Monday, June 30, 2014
Hysteria on the Left
As the SCOTUS deals the third consecutive blow to the Left Wing juggernaut. They seem to forget not too long ago when the court uplifted Obama's demand that everyone purchase healthcare (a position the US Bishops didn't seem to mind), as well as upholding the court's right to trump the democratic process when it comes to gay rights. Even though it was a split decision, it was THE LAW OF THE LAND. Much celebrating ensued. Now, it's this, which shows that this is simply the classic Marxist approach of 'history about us vs. them.' In this case, those who want religious liberty are the theocrats, and those wanting to impose a secularists values system on religion are the freedom fighters.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Remembrance Day
A day to remember, reflect, and pray. To remember the day that started it all. Not a day to look back at those losers who weren't as hip as we are. Any other generation might be able to make such a judgment, but not ours. I used to tell my boys that WWI began because a Serbian nationalist assassinated the Archduke of Austria, so naturally Germany invaded France. It was an attempt at a humorous way of conveying the context out of which World War I emerged. The tangled web of treaties and alliances and family squabbles had finally hit the boiling point, and a generation that was busy patting itself on the back for its awesomeness and hip maturity was about to get a gruesome wake up call. We're Marching To Zion, so the old hymn went. We were marching there. No need to wait for the Second Coming, we were busy doing what God Himself couldn't do. The illusion began to fade in the icy waters of the North Atlantic a couple years earlier. Now it was about to be demolished, and all starting with a disillusioned and disturbed young man in a far away country that few probably had heard about in the States. Within four years, tens of millions would be dead and millions more lives forever changed.
As we are in our own era of repeating historical mistakes because of arrogance, apathy and ignorance, may we use this day not to condemn those who went before, but to accuse ourselves as we stumble blindly ahead, ignoring the signs, and setting up the foundation for future atrocities that may make those of the last century pale in comparison.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Friday, June 27, 2014
How to be an obedient Catholic
Easy, follow everything the Church teaches through the prism of what the Church is really intending to mean. So Pope Francis came out and pretty much smacked down this movement of legalizing illegal drugs. Of course legalizing drugs won't solve any more problems than it creates. So Pope Francis (who is always awesome) steps up and says the solution is elsewhere, not in saying 'just do it!'. And how is it reported by those warming up to a more progressive manifestation of good old Catholic living?
The Pope condemns legalizing Pot, but not really. How that wasn't condemning the movement, I don't know. Perhaps because he didn't actually say Pot. Maybe he didn't use the exact wording. Perhaps because he focused on getting at the core problems that lure people into drug use in the first place. In any event, what he obviously said is suddenly discarded for what he clearly means. Using any one of the above options, or perhaps others.
Of course when people said Pope Benedict prayed for peace when we bombed Libya, but didn't explicitly condemn the action, the action was OK - why they were the worst. Or the Church didn't say waterboarding, just torture, why it's heretics on the march! But you see, there's the trick. That's how you're always obedient. When you agree with the Church's statements, it's always what the clear and obvious teaching in black and white happens to be. But when you're a little uncomfortable? Why, that's when it's to between the lines we must turn. I always wondered how, with a living, breathing Magisterium, Catholics could so wildly disagree while insisting they're right and everyone else is wrong. Now I know!
The Pope condemns legalizing Pot, but not really. How that wasn't condemning the movement, I don't know. Perhaps because he didn't actually say Pot. Maybe he didn't use the exact wording. Perhaps because he focused on getting at the core problems that lure people into drug use in the first place. In any event, what he obviously said is suddenly discarded for what he clearly means. Using any one of the above options, or perhaps others.
Of course when people said Pope Benedict prayed for peace when we bombed Libya, but didn't explicitly condemn the action, the action was OK - why they were the worst. Or the Church didn't say waterboarding, just torture, why it's heretics on the march! But you see, there's the trick. That's how you're always obedient. When you agree with the Church's statements, it's always what the clear and obvious teaching in black and white happens to be. But when you're a little uncomfortable? Why, that's when it's to between the lines we must turn. I always wondered how, with a living, breathing Magisterium, Catholics could so wildly disagree while insisting they're right and everyone else is wrong. Now I know!
