Go rent the movie. You will laugh.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Go rent the movie. You will laugh.
I know, I know. I always hate it when people say such things. Victory is in the eye of the spin doctor. But here the issues were clear cut. As Mary Ann Glendon said at the end, it was wonderful that we finally had clarity about the disagreement between the Kmiec-pro-Life Obama supporters and the pro-Life anti-Obama folks. We now know where Kmiec stands...and he teeters on the edge of orthodoxy.
His interlocutors, be they Hadley Arkes or Robert George, have been exceedingly generous in always assuming the good will and right intention of Kmiec. To my eyes, Kmiec has displayed himself yet again as being a man who is struggling mightily to live between two worlds...and even his physical demeanor (severely slouching during the question period) demonstrates that he is being torn apart.
Now I feel sorry for the man.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
And so ends Hopkins’ poem "The Times Are Nightfall." It is a simple poem that ends with inviting the reader to think about the commonweal in each of us. The outside world is out of our control, but we have the law over ourselves. We can take control of our inner sanctum and “root out there the sin.” Why do we fail to do so?
I thought of this poem as I read this part from chapter five of Kmiec’s book, page 51:
Matters get tangled, deliberately so, when desperate Republican Faith Partisans seek to indenture the Catholic voter, who would otherwise gravitate toward the hopeful ideals of Barack Obama. The basis for this electoral enslavement? The unfounded claim that the Catholic voter is obliged to vote in a manner that either 1) recognizes only one acceptable means to address abortion (overturning Roe) and/or 2) disregards the full, comprehensive social teaching of the Church, except for addressing abortion by whatever means.Note, please that the following is an “unfounded claim” by those SOB RFPs: there is only one acceptable means to address abortion and that is overturning Roe. Where, for Pete’s sake, could these RFP dodos get such a goofy idea as the notion that the only acceptable means of addressing the daily killing of innocent children is making it illegal?
Certainly it wasn’t from Faithful Citizenship, the document from the U.S. Bishops which states that
22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society,because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.Sooo, the bishops seem to be saying – and it is the bishops here and not Catholics in Alliance – they are saying that a “legal system,” mark that Professor-of-Constitutional-Law Kmiec, a legal system that allows for abortion is “fundamentally flawed.” But nope, according to the good Professor of law, when addressing the legal killing of innocent children…you know…abortion, it is ridiculous to claim, as those bastard RFP’s do, that there is only one acceptable way to address it, namely making it illegal.
But, you might say, Professor Kmiec goes on to write, “and/or disregards the full, comprehensive social teaching of the Church.” Right, right. Surely we cannot subjugate all the rest of the Church’s social teaching to addressing the banning of abortion. What are those damned RFP’s thinking after all? Have they read Pope John Paul II’s Christifidelis laici where the pontiff writes:
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.Okay, so let me get this straight. The RFP’s are batty because… because they make the unfounded claim that there in only one acceptable way to deal with legalized murder and because in holding up abortion they are ignoring all the other wonderful aspects of social doctrine about health, home, and work? I see. So given the quotes from the bishops and the Pope – I mean the real bishops and the real Pope – what does Professor Kmiec have to say for himself? Not much I suppose.
That’s alright though. We have the world within. Our will is law in our small commonweal, and if we want to decide that the murder of innocents is alright, well then to hell with those RFPs. Obama’s got “hopeful ideals”…”hopeful ideals”!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Are you not familiar with this text? It is from Act II of Hopkins’ St. Winifred’s Well. It is all dark and brooding as it is part of a monologue by the evil Caradoc, responsible for the murder of Winifred, whose head was severed for the crime of refusing his advances. It is a Medieval story which Hopkins takes up, but it is a not too uncommon thing even in our day.
I am not left even this;
I all my being have hacked in half with her neck: one part,
Reason, selfdisposal, choice of better or worse way,
Is corpse now, cannot change; my other self, this soul,
Life’s quick, this kínd, this kéen self-feeling,
With dreadful distillation of thoughts sour as blood,
Must all day long taste murder. What do nów then? Do? Nay,
Deed-bound I am; one deed treads all down here cramps all doing. What do? Not yield,
Not hope, not pray; despair; ay, that: brazen despair out,
Brave all, and take what comes—as here this rabble is come,
Whose bloods I reck no more of, no more rank with hers
Than sewers with sacred oils. Mankind, that mobs, comes. Come!
