply held theological convictions, but also of his vocation as a priest-theologian. It is because we get a glimpse of his early religious formation, his call to the priesthood, the intellectual and spiritual transformations that occurred during his years as a student in Rome, and his enthusiasm as a young professor at C.U.A. and desire to create a vibrant faith community among faculty and students, that we can understand what it meant for him, in the wake of the action by the C.D.F., to become “a nonperson” within the institutional church.

It is no small irony that the Vatican’s action gave Curran international visibility and opportunities he might never have had otherwise. He is widely acknowledged as one of the most prominent and prolific scholars of Catholic moral theology today. Yet because he was barred from speaking in Catholic dioceses, is not recognized as an authority within the church and was not hired by any Catholic college or university after leaving C.U.A., he has served the church as a theologian primarily from the outside. One does not have to agree with Curran’s positions to wonder how great a loss his professional status represents, not only for him, but for Catholic higher education and the intellectual life of the institutional church.

Loyal Dissent is characteristically self-critical and modest. Curran does not try to justify his disagreements with official church teaching on such contested issues as contraception or homosexuality so much as to place them in context within the fundamental beliefs about the nature of truth and the mission of the church that have informed his adult life as a Christian and a scholar. Although he insists on the importance of an ecclesial climate in which broad consultation and open debate on matters of vital importance are encouraged, he is never in this book simply the radical dissenter he has been made out to be. Whether or not we share his conviction that the Vatican’s action against him had to be publicly challenged as a matter of justice—he acknowledges that even some of his supporters disagreed with his appeal to the media—it is obvious that he is driven not by antagonism toward the church but by his confidence in its character as a community of moral discourse and in the shared responsibility of believers to search for and witness to the truth in love.

This book is more than a reflection on Charles Curran’s life. It is also a reflection on the American Catholic Church in the aftermath of Vatican II; the deep and unresolved tensions between the council’s call to ressourcement (recovery of Scripture and tradition) and its invitation to aggiornamento (renewal in light of the needs and wisdoms of the time); the relationship between conscience and authority, certainty and contingency in an age of religious and moral pluralism; the limits of academic freedom in Catholic universities; and the contested intersection of sexuality, authority and Catholic identity. The most baffling question this memoir raises, however, is why Curran has remained committed to a church within which he has experienced so much pain.

Along the way, I could not help but recall the French Dominican Humbert Clerrisac’s observation that “[i]t is easy to suffer for the church, the difficult thing is to suffer at the hands of the church.” It is Curran’s answer that makes this neither an angry nor a bitter book, but a hopeful one: To be a Catholic Christian is to understand oneself as part of a communion that always transcends the human institution; to believe but also to act as if the Spirit is alive and working in the church; and to stake one’s life on the confidence that “in all things, God works for the good of those who love God” (Rom 8:28). Maura Anne Ryan

Mary Anne Ryan is associate professor of Christian ethics and a fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, Ind."

(I learned how to block quote!)

New Read

2006-07-21T10:17:00.000-04:00

Ok, I love theology and religion as much as the next guy, but sometimes you just need a little light, secular reading for the summer. So I went and checked out David Halberstam's classic account of what precipitated US involvement into the Vietnam War: The Best and the Brightest.

Exact motivations for this particular selection are manifold. One is a reminder of how these genius PhD's totally f'ed up. This is no doubt to cover my somewhat uneasy ego over deciding not to pursue further graduate studies.

More importantly, however, is the way in which arrogance and firm commitment to pre-set philosophical and ideological beliefs helped those in power to totally ignore and misconstrue facts on the ground in order to see what they wanted to see. Whether Iraq can really be compared to Vietnam is a question I cannot answer, but the activities of our leadership certainly is suggestive.

Finally, I'm interested to see how the war aims of the Vietnam era crippled and destroyed Johnson's ambitious War on Poverty, a project that may have been misguided but was ultimately compassionate, humanitarian, and about leveling the playing field so that all in this country could have the chance at its benefits.

Anyway, more interesting as it's discovered.

The Subcontinent

2006-07-21T09:45:00.000-04:00

I must say at first that I LOVE India. When I spent time there a few years ago, I was deeply impressed by its beauty, the deep generosity of its people, and the deep communal bonds that still mark much of its society.