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Farewell Tuco
Despite his many cinematic achievements, Eli Wallach will forever be Tuco, the Ugly, from the famous spaghetti western The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Despite starring a young Clint Eastwood in the latest of his 'man with no name' ventures, the film belongs to Wallach all the way. True, modern PC sensitivities may chafe at his bandito characterization, and some even in the day may not have liked it. But growing up, the movie was iconic, and it's Tuco that shows you can be evil and rotten to the core, and yet somehow still bring out the audience's sympathies.
Of course this was not his only movie, nor even his most celebrated. Many would give that honor to the film The Magnificent Seven. Based on the legendary Seven Samurai, he dons yet again the look of a Mexican outlaw to menace a fretful town.
His acting career spanned decades, and I'm still shocked when I turn on a channel and see Wallach in a role completely against type, at least type as defined by Tuco. He is more than Tuco or even Mexican bandits. Nonetheless, as must happen to everyone, he died today at the rich old age of 98. I pray his life was as good as it was long. And for a young many who used to sit glued to the TV when old broadcasts of Good, Bad and Ugly would play, I appreciate the memories. May God's light shine upon you.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
The Feast of Corpus Christi
Not the one in Texas. Though that's always a nice reminder, along with other little urban names such as San Diego, San Francisco, and San Antonio, that there was actually a dynamic Catholic presence in the New World long before the rightly celebrated Plymouth Puritans showed up to display their own awesomeness. No, this is the Feast of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. As understood by Catholics, the actual Body of Christ in the bread and the blood of Christ in the wine.
Sounds silly, right? Well, no more silly than the son of an obscure peasant woman being executed by Rome in order to redeem the spiritual well being of all humanity. In fact, this was also one of those things that I, former non-Sacramental minister, came full force into contact with as I reflected on our own Lord's Supper celebration in the heyday of my Protestant years.
It's odd that the famous John 6 discourse comes in the last of the Gospels. Think on that. Unless you're really a radical progressive post-modern scholar, you accept that John's was the last Gospel penned. Probably around the last part of the first century. That's about 60-70 years from the events of Christ's Passion. Meaning the Church has been around for about six decades or so (about as long ago as the 1950s are to us).
By now, the earliest Gospels were in circulation. Within a century the four would all be accepted by the early Church as part of the scriptural witness of the New Covenant. But John was last. And almost all scholars know that some form of pre-gnostic Gnosticism was being addressed in the heavy handed 'Word became Flesh' emphasis of John's writings. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John is focused on fleshing out (literally) the story of Jesus, especially as some must already have been suggesting, ala later Gnosticism, that Jesus could not have actually been physical. Matter being evil in itself.
Enter John. The Word became Flesh, and dwelt among us. It's noteworthy that it's John's Gospel that bookends Jesus' earthly ministry with accounts of Mary. But that's for another post. In this one, instead of hearing the tale of the Last Supper, we hear something else. I remember being taught that John 'didn't have a Last Supper account.' One of the things that blew my mind was hearing Steve Ray say 'yes it did, it's in John's Gospel, chapter 6.'
Just like the synoptic accounts of Jesus birth being repackaged to be the Divine Logos made Flesh, so here we have the Eucharistic meal not in a setting with Jesus and the Disciples as it happened, but with Jesus unpacking the meaning.
When Jesus said to his Disciples 'take and eat, for this is my Body', what in the world did He mean? When Paul repeats those words in his letter to the Corinthians, what was he talking about? Well John, written decades later, explains. He means this:
And more than that, considering John's emphasis on 'it is too really flesh, real, there', it isn't hard to imagine this being an unpacked explanation of the Eucharistic meal being celebrated by that point in time. When Christians decades later were celebrating it, some questioning the bodily presence of Christ on earth would logically question anything bodily present in a piece of bread. And John's answer? Not that 'well yeah, duh, of course he meant it was representative of something.' No, just like that Word coming to tabernacle with us, so Jesus makes it clear His Body is the Bread, and we must eat it, His Flesh, to have Life in us (just like the Synoptic narratives present His statements).
I know, anything can be argued away. And yet, like many things that dragged me kicking and screaming into the Catholic Church, I had to ask if it was the simplest thing to do, or if it was something I merely wanted to do because I didn't want to be Catholic.