Think of this: Caradoc strides onto the stage, bloodied, his sword stained crimson with Winifred’s essence. For what? For chastity?
Who suffers now for chastity? Certainly women and men, save that now the bloodied are the children in the womb and the doctors who, well-paid, sever the bodies of these modern innocents. It is a horrid thought, I know. But there is just something about all this intellectualizing and distinction-making and rhetorical pap that makes my stomach turn. Honestly, is it so difficult to understand human speech?
Caradoc understood precisely what he did. All his life, all of him is now stained with murder. He did not shy, either, from the consequence. Mankind, that mobs, comes. Come! Today we hide behind the verbiage of civility. Doug Kmiec says in chapter four of his book, page 48,
“Senator Obama is not pro-abortion, but instead tolerant of an existing legal structure that permits the mother to make the decision, while further pledging to work toward a more just social system devoted to encouraging a culture that is welcoming to life.”Obama is “tolerant.” That word suggest that the actor who is tolerating considers the thing being tolerated as something bad. One does not, after all, tolerate a good. And yet, this is what Obama said on July 17, 2008 in front of members of Planned Parenthood,
“I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality.”The right to abortion is at the center of Obama’s notion of reproductive freedom and Constitutionality. It is a part of women’s very equality with men. And, yet, Professor Kmiec says that Obama is not pro-abortion, he is tolerant of it.
Despair, ay, that; brazen despair out; for if someone as intelligent as Doug Kmiec cannot see the gratuitously simple truth that Obama is devoted to abortion as a fundamental right for women’s equality, and not as something merely to be tolerated, then, yes, brazen despair out. Mankind, that mobs, comes. Come! And bring legion with you, so that we can confront the devil straightforwardly and not get lost in the ruin of rhetoric.
What hinders? Are you beam-blind, yet to a fault
In a neighbour deft-handed? Are you that liar
And, cast by conscience out, spendsavour salt?
So ends Hopkins’ poem “The Candle Indoors.” It has me thinking what it is that makes a man like Douglas W. Kmiec write such drivel as that which appears in his book Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barak Obama. In my previous post I listed some of the problems that exist in Kmiec’s arguments, not the least of which was the claim that the Republican Faith Partisans (insert ominous organ music here) aim to throw teenagers, priests, cabbage-patch dolls, and M. Night Shyamalan (what was “The Happening”…seriously?) into jail. This is why the RFP’s want to overturn Roe: to throw people in JAIL! (thunder claps echo and rattle over a desolate, dark plane)
In chapter two of the book, Kmiec continues with his word games and twisting, only at one point he actually comes very close to out and out lying. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Kmiec wants to make the argument that it is at least silly if not bordering on heresy for the RFP’s (shriek!) to suggest that the Church would ever tell someone how to vote. He writes on page 39, “The American Bishops properly remind us that the Church corporate never tells parishioners for whom to vote by name. Nor do they proclaim that one issue overrides all others in the proper discernment of the Catholic voter.” Hmmmm, “never”? “rightly”?
So let’s get this straight, Kmiec would say that if the bishops were to find themselves in a country where a single population was being rounded up for mass murder – this is just a hypothetical mind you – where this population was forced to wear a patch or something…umm…let’s just say…umm…a yellow star, and if there were two major candidates one of whom advocated for, wanted to increase funding to, and pledged to continue the process of deportation and the other one didn’t…well Kmiec says that the bishops would be right in refusing to condemn voting for this pro-deport-Jews-so-as-to-kill-them candidate. He says they would never proclaim that the issue of mass deportation of an entire ethnic population for the purpose of extinction outweighs… wait…“overrides all others in the proper discernment of the Catholic voter.” They just don’t do this.
To this, my question runs this way: If the bishops would rightly never proclaim that the issue of organized, government-sanctioned and funded mass murder overrides all others, then what in blazes are the bishops good for? What ought to bishops say in such a case? But I am getting far afield.
Professor Kmiec then invites us to read a 2006 statement by the Illinois Conference of Catholic Bishops of which Cardinal George is the president. Kmiec quotes it on page 39 and following:
Thus as Catholic citizens, we inform and form our consciences as citizens in accordance with the principles of Catholic social teaching. The first and most essential principle of our social teaching is the dignity of every human person and each one’s basic right to life from conception to natural death. Respect for human dignity is the basis for the fundamental right to life. This is a non-negotiable principle that is supported by our beliefs but is logically independent of our faith. Many non-Catholics think a society dedicated to the common good should protect its weakest members. Other principles include the call to community and participation, the centrality of the family, the dignity of work and rights of workers, the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity,and the commitment to stewardship of the environment.