That being said, it is an odd place. It is a nation with a parliamentary system of government--the largest democracy on Earth. It is based on a British, western model. Yet, it's education system is decidedly not. It is a non-socratic system that predominantly encourages memorization and re-gurgitation in every field, from engineering to philosophy. It is not a system that really teaches one to think, or to question the status quo. This is probably part of the reason why, though technically illegal, the caste system is still a plight upon much of its poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

Despite this, I still found this article from the BBC (see below) surprising. It is one thing to have to counter-act prejudice and deep seated animosities. It is quite another to have those enshrined in law in the way that India does with gays and lesbians. The way this issue should be treated on a global scale, incorporating the deeply held beliefs of numerous diverse cultures, and the taboos and educational issues that help create them, is still very much up in the air for me. But a certain first step would be acknowledging that homosexual conduct in se is not fit matter for legislation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4850990.stm

Yeah, I've having that kinda day.

2006-07-20T10:28:00.000-04:00

When I need to express what kind of day I'm having, I always know where to go.

Queer

2006-07-20T10:00:00.000-04:00

As a point of clarification, I have been asked by some what I mean when I use the term "queer." Due to the ambiguous language surrounding most issues of homosexuality, the word has a huge range of meanings. I use it simply as a gender-inclusive term for male and female homosexuals. I do not attach to it any necessary political agenda. If I am referring to the more politicized kind of gay/lesbian activism (such as go on in many 'Queer Studies' programs), I'll capitalize the 'Q.' Now you know...................and knowing's half the battle.

And what precisely is this "orthodoxy" of which you speak?

2006-07-20T09:39:00.000-04:00

Having perused the cover of the current issue of FIRST THINGS at work (delivering mail--I'd have copied the article but they shrink wrap the damn thing. Gotten in that habit with interesting articles from the Art Department's TIME which is always misdelivered here. Clever Neuhaus, now I have to wait for the library's copy), I noticed that Avery Dulles has an article on the nature of orthodoxy, or that's what it looked like at least. I'm quite curious to see what he says.

The single biggest coup, linguistically at least, among conservative Catholics in the past 20 years is the way that have successfully made "orthodox" synonymous with "right-wing." Those who support the Church's teaching on women priests are "orthodox" against the "liberals" or "dissenters." The possibility of liberal orthodoxy is thus precluded, as is a concept like "faithful dissent."

This may seem like a minor semantic issue, but it really isn't. There are many people like myself, who would probably be considered liberal Catholics, but also strive and struggle to remain within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. It is only by remaining within these bounds of faith that we can also remain in communion with the larger ecclesial community. Orthodoxy cannot be applied to every single teaching of the Church magisterium. The opposite of orthodoxy is heresy or heterodoxy (I will use the terms as synonyms, though there is probably a distinction that I have yet to pick up on, no matter how hard I try). Under canon law, heresy carries the penalty of excommunication. People who disagree with non-infallible, non-dogmatic Church teachings on things like women's ordination or homosexuality, and do so with a well-formed conscience, are not subject to this penalty. Sr. Jeannine Gramick and Fr. Robert Nugent, though banned from working with homosexuals because of their "dissenting" views, were not excommunicated. Both were permitted to remain religious and Nugent is still a priest in good standing. The same goes for both Charles Curran and Hans Kung. Thus disagreement does NOT equal un-orthodox.

Orthodoxy can only be applied to core, fundamental Church teachings--dogmas like the Trinity, the Creed, etc. Otherwise, John Courtney Murray's disagreement with the magisterium on religious liberty prior to the Second Vatican Council would have made him un-orthodox. Then he would have become orthodox with the promulgation of Dignitatis humanae. This seems a rather silly way of looking at something as pivotal as communion within the Church. I hope that Cardinal Dulles makes these distinctions, if this is in fact the point of this article. More when I've seen it.

So this is honor, huh?

2006-07-20T09:32:00.000-04:00

You know, as much as I really do try to understand those who disagree with me, sometimes it just can't be done. Excerpt from "The New Republic:"

'Another case reported a homosexual man was allegedly victim of "honour crime." It was reported in the press that the man's fathter was released without trial once he explained that he had hanged his son after discovering that he was homosexual.'