Anyway, today's the Feast. Here is the always enjoyable Fish Easters unpacking some traditional customs for this day. We had a procession, but illness and timing brought us home (though my middle two stayed to help with the procession). We'll see what else we can do. There are more things to unpack about this central teaching of the Faith. But thought I'd toss out a few thoughts off the top while waiting to pick up the boys.
Sounds silly, right? Well, no more silly than the son of an obscure peasant woman being executed by Rome in order to redeem the spiritual well being of all humanity. In fact, this was also one of those things that I, former non-Sacramental minister, came full force into contact with as I reflected on our own Lord's Supper celebration in the heyday of my Protestant years.
It's odd that the famous John 6 discourse comes in the last of the Gospels. Think on that. Unless you're really a radical progressive post-modern scholar, you accept that John's was the last Gospel penned. Probably around the last part of the first century. That's about 60-70 years from the events of Christ's Passion. Meaning the Church has been around for about six decades or so (about as long ago as the 1950s are to us).
By now, the earliest Gospels were in circulation. Within a century the four would all be accepted by the early Church as part of the scriptural witness of the New Covenant. But John was last. And almost all scholars know that some form of pre-gnostic Gnosticism was being addressed in the heavy handed 'Word became Flesh' emphasis of John's writings. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John is focused on fleshing out (literally) the story of Jesus, especially as some must already have been suggesting, ala later Gnosticism, that Jesus could not have actually been physical. Matter being evil in itself.
Enter John. The Word became Flesh, and dwelt among us. It's noteworthy that it's John's Gospel that bookends Jesus' earthly ministry with accounts of Mary. But that's for another post. In this one, instead of hearing the tale of the Last Supper, we hear something else. I remember being taught that John 'didn't have a Last Supper account.' One of the things that blew my mind was hearing Steve Ray say 'yes it did, it's in John's Gospel, chapter 6.'
Just like the synoptic accounts of Jesus birth being repackaged to be the Divine Logos made Flesh, so here we have the Eucharistic meal not in a setting with Jesus and the Disciples as it happened, but with Jesus unpacking the meaning.
When Jesus said to his Disciples 'take and eat, for this is my Body', what in the world did He mean? When Paul repeats those words in his letter to the Corinthians, what was he talking about? Well John, written decades later, explains. He means this:
How about that? Yes, I'm aware that Protestants read this as a metaphorical saying, or using imagery to point to his overall Sacrificial mission, or something similar (depending on the Protestant tradition). That's fine as far as it goes. But there's no textual support for such a reading in the Greek, especially when set against the classic Corinthian and Synoptic quotes of Jesus pointing to the bread and wine and declaring them His Body and His Blood. Something that the author of John would have been well aware of by the end of the first century. That, plus the lack of a textual reason to reduce it to imagery, is a problem. We were even taught that in Greek class. But for the theological underpinning of clear Evangelical thought, there wouldn't be a reason to see this as anything other than meaning what the Historic Faith says it means.I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
And more than that, considering John's emphasis on 'it is too really flesh, real, there', it isn't hard to imagine this being an unpacked explanation of the Eucharistic meal being celebrated by that point in time. When Christians decades later were celebrating it, some questioning the bodily presence of Christ on earth would logically question anything bodily present in a piece of bread. And John's answer? Not that 'well yeah, duh, of course he meant it was representative of something.' No, just like that Word coming to tabernacle with us, so Jesus makes it clear His Body is the Bread, and we must eat it, His Flesh, to have Life in us (just like the Synoptic narratives present His statements).
I know, anything can be argued away. And yet, like many things that dragged me kicking and screaming into the Catholic Church, I had to ask if it was the simplest thing to do, or if it was something I merely wanted to do because I didn't want to be Catholic.
Anyway, today's the Feast. Here is the always enjoyable Fish Easters unpacking some traditional customs for this day. We had a procession, but illness and timing brought us home (though my middle two stayed to help with the procession). We'll see what else we can do. There are more things to unpack about this central teaching of the Faith. But thought I'd toss out a few thoughts off the top while waiting to pick up the boys.
Are you afraid of no ghost?
The always interesting Fr. Longenecker takes on the topic of ghosts and the Catholic Faith. Here's the thing. It's not contrary to the Faith to believe in ghosts. In fact, it's almost logical. Just how it works out is up to smarter minds than mine. But to believe in a netherworld, a spiritual dimension to Creation? Of course. If someone doesn't, that's fine. But there's certainly nothing wrong with believing.