Catholics should always vote for that person most committed to being a public servant dedicated to the common good. This being said, it should be noted that any candidate who supports a public policy where part of humanity (such as the pre-born, the elderly, the handicapped, or the sick) is excluded from the protection of law and treated as if they were non-persons is gravely deficient in his or her view of the requirements of a just society.
To this Kmiec then provides a gymnastical reimagining of the words of the Illinois Bishops and Cardinal George. He writes, “Fourth, it defines as a ‘suspect’ or ‘deficient’ candidates who disrespect life by excluding the most vulnerable from society, which might well mean the destruction of the unborn, but equally tragically, the marginalization of the poor, the handicapped, or the elderly.”
Why “equally tragically?” Is there a legal ruling on the books that makes it a Constitutional right to make people poor, a word that does not appear in the bishop’s text by the by? Or is this talk about the “protection of the law” meant to refer to those who are liable to being legally murdered in this country, i.e. the pre-born through abortion, the very old and demented, or the very ill through euthanasia? What is Kmiec getting at anyway?
Well the fog starts to clear in the next paragraph or two when Kmiec addresses what is generally considered to be a devastating argument against pro-choice adults. He quotes Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. On page 41 we read Fr. Pavone’s argument as it is presented by Kmiec, “Suppose a candidate came forward and said, ‘I support terrorism.’ Would you say, ‘I disagree with you on terrorism, but what’s your health care plan?’ Of course not. Similarly, those who would permit the destruction of innocent life by abortion disqualify themselves from consideration.” In answer to this Kmiec brandishes this piercingly ridiculous commentary:
“With respect, Father Pavone’s statement, while memorable for its clever wit is also regrettable for its oversimplification of Catholic belief and its sweeping moral condemnation of the beliefs of other religions.”Huh? How exactly did Fr. Pavone insult other religions by pointing out the Catholic position? Kmiec enlightens us,
In a free society made up of different religious beliefs, including religiousbeliefs that differ substantially on when life begins, it should not be easy to deny someone permission to believe differently than ourselves. More on this point of religious freedom in Part Two, but even accepting the Catholic view to be exclusionary of all others, Father Pavone’s summary of what counts as Catholicism is obviously far less full and comprehensive than that of Francis Cardinal George. The Bishops in their collective and separate statements haveWow…where to begin. All of a sudden the standard for assessing Fr. Pavone’s argument is not to actually address the point, the conclusion of the argument. Rather, it is dismissed as all too witty and downright offensive to non-Catholics. It is ecumenically obtuse because Fr. Pavone presumes to enforce the Catholic viewpoint on when life begins on the rest of society. Hmmm. What if Fr. Pavone had said, “The first and most essential principle of Catholic social teaching is the dignity of every human person and each one’s basic right to life from conception to natural death”? Isn’t this statement the principle upon which Fr. Pavones is arguing? Fact is, Professor, the Illinois bishops argue for the imposition of this “first and most essential principle” about when life begins. Somehow they are nuanced but Fr. Pavone is a kook? This is a double standard, if ever there was one.
sought to counter the misguidance that voting in a given way can be assessed as sin. For example, in “Voting for the Common Good,” the idea that one voter can judge whether another’s vote is a sin is rejected, “Any attempt to scare others into voting for or against a candidate violates Catholic teaching on conscience,prudence, and human freedom,” it says.
And anyway, how is that Fr. Pavone is denying “someone permission to believe differently than ourselves”? I’m quite sure that Professor Kmiec would have studied this little factoid in law school, perhaps he might have even taught it, but the truth is that everyone is free to believe whatever they want. It is when their beliefs result in the dismembering of their neighbor that folks like Fr. Pavone and I get antsy. But anyway, the good Professor will explain this later in the section on religious freedom. You’ll just love it. Until then, we must mire through this quicksand of inanity, for it only gets worse.
Kmiec wrote that many bishops in their “collective and separate statements” have condemned the notion that a vote can be determined to be sinful. In the very next sentence he then writes, “FOR EXAMPLE, in ‘Voting for the Common Good’ etc.”
Now follow this closely. “Voting for the Common Good” is an example of what? Answer: of a “collective or separate” statement by the bishops, presumably. That is the obvious implication here as the words “for example” follow the claim about the bishops’ statements.