This from the UN. Once again, so much for our liberation of Iraq.

Hat tip: Daily Dish

Iran, You ran (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist)

2006-07-19T12:02:00.000-04:00

An interesting piece on possible Iranian involvment in the mess in Lebanon. I'm usually not much one for conspiracy theories, but this is certainly plausible given the absence of a strong US Mideast policy. It also raises interesting questions on the uncertain nature of governance in a constitutional theocratic country. Who really is in charge? Of what?

For some reason my link button isn't working, so here it is: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1214918,00.html

Uganda

2006-07-19T08:35:00.000-04:00

More delays in ending the world's most tragic, forgotten civil war.

Sure we'll feed you. Do you have a baptismal certificate?

2006-07-19T08:31:00.000-04:00

Still not sure how I feel about this one.

Ghetto Tax

2006-07-19T08:27:00.000-04:00

More on why those pesky poor people don't lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.

More on gay marriage

2006-07-18T15:12:00.000-04:00

This seems to be a pretty good discussion of the matter. He avoids the "rights" language and treats it as a necessarily political action that is best left outside of the courts. I think that's the biggest problem--for the court to say that queers must be allowed to marry, they must also assert that it is a right protected under the constitution of either the state or the federal government. Taking it out of this and into the more pragmatic sphere of politics seems wise to me. Though I don't like how Reynolds dodges the polygamy question, which still unsettles me. Of course, if we go the political, not the rights route, then that can probably be avoided by the fact that most people aren't going to be too convinced by a "Party Marriage" platform.

Human rights?

2006-07-18T14:29:00.000-04:00

This is going to be an irritating post for the person who may actually read it, largely because it will be serving no purpose other than posing some questions that have been on my mind of late.

What constitutes a human right? It would seem to me that these are those requirements to which all people are entitled by no other virtue than being human, that is, existing. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The first two, I have no doubt about. There is no part of me that is not convinced that, for instance, the execution of two Iranian men for sodomy one year ago tomorrow is a violation of fundamental human rights. Nor do I doubt the basic immorality of owning another person as chattel. It's the third that causes problems.

Amnesty International, an organization to which I have belonged with pride for some years, is considering adding abortion to its list of fundamental human rights. Human Rights Watch already seems to consider it as such, which is why I had to give up my membership. Who gets to determine what is and is not a human right? An organization? A country? A church?

All of these answers seem flawed to me, because if any of these groups are the ones to establish these rights, they can also take them back. Stalin granted rights in the USSR, and they therefore didn't exist. They were abandoned at his whim. The Catholic Church didn't recognize freedom of conscience with no external coercion as a fundamental right until Vatican II. Does that mean it only started to be so at that point? Somehow I doubt it.

No, the only way that they can be binding is if they come ultimately from "nature and Nature's God," thus being inviolate. But again, what falls under this category? I certainly don't think abortion does. And doesn't the very evidence of the time it took humanity (well, Western humanity) to realize these things indicate that, though they may come from God, often they have to be discovered, or lived into? And what about regions of the same, smaller planet that we inhabit that have not yet lived into the same ideas as the west--say on the rights of gays and lesbians to live lives free of threat?

What about marriage? Many who are advocating for gay marriage (a cause which I support) do so on grounds of justice and human rights--that anyone should have the right to marry anyone else. They claim that this does not open the door to polygamy (or polyandry in my case), but I must confess, I don't understand why not. If the definition of marriage is as open to re-interpretation on the grounds of justice and personal freedom as is asserted, how is it to be protected from this next step? This is not to claim that I place queer marriage and polygamy on the same level, I certainly don't. But when we argue that we have an intrinsic right to alter the definition of an institution because we're presently excluded, I fail to see how that reasoning won't also work for the latter group.

That being said, marriage has had a huge shift in meaning over the centuries, from polygamous transferal of property rights from father to son-in-law towards the love-based, romantic notion that exists today. Can that redefinition not continue to allow two people of the same sex? Who gets to decide? Does not having this right really make gays and lesbians second class citizens, even if civil unions grant the same practical, functional benefits?