Personally I was always rather cynical about such things. As a new convert, I was a bit embarrassed by all that miracle stuff Christians seemed to jabber on about. I accepted the Resurrection because that's what they said I had to do to be saved. Perhaps a vague miracle here or there. But I was pretty cynical.
Then two things happened. First, I watched a nighttime news magazine (remember those? ) doing a special on miracles. They talked about different ones, including the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. In that segment, they interviewed the president of the American Cynics, or something like it. He dismissed the miracle saying that it could be explained a dozen ways, and was probably just a natural, albeit unusual, phenomenon. I immediately realized that the presence of dozens of possible alternate explanations doesn't mean the original claim is false. They could be wrong just the same (especially some of the wilder alternates). Second, if it was a natural phenomenon, then get a couple peasant kids to predict a similar event and have it come true. Then we can see it doesn't require divine intervention.
Not that I started believing in miracles and ghosts, but it made me realize that many who don't believe in the supernatural offer no better explanations, and that says volumes right there. Especially since they seem to invest so much of their efforts in disproving them.
The second event happened on my honeymoon. Yeah, go ahead and giggle. But we went to Jekyll Island in Georgia. We were married in February since we lived in Florida, and Jekyll Island was close enough and yet far enough away for an early March. Not many tourists at that time. Being a history buff, I decided to use a day or two of our week visiting historic sites. One of the sites we visited was Fort Frederica. It's an actual location museum and archaeological site. No fake reconstructions. It has the foundations and markers of the original buildings, with only a couple examples of later structures marking original locations.
My wife and I went there one day near noontime. It was overcast and for us Floridians, it was freezing. There was a slight mist, enough to have made it almost devoid of visitors. We began walking along the original main street. There were markers explaining what each foundation would have been. We went from one side of the street to the other, zigzagging our way down the path.
Suddenly, as we walked back from the southern side of the 'street' to the north, I got a massive feeling of, well, pressed upon. You know that feeling you get when you know, or think you aren't alone? And that feeling you get if you're being pressed in upon by a crowd, even if nobody is touching you? That feeling. Now that's not the crazy part. When that happened, the feeling I was in a crowd was so palpable, I stopped. I looked and my wife had also stopped. With no prompting, she looked at me and said she had the craziest feeling. I told her I also had a crazy feeling. We described what we felt and it was the same.
We thought for a minute, then went on with our sightseeing. We looked at the next stone foundation, then crossed back to the other side. Then we turned and went back again, back to the northern side, and suddenly, there it was again! Same exact feeling.
We both stopped and looked at each other. We glanced around just to make sure. Nope. Nobody else was even close by. At that, we tried again. But next time nothing. No feeling of anything other than a cool, misty breeze. We continued our sightseeing and then came all the way back to the same spot and retraced our steps. But again, nothing. No feeling of pressed upon by crowds, of deja vu, of people being near, nothing.
After that, I concluded there must be something that isn't dreamt of in our modern philosophies. I studied the history of the settlement and tried to ascertain something special about the anniversary of the date we were there, but I've found no major event for that exact time. I've had other 'bizarre' occurrences in my life, and while some seem without a logical explanation, all seem capable of some explanation - no matter how stretched. But not this one. There just isn't an explanation unless someone wanted to call me and my wife liars.
So ghosts? Sure, why not. There's no reason not to believe. I dare say that a bigger problem is the number of Christians - including Catholics - who don't really believe in a supernatural, miraculous creation apart from a few basics (Resurrection, maybe Virgin Birth, for Catholics the Real Presence). Take those few away, and we approach the universe with a materialistic simplicity that would shame Richard Dawkins. Perhaps it's time to recapture a supernatural view that includes not just a couple high and mighty miracles, but one that assumes the universe is on a regular basis more than just rocks and trees and squirrels. And maybe, as Fr. Longenecker suggests, the best place to start is a priesthood as in tune to the supernatural as it is the latest from academia or worse, pop culture, and that might start the ball rolling back in the right direction.
Personally I was always rather cynical about such things. As a new convert, I was a bit embarrassed by all that miracle stuff Christians seemed to jabber on about. I accepted the Resurrection because that's what they said I had to do to be saved. Perhaps a vague miracle here or there. But I was pretty cynical.