The problem is that “Voting for the Common Good” is not even remotely a statement by the bishops or of even one bishop or a bishop’s aid or a bishop’s conference committee. It wasn’t looked over by the bishops, or given an imprimatur, or a nihil obstat, or a “looks good to me.” It carries not the slightest whiff of approval from any one or all the bishops. “Voting for the Common Good” is a document put out by various Democratic PAC organizations in the efforts to undermine the influence of the pro-life movement on the Catholic electorate which has voted Republican more than it has voted Democratic in the past several elections.
The endnote which Kmiec has in the text directs one to the following: 16. Catholics in Alliance, Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics, available at http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/files/Voting-for-the-Common-Good.pdf.
Who is Catholics in Alliance? Their full name is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. They were founded in 2005 by various Democratic individuals some of whom had worked for the Clinton administration. The list of their Board of Trustees is also available online, and it can be plainly seen by the list of names that they are not a bi-partisan alliance.
But all of this is not the point. Kmiec lies to us when he says that the “Voting for the Common Good” is an example of a statement of the bishops. It is no such thing. Indeed, what is so shame-making about this little slip of Kmiec’s is the fact that the Voting for the Common Good document is called Platform for the Common Good. In its tightly packed eight pages it does not once, not once call for the end of legalized abortion. It does not even mention embryonic stem cell research or euthanasia or the sanctity of marriage. None of these things are part of this “Voting for the Common Good” because all of these things are issues which divide the Platform of the Democratic Party from the teachings of the Catholic Church.
To my mind, Kmiec ought to answer for what is nothing other than a lie…and he should apologize to Fr. Pavone…and he should probably stop using the term RFPs. Otherwise he could turn into that liar, who, cast by conscience out, loses the grace of God and becomes like salt that has lost its taste. I know I have a bad taste in my mouth from reading this stuff.
Monday, May 11, 2009
It is Margaret you mourn for.
So ends Hopkins’ poem on the inevitability of life’s sorrows. And it is what struck me while reading Professor Kmiec’s book, namely a deep sorrow for someone whose clearly expansive mind stretches and twists and aches to justify a position he must know is so fundamentally fallen.
I came to Kmiec’s Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barak Obama with a sincere hope that this would be some seminal effort at creating a salve for the deep wounds that exist in our mother church, the Roman Catholic Church. I had the audacity to hope that some splinter of truth would shine forth from it and explain away all my nascent tendencies to dismiss and distrust those who would support the most actively pro-abortion candidate this nation has seen since the Roe decision of 1973. Against my baser inclinations I ferreted out a copy at the local library and poured over it in hope.
That hope, however, was dashed against the adamantine facts of reality and reason. I could barely read five paragraphs of Kmiec’s text without finding a glaring error, a straw man, a verbal bait and switch, a train wreck of argument and obfuscation and agenda.
Chapter One provides several examples, for in his attempt to discredit those he refers to as Republican Faith Partisans (RFPs), a ridiculous moniker that reeks of puerile name-calling, Kmiec lays out the RFP misleading and erroneous logic by writing,
“Correct Major Premise: Abortion is an intrinsic evil (in Catholic terms a'grave sin') to be discouraged.”From the starting gate, Kmiec stumbles. He makes abortion something “to be discouraged,” as though it were poor manners akin to slurping your tea. No Mr. Kmiec. Abortion is to be outlawed. This is the point which the “RFPs” and the Vatican and the U.S. Bishops and your colleagues have been making for years now, for as Faithful Citizenship makes clear, any legal system that sanctions the killing of millions of human lives is “fundamentally flawed.” Such flaws, Professor, ought to be more than just “discouraged.” They must be firmly corrected by good law.
Next, Kmiec writes,
“Misleading Minor Premise: Obama doesn’t support reversing Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that leaves this decision to the potential mother. (Correct, but misleading and incomplete. Obama believes there is a better way to reduce the incidence of abortion than reversing a court decision that will do nothing other than toss the issue back to the states – namely, to improve the prenatal, maternity, and, if needed, adoption resources of expectant mothers and to better educate un-marrieds about the serious side of sexual intimacy and the importance of responsible parenting.)”Laying aside for the moment the fantastical claim that first, Obama believes this and that second, what he believes is true, one ought to be struck by the astounding phrase “potential mother.” Perhaps Professor Kmiec is too strict in his definition of motherhood to see that there is nothing “potential” about the fact that every pregnant woman has a human life inside of her at the moment of conception, a life for which she is responsible the moment she becomes aware of it. Furthermore, the objection against Obama is not just that he does not support overturning Roe but rather the whole host of policy positions in favor of extending access to, funding for, and legal defense of abortion on demand. More on that later.