If it's an election year, it must be.........stem cells

2006-07-18T10:48:00.000-04:00

So embryonic stem cells (hESC) and federal funding are once again in the news as the Senate, sporting a decent bi-partisan group, considers allowing federal funding beyond what the President allowed in 2001.

Now, I will say up front that I am against any toying around with human embryos, period. It seems to me silly to talk about "potential human life" when what we have is obviously not a duck. Any biologist will tell you that an embryo is human life at an incredibly immature stage. And as far as I'm concerned, that's not to be messed with.

This, ultimately, isn't really the point. No one is talking about outlawing the research. Instead, what is being discussed is using tax-payer dollars to support a type of research that many find ethically questionable and that will, inevitably lead to human cloning.

Allow me to clarify that last statement. This is not, I believe, a "slippery slope" argument: it is inevitable. It seems clear that for scientists to be able to get hESC that another body won't reject, they will have to be engineered from a stage before fertilization even takes place. Once people get used to the idea of this procedure using "discarded" IVF embryos, it seems like a very small move to simply allow them to be created for the purpose of harvesting. This is especially true since the discussion on this matter has not really moved beyond rhetoric into public, moral grappling. If nothing else, Bush's conscientious debate on these issues in 2001 was a credit to his presidency. Unfortunately, it seems that that sort of debate is no longer taking place.

Also problematic is the ease with which people seem to abandon serious moral discourse if a "miracle cure" is promised. I don't want to get into the debate as to whether this rhetoric is true or not, though there are more concrete results with adult stem cells rather than hESC. The key issue seems to me a belief that, if we just perfect this research, all will be well. Perhaps it's time to do the old monastic tradition of memento mori: reminding all of us that, miracle cure or not, we will die. What are we willing to do to push that back, what illusions are we willing to believe?

This is not to disparage or dismiss the great suffering that so many who have been promised these cures undergo. But, regardless, there must be some things which we are not willing to do.

For more information, rhetoric-free (by and large) on stem cells, click here. For some interesting thoughts (shamelessly and much less effectively ripped off above) by a very good Jesuit ethicist look here and here and here.

Nihilism, Luck, and Woody Allen

2006-07-17T22:31:00.000-04:00

So I just re-viewed "Match Point," the latest by Woody Allen. It is also the first one of his I've managed to get through (and really like), most probably because he's not in it and being whiny. Oh, and the cast is almost entirely British which makes me extremely happy. Still, it's definitely the apogee of his nihilism, though he's at least honest about it. The movie is essentially about how there is neither justice, mercy, or goodness at the heart of the universe, but merely a void that randomly allows some good luck and others bad. It's nihilistic morality as it must be, because there can be no morality, since there is no ground: God is dead. The brutal and shocking action of the protagonist at the film's conclusion is not treated as moral or immoral, because such categories do not exist for Allen. It is merely the way he chooses that he might survive in the absurdity that is the world. It is admittedly not a happy story, but it is a very well made and compelling one.

It seems to me that this may be a necessary end for monadic monotheism, that is to say, non-Trinitarian monotheism. The question of struggling, of why "bad things happen to good people," doesn't seem to have any compelling conclusion (that I've found for myself, at least) if God is but some being who legislates from afar, yet remains always separate and distant from His people. It seems to me that Christianity offers the only really compelling narrative or idea on this among the Western religions--that though suffering is no more palatable or understandable to us, God is not distant from it. Though he did not explain it or make it go away, God in Christ suffers with us. This is a more loving act than merely dismissing it or "poofing" it out of existence, for it shows the magnitude of the love that ends in the Cross, yet transforms it. The Trinitarian God is the one that does not merely assert his goodness, but actually demonstrates and manifests it by taking on the sufferings of his sinful people. Cum passio--compassion--to suffer with. This seems to be the issue that most bothers Allen in his constant battles with his Jewish upbringing. Anyway, just random thoughts before bedtime.

PS This is no way an attack on Judaism or Islam, much less their adherents, simply a statement of what I personally find lacking in their cosmologies.

"This book is neither profound nor helpful. It does, though, have a very attractive cover."