Then two things happened. First, I watched a nighttime news magazine (remember those? ) doing a special on miracles. They talked about different ones, including the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. In that segment, they interviewed the president of the American Cynics, or something like it. He dismissed the miracle saying that it could be explained a dozen ways, and was probably just a natural, albeit unusual, phenomenon. I immediately realized that the presence of dozens of possible alternate explanations doesn't mean the original claim is false. They could be wrong just the same (especially some of the wilder alternates). Second, if it was a natural phenomenon, then get a couple peasant kids to predict a similar event and have it come true. Then we can see it doesn't require divine intervention.
Not that I started believing in miracles and ghosts, but it made me realize that many who don't believe in the supernatural offer no better explanations, and that says volumes right there. Especially since they seem to invest so much of their efforts in disproving them.
The second event happened on my honeymoon. Yeah, go ahead and giggle. But we went to Jekyll Island in Georgia. We were married in February since we lived in Florida, and Jekyll Island was close enough and yet far enough away for an early March. Not many tourists at that time. Being a history buff, I decided to use a day or two of our week visiting historic sites. One of the sites we visited was Fort Frederica. It's an actual location museum and archaeological site. No fake reconstructions. It has the foundations and markers of the original buildings, with only a couple examples of later structures marking original locations.
My wife and I went there one day near noontime. It was overcast and for us Floridians, it was freezing. There was a slight mist, enough to have made it almost devoid of visitors. We began walking along the original main street. There were markers explaining what each foundation would have been. We went from one side of the street to the other, zigzagging our way down the path.
Suddenly, as we walked back from the southern side of the 'street' to the north, I got a massive feeling of, well, pressed upon. You know that feeling you get when you know, or think you aren't alone? And that feeling you get if you're being pressed in upon by a crowd, even if nobody is touching you? That feeling. Now that's not the crazy part. When that happened, the feeling I was in a crowd was so palpable, I stopped. I looked and my wife had also stopped. With no prompting, she looked at me and said she had the craziest feeling. I told her I also had a crazy feeling. We described what we felt and it was the same.
We thought for a minute, then went on with our sightseeing. We looked at the next stone foundation, then crossed back to the other side. Then we turned and went back again, back to the northern side, and suddenly, there it was again! Same exact feeling.
After that, I concluded there must be something that isn't dreamt of in our modern philosophies. I studied the history of the settlement and tried to ascertain something special about the anniversary of the date we were there, but I've found no major event for that exact time. I've had other 'bizarre' occurrences in my life, and while some seem without a logical explanation, all seem capable of some explanation - no matter how stretched. But not this one. There just isn't an explanation unless someone wanted to call me and my wife liars.
So ghosts? Sure, why not. There's no reason not to believe. I dare say that a bigger problem is the number of Christians - including Catholics - who don't really believe in a supernatural, miraculous creation apart from a few basics (Resurrection, maybe Virgin Birth, for Catholics the Real Presence). Take those few away, and we approach the universe with a materialistic simplicity that would shame Richard Dawkins. Perhaps it's time to recapture a supernatural view that includes not just a couple high and mighty miracles, but one that assumes the universe is on a regular basis more than just rocks and trees and squirrels. And maybe, as Fr. Longenecker suggests, the best place to start is a priesthood as in tune to the supernatural as it is the latest from academia or worse, pop culture, and that might start the ball rolling back in the right direction.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Jon Stewart reminds us
That he's part of the growing consensus that progressivism and legislation should never be far from one another. Follow this link and see him loving on the Redskins verdict, wondering why it's taking the country so long to legislate the indisputable truths as understood by the Left. Like his partner yap dog for the left Mr. Colbert, Stewart occupies an important role in reaching a growing number of people with no time for facts, and a love for bumper sticker principles that uphold the post-modern Golden Rule: Do unto others as long as you don't do unto me. Well done Jon. You're everything we've come to expect from the post-liberal Left.
Also, Stewart inadvertently demonstrates the disdain and contempt for minorities who don't support the Leftist call for Censorship in the name of tolerance.
Also, Stewart inadvertently demonstrates the disdain and contempt for minorities who don't support the Leftist call for Censorship in the name of tolerance.