Lastly, Kmiec writes,
“Faulty Conclusion: Obama is ‘participating in or cooperating with’ evil and anyone voting for him is, too. (No, as the discussion in this book will reveal, this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church).”Excuse me Professor but it is certainly the teaching of the Church that civic leaders who, like Obama, willfully extend access to, funding for, and legal defense of abortion on demand are participating and cooperating with evil. Anyone who votes for this leader, knowing full well of their position, is cooperating with evil, even if it is remote material cooperation.
In the end, Kmiec’s opening salvo falls well short of the standards of honest reason. The tragedy does not end there though. Speaking again about these RFPs, a dastardly collection of rabble-rousers no doubt, Kmiec writes that the performance of abortion is wrong and participating in it is never justifiable no matter what good may come of it. He continues,
“However, that does not mean that public officials cannot work to restructure, for example, tax or economic conditions that make abortion less likely. It would be absurd to call that ‘participating in or cooperating with’ abortion just because the public official thinks it unwise to overturn Roe for the purpose of then convincing the individual states to enact laws that would send the mother or doctor, and the father or clergy person if they were consulted by the mother, as co-conspirators to jail. It certainly does not mean that Catholic voters cannot make candidate choices that can reasonably be thought to establish social justice policies that advance the culture of life.”Did you, dear reader, catch that? Of course you did. Kmiec states that it is absurd to claim cooperation with evil just because a public official wishes to care for the poor instead of throwing teenagers and their priests into jail, which is what would happen if Roe were reversed of course.
Does the good Professor really think us so dull witted? Does he really mean to say that those who wish to overturn Roe seek that Supreme Court decision “for the purpose” of throwing women and their priests into jail? There are straw men…and then there are straw men. And this straw man smothers a large swath of land when he falls in the next sentence, for Kmiec says that the choice is between those who would imprison wayward girls, impoverished mothers and well-meaning pastors and those who wish to “establish social justice policies that advance the culture of life,” indeed those who advance the cause of sugar and spice and everything nice.
Forgive me for the sarcasm. It is my effort at lightening the mood, for we have here a well respected and nationally recognized Constitutional lawyer who is falling faster than the leaves in Hopkins’ poem, falling far too quickly, for we are only on the third page of Kmiec’s argument. Poor Margaret is grieving.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
After having read Doug Kmiec's book the third of fourth time, you know after having gone over the horrifically bad argumentation, the tricks of debate that include straw men the size of William Shatner's ego (I just had to with the new movie coming out, sorry), the basic errors in doctrinal understanding that he passes off as Gospel truth, and the out-and-out deception, after all of that there were a number of things that I came away with. One of them is that Professor Kmiec shouldn't have had communion denied him. It was against Canon Law, and anyway, he mentions it every time he speaks in public as something to hide behind instead of having to answer tough questions. But another thing I got from the book was just how close we are in this country to seeing a real break in the Church.
Now, I am not talking about the American Catholic Church, or the Catholic Church of America that threatened to emerge while I was growing up in the 70's and 80's. I don't mean any real schism by women in roman collars and men in leotards who want their own cosmic liturgies. That's not what I mean, and I want to make it clear that I don't think this is what Kmiec was striving for in his book.
What he accomplishes, however, and as Martin Sheen intimates in his little blurb on the back cover, is that this is the first great mainstream attempt by a well known and respected pro-life believer to justify a theology, a reasoning, a model of Church which is simply not supportable by the Magisterium, or to quote Sheen directly, this book "may very well become the most important comprehensive document written to date on American Catholics, abortion, and candidates for public office." Kmiec's book, even if unintentionally, is the manifesto for a progressivist, American Catholicism that sees virtue, actual virtue in the conversation between good and evil instead of in the effort by good to stand up to evil with force.
Now, while everyone and their brother has blogged on the issue of Obama's trip to Notre Dame, I would only want to add my two cents by positing that there will be a real and true exposition of the break that already exists within Catholicism. In one single event, in the kind of event that history professors require their students to remember for exams, American Catholicism will be on the national stage as a broken body that will force the country's Catholics and non-Catholics to actually ask the question: "What does it mean to be a Catholic?"