2006-07-17T14:39:00.000-04:00

Ouch. This is the last line of Luke Timothy Johnson's savaging of Angelo Cardinal Scola's "The Nuptial Mystery." Essentially, the book is a rehash of John Paul II's bafflingly popular Theology of the Body. Aside from the rather petulant final paragraph, the piece is an excellent and concise critique of the ethereal theology that's totally useless for queers and, maybe, slightly less useless for straights. Mind this is not a critique of the cardinal or the late pope, both of whom are really very great men, but just that of a misplaced and far too-overwrought and idealized theology. Free registration may be required.

[Photo: http://covers.allbookstores.net/c/1134279439/book/full/0802828310]

Uh.........you can't really be serious

2006-07-17T13:45:00.000-04:00

So bad theology and writing is apparently most easily transfered into a video game. Now little fundamentalists can go on a righteous spree of converting (or killing) the heathen. Follow-up: The Inquisitor--Torqemada's Revenge!

[Photo: http://www.leftbehindgames.com/pages/the_games.htm]

Covenant, Catholics, and Jews

2006-07-17T12:00:00.000-04:00

The current issue of Commonweal has a fascinating article on the relationship of the Church to Judaism, reflecting on questions that have been raised since Vatican II's declaration Nostra aetate first placed the Jews in an unambiguously favorable light. The second part on "Enlivening the Trinitarian Tradition" is especially interesting in its shift of the term "covenant" from noun to verb and the implications that raises. It also re-affirms the ancient Trinitarian teaching that when talking about God's dealings with humankind (ad extra), we cannot speak of the distinct persons, since all three act for our salvation and benefit. Anyway, a very interesting read. Here's the link to the Dulles article that the author mentions. Happy reading!

Soul Selling

2006-07-17T11:25:00.000-04:00

There's no way that anyone can make the ukulele sound like this without selling their soul.........or at least leasing it.

Augustine and the Rule of Faith

2006-07-17T10:52:00.000-04:00

So I'll also put quotes that I happen to like or find helpful. I can do that you know.

St. Augustine on regula fidei from De doctrina christiana:

"If it seems to anyone that he has understood the divine scriptures, or any part of them, in such a way that by that understanding he does not build up that double love of God and of neighbor, he has not yet understood them."

Preach it, Auggie.

Noonan on Yesterday

2006-07-17T10:30:00.000-04:00

Vis a vis yesterday's post on cultural speed and recognition of gay/lesbian rights, this from Noonan's The Church that Can and Cannot Change (p. 216):

"Omne quod recipitur in aliquo recipitur in eo per modum recipientis" [I love Latin], "All that is received in someone is received in him through the medium of the receiver." The old scholastic maxim is fundamental. It is true not only of earthen containers and of digital computers. It is true of human beings. A clod confronted by a genius will not comprehend what he is being told. A brute instructed by an angel will miss most of her nuances. I do not suggest that the Christian revelation was given to clods or brutes but that the capacity of those receiving it was limited by their education, their social conventions, their language, their own experience of life. Whatever revelation was given could not, at least in its enunciation, application, and development, exceed the capacities of those who received it."

Now this is obviously in reference to the development of Christian doctrine, particularly on morals, but it also goes to the political situation of many nations regarding queer rights. The question is just highly complicated by the fact that we live in a much smaller and globalized world, where seemingly contradictory values are beating up against one another. How should those of us in the west respond to things like the executions in Iran which are despicable to us, but completley within the normal cultural boundaries of the nations in question? How do we come to common ground on these divisive issues when, even in our own world and age, by differ by "education, social conventions, language, and experience of life?" Hell, how do we engage in dialogue within our OWN culture?

As promised......

2006-07-17T10:20:00.000-04:00

ONLINE BUBBLE WRAP!!!! Experience the joy and frivolity of it all.

Thus it begins...........

2006-07-16T22:09:00.000-04:00

Ok, so as you may be able to tell from the title, I tend to think alot. This is not in itself a problem, but sometimes I just need to get them out and be done with them....exorcise them as it were.

That will be my main purpose for this blog. It'll primarily be me venting my thoughts on all sorts of matters: gay, Catholic, movies, politics, goings on at Notre Dame, theology, what I'm currently reading, etc. If anyone actually reads any of these (and I frankly can't imagine why they'd interest anyone else) discussion and feedback would be awesome.