As opposed to Pride Day
In case you missed it, and that would be because you get your news from the news media, there was actually a rally for traditional marriage today. Most places, media outlets, and other organizations (including my place of employment) shamelessly fawned over Pride Parades across America, some were trying different ways to suggest that this pining for the days of Sodom and Gomorrah are not a great path to run along. Yes, you have the typical hit pieces and naturally some who oppose the progressive juggernaut will jump on board to mock those who aren't opposing sin as awesomely as they are. And yet others will come up with great alternatives that demand participation, respectful disregard, or outright hatred.
Non liberals continue to sleep at the wheel
Because the press isn't there to sound the alarms. In fact, the press increasingly seems to be OK with things as long as it advances The Cause. So here's the story. A public school, through some strange series of coincidence, was censoring conservative and Catholic sites disproportionately compared to other sites. No doubt unintended.
Meanwhile Ollivia Nuzzi
Demonstrates that puritans at Plymouth don't hold a candle to the intolerant zealotry of those pushing for gay marriage. Notice the contempt and loathing for everyone she describes who fails to conform to the dogmas of liberal tolerance. Notice the old trick of finding the worst elements in a group in order to avoid the substance of the debate. The more hysterics and calls for hatred of non-gay friendly wrong-think, the more you just know everyone can tell gay normality is B.S. When I was growing up, I was taught in college that the reason religious fanatics were the way they were was because deep down, they knew it was B.S. In fact, I was often told that zealotry and intolerance were the result of not-so-deep insecurities held by the intolerant individuals in question. So assuming those old time liberals were telling the truth, what does that say about the fanaticism and intolerance of gay activists today?
Liberal Presbyterians endorse gay marriage
And demonstrate a massive problem with Protestantism. After all, who's to say they are wrong? When one sees the splits away from the historic faith as practice and agreed upon almost from the time of the earliest Christian writings, the same teachings practiced by those of the orthodox confessions of the Nicene Creed, one does have to ask 'how is it you are right for ditching these teachings, but not those over there?' It was something I pondered as an Evangelical pastor.
True, it could be argued that the Church has never been at ease in the face of new challenges from outside. But there is something that keeps the Faith from going too far no matter how much stretching is done by its adherents. In Protestantism, however, it can go as far as you wish. Just branch off with your own denomination. I knew mainline Protestants who questioned the existence of a personal God, or who openly endorsed Gnostic teachings. Why not? Why are they wrong when Protestants who reject, say, the sacramental nature of Baptism or the Eucharistic celebration practiced for almost 2000 years are not likewise wrong? By what authority can they say?
Sure, this is just the typical fawning over liberalism that factions in the Faith have always done. Whenever there is a new, hip movement, there are always those who wish to conform. For every zealot or pharisee, there are at least three Hellenists who jump on the latest. This is simply the most recent example. But in the end, some will have a pillar, an anchor that will eventually bring things back to balance, however briefly. While those without a clear standard to point to will only be able to watch as one after another, split and breach will occur until endless hundreds of varieties exist, and those bearing little resemblance to the root from which they originally sprung.
True, it could be argued that the Church has never been at ease in the face of new challenges from outside. But there is something that keeps the Faith from going too far no matter how much stretching is done by its adherents. In Protestantism, however, it can go as far as you wish. Just branch off with your own denomination. I knew mainline Protestants who questioned the existence of a personal God, or who openly endorsed Gnostic teachings. Why not? Why are they wrong when Protestants who reject, say, the sacramental nature of Baptism or the Eucharistic celebration practiced for almost 2000 years are not likewise wrong? By what authority can they say?
Sure, this is just the typical fawning over liberalism that factions in the Faith have always done. Whenever there is a new, hip movement, there are always those who wish to conform. For every zealot or pharisee, there are at least three Hellenists who jump on the latest. This is simply the most recent example. But in the end, some will have a pillar, an anchor that will eventually bring things back to balance, however briefly. While those without a clear standard to point to will only be able to watch as one after another, split and breach will occur until endless hundreds of varieties exist, and those bearing little resemblance to the root from which they originally sprung.
Ralph Reed turns the tables
And compares the current wave of judicial overreach pushing gay marriage to the same judicial decision making that helped keep African Americans a piece of property to be bargained with. Commence outrage from the Left* in three, two, one...