When the Pew Research Center, which has recently given us so many statistical insights into our religious experience here in the United States, tells us that self-identified Catholics are split down the middle on whether Obama should be honored by Notre Dame while it simultaneously tells us that the position on Obama's visit is directly proportional to weekly attendance at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, when the Pew survey tells us this, then we don't have to guess anymore at a break. It already exists. Will Catholics follow Kmiec's terrible reasoning? Or will they stay true to the opposition to abortion? Will they heed what John Paul II says in Christifidelis laici that all the other justice issues (health care, just wage, religious freedom) are "false and illusory" if the right to life is not defended with "maximum determination"?
The real question, though, the question the answer to which provides the answer to where Catholics will go, is what are the bishops going to do about it. At last count (the last figure I saw was from May 3rd) the number of U.S. Bishops who have spoken out against Notre Dame's decision is up to 68. That amounts to about 35% of the U.S. Bishops. Never in my adult life as a Catholic have I ever seen the Bishops of the U.S. so unified around a single issue like this where it was not in their monetary interest be so. And of course this is just the number of Bishops who have spoken out about it. How many agree with their brother bishops but simply can't speak out about it for fear of pissing off the presbyterate or the donors that help keep their schools open.
What is clear to me is that Kmiec's book exemplifies the good and bad of the liberal Catholic position. There is heart in it. There is a lived reality which is informing their theology, and however poor that theology is, charity demands we take account of that lived reality. But there is also deception, mostly self-deception, and there is obfuscation, and there is relativization. These things ought to be address honestly and forthrightly.
Perhaps we can do so here on this blog.
If you haven't see the Russian film "Ostrov," or "The Island," you must. You simply must. This not to be confused, mind you, with the 2005 film by the same name with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson.
Ostrov is about...well...I won't say anything now. I'll wait a bit before posting on the movie, but it is a must see.
You can get it through Netflix. If you don't have Netflix, buy, beg, and/or steal to see this film. Find a friend who has Netflix and convince them to put it in their queue. Then convince them to put it at the top of their queue. And if they refuse, threaten to harm their pet. And if they don't have a pet, well you should feel free to call them "fatty" or something.
You must see this flick! See it!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Part of my job is to try to read some of the stuff that goes across the transom of the average lay person's field of knowing. Among these is the book The Challenge and Spirituality of Catholic Social Teaching by a fellow named Mich. I've read the entirety of the book and I think Mr. Mich a genuine individual, with a good head on his shoulders, and a great big heart. But I cannot deny my having nearly wanting to go bat shit angry when I read about a Sr. Elizabeth Johnson C.S.J. who argues, get this, that we need some humility as a species.
That's right, brother, there is no need for us to feel special about being human just because we can calculate the velocity and force of a large volume of Shakespeare released upon Sr. Johnson's head from a height of two stories. No, no. We're just another species on this great mother goddess earth of ours with nothing but death and destruction to add the great mix of things.
What was that? Oh, that was the sound of Sr. Johnson's cursing in a manner consistent with the highly developed language skills of a homo sapiens after having been struck by the weight of a single volume of one of mankind's greatest achievements. Oh, but I said "mankind." Sorry, sorry, I meant to say "humankind's."
Never mind the fact, of course, that the good Sister finds herself at a point in history where she, an educated woman, gets paid to spit out drivel at Fordham University. Last I checked there were no dolphins teaching courses on great porpoise literature. But I do believe there are several jackasses in the current administration in Washington, and some monkeys as well. But then again, progressive politics is supposed to be one step ahead of us all.
I get to walk to work and the past couple of days have been a joy...particularly while listening to Magnificent on U2's new album.
Anyway, in honor of the new Spring I provide the reader with this, by Gerard Manley Hopkins
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
.....It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
.....It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
.....And all is seared with trade; Bleared, smeared with toil;
.....And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
.....There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
.....Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
.....World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
First let me just try to sketch what this myth is. The phrase was coined by Walter Wink, a theologian of questionable status. I say this because he denies that Christ's death was redemptive at all. There is nothing unique about the death of Jesus is what he literally says in his book The Powers That Be. The myth is the notion that good can be drawn from violence. Redemption - not from sins mind you, because of course there is no such thing as personal sin - redemption from the effects of the domination systems of the world is truly possible only through non-violent means.
