Sunday, June 8, 2014

When I see Catholics trying to salvage what they can from the victorious Left

I'm reminded that the Protestant Reformation was, ultimately, a very Catholic event.  After all, like early Christians were Jews, early Protestants were Catholics.  And the Catholic Church they grew up in was a Church trying desperately to navigate the sweeping changes in thought and scholarship and society that were taking Europe by storm, including, but not limited to, that phenomenon known as Humanism.  That was crucial for shaping the worldview that allowed for a Protestant approach to Christianity.

Of course Catholics blame the Protestants without necessarily taking responsibility for the societal milieu in which the Church existed at the time, as well as the varying degrees to which the Church allowed for and flirted with the changes taking place.  That seems to be a Catholic thing: allow for any vague level of accommodations to whatever is happening outside the walls of the Church, and then blame anything bad that happens as a result on everyone but the Church for dabbling with it in the first place.

So when I see a post on a blog praising some non-clearly defined expression of feminism, sure.  Why not.  Is everything to do with feminism bad?  No.  But nor is everything to do with Capitalism.  Yet you'd not know either of those things to hear both Pope Francis, and a growing number of Catholics scrambling to keep up with the changes going on in the world today, just like those who scrambled centuries ago to keep up with the latest, hippest in the 14th and 15th centuries.

And when Catholics run beyond these vague and invisible barriers between acceptable and not?  Well, it won't be the Church's fault, that's for sure.


  1. That was... odd.

    There's a blogger named Dalrock, sometimes I glance at him just to see what he's up to. He likes to claim that Christianity (in the general) is making an idol of feminism over the Bible. (example)

    Eh, I thought he was overstating a lot. Then I read Fisher's article. I mean... really? She's claiming "we need feminism" when practically every complaint she has about the modern world would be equally fixed by following the Church. But she doesn't recommend "we need catholicism" (I mean I may disagree with that, but it would be logical for her) but feminism. In her post, she cries out that the world needs feminism, not the church.

    That... that kind of says it all right there.

  2. There is the feeling that the Catholic Church, like many Protestant churches, is changing to adapt to the assumptions of the post-Christian Left. It won't accept everything of course. But just like warming to feminism and feminist assumptions, I can't help but feel that explains some of the Church's less than praiseworthy periods in its history.

  3. My favorite part of that discussion was HornAndSilk blatantly pulling definitions out of his ass, ripping off Thomist language about "species" and "genus" and misapplying them in a completely ad-hoc and ridiculous manner, all to rescue feminism from the inescapable logical implications of Mark's previous injudicious attempt to zing libertarianism as a "heresy" on the grounds that all not-explicitly-Catholic ideologies are automatically heretical.

    It's pretty astounding the rationalizations and contortions they'll tie themselves into to avoid acknowledging to themselves what's obvious to anybody watching them from outside their bubble: that they're obviously liberals trying to conform their Christianity to the popular ideas of progressivist secularism, rather than being the salt of the world. They seriously expect us to believe that it's mere coincidence that the latest trends in "Catholic" thought juuuuuuuust so happen to be exactly the same as the conclusions reached by progressive secularists from premises explicitly hostile to Christianity. Or maybe telling themselves that it was secretly orthodox Catholics pulling the strings behind the scenes all along. Who knows? It wouldn't be rationalization if it actually made sense.

  4. Well if you were able to figure out what HornAndSilk was saying, you're better than me.

    Though yes, this is what happens with bad apologetics or bad arguments for that matter. They come back to bite. It reminds me of a post where Mark unleashed on a CoC for kicking out a woman who openly endorsed gay marriage. The only source was CNN, which was obviously one sided in its reporting. Then when the liberal non-Catholics came to Mark's site to include Catholic schools who were firing openly gay teachers, Mark was livid at the comparison. My point? It's what comes from bad arguing. Which is why more careful approaches to issues are probably in order.


Let me know your thoughts