*That would be the same left that incorrectly yet so effectively compared being gay to being black, and therefore successfully compared any opposition to gay marriage to support of slavery, Nazis, segregation, etc.
*That would be the same left that incorrectly yet so effectively compared being gay to being black, and therefore successfully compared any opposition to gay marriage to support of slavery, Nazis, segregation, etc.
Friday, June 20, 2014
George Will demonstrates
That when it comes to the Leftist Juggernaut, there is no compromise. Mr. Will, sometimes scorned by conservatives for not being aggressive enough, and just being a token conservative on otherwise liberal programs, has been sacked by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This is because he questioned, and even critiqued, the idea that there is a pandemic or sexual assault on our campuses. He doesn't say there is none, but says that the definition of sexual assault has been changed, and that some might be using the problem for their own interests, even including making false accusations. Which is all true of course. Again, he doesn't say rape is no big deal, or that there is no problem. He simply examines the phenomenon and says that those who are victims enjoy a special status over others who may have their own grievances. And for that, he's canned. Maybe he's wrong. But should he be canned? The man who was the kinder, gentler conservative?
My guess is it's a convenient excuse. According to the editor of the paper, this was months in the coming. The piece, according to him, just 'made it easier.' Again, for those saying nothing to see, I'd point out the growing love of punishing wrong think that is making its way into the press, and slowly inching its way into our government.
UPDATE: After watching some segments on this, notice that there is no discussion about whether he is factually correct. With Censorship through the PC Back Door, the question of facts and truth is never discussed. You've simply blasphemed. And as such, punishment is demanded.
UPDATE II: CNN is having a discussion. Ben Ferguson is trying to inject facts into the discussion. When talking of the possibility of false accusations destroying the lives of those wrongly accused, he brings up the Duke Lacrosse case. And the host? Hey yeah, that was unfortunate, but let's not forget the woman's life was ruined, too. She was the one who made the bleeping false accusation! It's this level of purposeful idiocy that is pushed by the left that shows how tyranny arises. FWIW, she finishes the segment by saying PC is not a bad thing and was 'put in place to draw a line around what is unacceptable.' Not really. But what beauty. What terror. This is the future of tyranny, since you can't really argue against such idiocy when the idiocy holds a hammer lock on the institutions that should be fighting it. It reinforces my notion that propaganda is not effective on the weak minded, as I was taught growing up. It's instead effective on the willing minded.
My guess is it's a convenient excuse. According to the editor of the paper, this was months in the coming. The piece, according to him, just 'made it easier.' Again, for those saying nothing to see, I'd point out the growing love of punishing wrong think that is making its way into the press, and slowly inching its way into our government.
UPDATE: After watching some segments on this, notice that there is no discussion about whether he is factually correct. With Censorship through the PC Back Door, the question of facts and truth is never discussed. You've simply blasphemed. And as such, punishment is demanded.
UPDATE II: CNN is having a discussion. Ben Ferguson is trying to inject facts into the discussion. When talking of the possibility of false accusations destroying the lives of those wrongly accused, he brings up the Duke Lacrosse case. And the host? Hey yeah, that was unfortunate, but let's not forget the woman's life was ruined, too. She was the one who made the bleeping false accusation! It's this level of purposeful idiocy that is pushed by the left that shows how tyranny arises. FWIW, she finishes the segment by saying PC is not a bad thing and was 'put in place to draw a line around what is unacceptable.' Not really. But what beauty. What terror. This is the future of tyranny, since you can't really argue against such idiocy when the idiocy holds a hammer lock on the institutions that should be fighting it. It reinforces my notion that propaganda is not effective on the weak minded, as I was taught growing up. It's instead effective on the willing minded.
The press goes after a Democrat
I couldn't figure this out when I first heard about it. Yes, the man blasphemed the gay gospel, and that will get you nailed whoever you are. But this seemed so, well, trivial. I know what he was saying, and it actually plays into the 'born this way' meme. But why was I hearing multiple stories on liberal outlets about this guy? Then I heard: he was considered a possible challenger to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries. If you want to see the media trash and destroy liberal Democrats, watch what happens anyone who challenges Clinton.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Yep
In fairness, when I was a kid, prayer had been outlawed, but you still weren't supposed to curse in school. According to my boys and their friends, even the teachers do it now. PDAs are also more common. They weren't only a few years ago. But the good news is, at least they can't pray or mention God in a graduation speech.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Big Brother you're on in five
Yep. My boys figured it out. PC is now becoming legalized. It's the government stepping in and taking over. Sure, it's in its infancy. But we're a stupid enough society to let it continue. Along with those itching to punish restaurant owners for their religious beliefs, this is a case where society just isn't moving quickly enough toward making it illegal to not be liberal. It's now time for the professionals to step up and take control.