I really have no technological savvy, nor do I know how much this will be updated yet, but if you're actually sitting and reading this............thanks! Let me know what you think, and whatever improvements you might suggest. I don't know how to do much with this, but hopefully I'll learn quickly.

Gays Across the World

2006-07-16T19:56:00.000-04:00

John Allen, in his excellent All Things Catholic column on-line, has a discussion this week with a prominent African theologian. This guy is brilliant on matters of justice, poverty, and world economy. Yet this is what he has to say vis a vis gays:

"[QUESTION] Is it true that Africans are more traditional on sexual morality?
Yes, it is true. There's a basic cultural value in our heritage in which sexuality is sacred and respected. We talk about it in very clear terms. Things such as homosexuality are not just seen as sins, but as perversions. They're seen as hideous, they make you an outcast from your clan and village. If a man impregnates his sister, or if he has sex with another man, this is a kind of social sin which people believe will bring misery on the entire village, so he'd better just go away. This is what the people believe, and [as a theologian] you can't isolate yourself from society.
The presence of Muslims is also very important. If you're a homosexual, they come to stone you. Those who practice traditional African religions would stone you too. The Catholics isolate you. If everyone agrees to that, who are we to reject it? We've had too much armchair theology in the church. We want to be synthesizers and prophets of the people.

[QUESTION]Do you think there will be a rupture in Catholicism on these issues, as in the Anglican Communion?
If it's pushed, it would be a big split. But the church generally tries to avoid sensitive issues which simply divide it, and I don't think it will come out "soft" on homosexuality."

I'm torn on this. I tend to think that it is essential for gays and lesbaisn to allow the third world to develop at its own pace on these issues. Asserting that gays and lesbians have a natural human right to relaionships and deserve to be treated like everyone else just isn't where these people are at yet culturally, and we can't simply force this. Most former homo-phobes I know (myself included) have not had their minds changed by arguments or assertions as much as actually meeting and knowing queers. Yet, in this country we have a decades-old gay movement that makes this much easier. What can be done in places like Africa, where even the most ardent supporters of human rights, who call for prophecy, assume that when it comes to same-sex relationships "who are we to reject" the traditional view. Hell, he speaks pretty non-chalantly about them being stoned as well. This is not a matter of semantics, it's truly life and death, but how do we influence it without appearing to be 'cultural imperialists?'

And this as we approach the one-year anniversary of the execution of two gay Iranians for "acts of sodomy."

On the shelf

2006-07-16T19:37:00.000-04:00

At the moment I'm reading several books of over-lapping subject matter. Since I may not have much use beyond bibliography, I thought that I might just give the citation info on them. Further posts once I've finished or if something in particular strikes me:

Mark D. Jordan, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).
Thus far this one is very interesting. I consulted several reviews (none of which are available to the general public--I had to use the online Notre Dame database) and the scholarship is certainly good, though the interpretations are naturally disputed. Essentially, this is a geneology of the term "sodomy" and the way it has been (mis)used in the history of Christian thought. Like myself, Jordan is a gay Catholic who, while taking the tradition seriously, has been brought to see that the official Catholic teaching on the matter is simply not true. How it can be possible for an (attempting) good Catholic to believe this is greatly helped by.......

John T. Noonan, Jr., The Church that Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Theology (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005).
Though this text doesn't deal with the gay issue directly, it does deal with the changes in Catholic moral thought on the issues of slavery, religious freedom, usury, and the indissolubility of marriage. His ultimate conclusion seems to be that there's no way of foreseeing exactly how these changes will occur, but that all of them did so by taking greater account of the experiences of those unjustly burdened by them before reform. In a word--empathy. This would be a wonderful lesson if church officials could see it more clearly towards us queers. A nuanced but largely disagreeing review by Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ can be found here.

Since the Mideast is once again on the verge of.................well, God knows what.....................I thought it was high time I strengthened my knowledge of the region. Thus, I am reading
Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years (New York: Scribner, 1995).
Since it was obviously written before 9/11 it doesn't get into too much of the current matters, but that's ok since I'm more interested in the longer term history of the region. I still have a bit to go though, since Constantinople has just fallen (in 1493).

All are great thus far. More to come.