Monday, June 16, 2014
America is to worldwide soccer
What Jamaica is to bobsledding. So it's pretty awesome that we settled a few scores and beat Ghana at the World Cup! Woo Hoo! U! S! A! Enjoy it for now.
The Feast of the Most Holy Trinity
One thing the Catholic Faith does not lack is a day for almost any theological aspect of the Faith. If you're from the original Reformation traditions, this isn't too far from your experience. But if you're from your basic congregational based evangelical tradition, particularly those that grew up out of the American landscape, this may seem a strange - and if you're lucky, welcome - approach to the faith.
This is holdover from the days when the Church was the cultural canvas upon which life was painted. Every day had to have something. A Saint, a feast, a focus. And so each day was its own teaching opportunity.
Yesterday was the Feast, or Solemnity, of the Most Holy Trinity. The focus is, of course, on that particularly unique faith claim of orthodox Christianity that God is One God in Three Persons. Not an easy concept to grasp. Not two thousand years ago. Not in the 21st century. And it's not as if there haven't been alternate expressions of the Faith that decided this was too counter-intuitive, and a less convoluted understanding of God would help people sleep better at night.
Nonetheless, the Thrice Holy God of the orthodox confession became the Faith once and for all proclaimed to the nations, and it is still that claim that separates the Christian faith from all other competing Truth claims. Yesterday's day was a chance to unpack that. Like all things liturgical, the entire Mass was centered on this truth, and it's one of those delicious parts of the liturgical expressions that no matter how you'd like to forget some things or focus on the juicier sides of the Faith, the Church is here to bring us back to the foundations of what separates us from all others.
Farewell Casey Kasem
It was a bonus to find out that Casey was none other than the voice for that tripping hipster of the Scooby Doo gang, Shaggy. And he also had specials and came in and out of various pop culture productions, such as a brief stint as himself in 1984's Ghostbusters.
I especially remember his annual Top 10 Christmas Songs special. They were typically the same songs, and may have actually been the same show replayed each year. I like his telling of the classic O Holy Night the most. He told of a break in the Franco-Prussian war, in which one soldier on one side, then another on the other side, and soon all of the soldiers stopped the fighting to sing this song. Eventually, Kasem narrated, they would return to the fighting, and many would die. But for a moment the light of Christ came through that horror for a brief glimpse of peace. As only he could deliver such a tale.
Thanks for the fond memories. Thanks for being a decent spirit in an age when culture was becoming increasingly vulgar and crass (he famously refused to speak the title of George Michael's I Want Your Sex). And just thanks for being part of the memories of my youth. May the perpetual Light shine upon you.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
A good start to Father's day
Friday 13th, a full moon, Father's Day weekend? How better could it get? The boys have already said they're buying steaks (with their own funds!) and will cook them out for me. Now that my wife is working, she has insisted I get new shoes. I have to admit, it is pretty embarrassing being at a meeting at work and feeling my toes pop through the end of the shoe, so that's a good thing. And my youngest says Daddy needs new socks that fit! Good boy that. My wife has to go to the doctor to see about helping her condition. We found out that the biopsy was negative for Cancer, and that's always good. But we're still not sure what the problem is. She goes in for more tests Monday, and gets the results Friday. My Mom, meanwhile, is still needing to see about her injury and broken shoulder bone. There's a chance I could get a new position at work. Nothing money-wise, but a real schedule including weekends off and actually leaving early enough in the evening to eat dinner with the family! Woohoo! So right now, I can't complain. Things could be a lot worse, and I'm feeling pretty happy.
BTW, the picture was 'borrowed' from Facebook. We went out and took pictures, but none of them came out that well. Still, it was fun. We watched The Most Dangerous Game from 1932, and then told scary stories after we came in. Too late for our youngest, but then he would have been scared otherwise. Fun stuff!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)