Now, I will admit that Wink's argument is compelling in parts. He gives the example of a man who broke into a woman's house, presumably to violate her, and who was stopped because of the non-violent, personally engaging, and empathetic tactics used by the woman. She managed to convince him to not bother her but to sleep downstairs. In the morning - she didn't sleep a wink - they sat over a cup of coffee and he left peaceably. She was terribly shaken by the whole incident. This is a wonderful story, and I do not doubt that it is 100% true. Of course, what we don't hear is that the man went on to rape a woman who did not have the non-violence training this woman had. Well, maybe that didn't happen, but maybe it did.
Here's the point. I get the idea that non-violence is the greater ideal towards which we ought to strive as Christians. I totally agree that the vast majority of instances of violence are done for ingenuous, sinful reasons. I also get that part of the non-violent argument regarding self-defense is that we ought to have the power as Christians to lay down our lives for our brother, even if that brother is the one killing us, to witness to the Gospel teaching about non-violence. Indeed, that is what Jesus did and asks us to do. There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for their friend...and of course our friend is everyone.
What Christ never said was that it is any kind of loving act to stand aside righteously hanging onto our purity-from-violence and allow someone else to lay down their life for my witness to the Gospel.
We believe in a God of mercy and not of justice (praise be to Jesus now and forever). And the myth of redemptive violence folks want to focus in on that mercy. Fine, but I cannot collude by omission in allowing an objective injustice to happen to someone else who positively does not want to lay down their life for the Gospel. That is an injustice... and when did we get so disturbingly twisted as to believe that we are morally obliged to engage in injustices for the sake of proving a point of our faith.
When faced with the prospect of someone in danger...whether they are drowning or being beaten to a pulp by a gang of thugs...you act and you act in the most effective way possible. Violence, not always deadly mind you, but violence is what is called for when our neighbor's life is in danger. In this way I lay down my own purity-from-violence for the sake of my neighbor.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Well for some it is society's fault. I'm not quoting some early '80s psychologist, I'm quoting Rousseau, who lived to the middle end of the 18th century and who believed that what made men bad were the poor societal structures that they lived in. Without civilization to corrupt us we would be noble savages. Rousseau, mind you, fathered several bastard children and gave them up to certain deaths in the orphan homes.
For some, we are bad because we've been bred badly. That's right, we've got the wrong genes. Luckily Planned Parenthood and the eugenicists are here to help us. They've figured out that if we can just have fewer children from the unfit, well then all society will fall into one harmonious groove. Indeed Margaret Sanger said just that very thing, "More children from the fit, less from the unfit---that is the chief issue of birth control." Ahhh...she had such a way to stir the soul. Never mind who gets to decide who is fit and unfit. Margaret and her white, bourgeois, atheistic pals will figure that out for you.
For some, the explanation for why men do bad things is economic inequality. Oh, if only we could simply get rid of the economic differences between men, well then all will fall into place. Marx argued that in fact this is what needed to happen and if it required a violent revolution...well then so be it. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, now can you? Never mind the tens of millions of needless deaths.
For some, the explanation for evil is our physical world. We need to let go of our physical selves, you see. It is our bodies that cause all the harm. Why if only we could just cut loose of them, then all would fall into place. There are very few people who hold this view as most of them have committed suicide and or refuse to reproduce.
Finally, at least for the purposes of this posting, there are those who want to say that there is actually something wrong with us...yes, us. There is something disturbed about us. We are fallen. Whether you want to call it original sin or what-have-you, it does not matter to me very much at this point. The idea is really quite simple. It is not society, or our bodies, or economics, or bad genes. It is us. We are sinners.
Here, then, to relate all of this to my last post, is the point. If we cannot make the person in the pew come to the conclusion that this world is flawed somehow and that this flaw is in us, if we cannot connect with the average Joe in the pew and their own personal sense of sin and unworthiness and self loathing which is almost certainly there and almost always acknowledged to some degree, well then...we cannot preach to them Christ. And if we cannot do that, then we cannot evangelize them. And if we cannot evangelize them, well then Pew Research will be busy counting up all the ex-Catholics.
Fr. Neuhaus said many times in the pages of First Things that if we are not sinners then there is no need for a savior and Christ Jesus becomes the quirky, ancient fellow who accidentally started a revolution.
John Paul the Great said that at the center of our world's many problems with regard to social structures (he wrote this in Centesimus annus), at the center of so many of the misguided steps taken over the century since Leo XIII wrote Rerum novarum is bad anthropology. You see, so many have this sense this vision that if we just find the right formula or put the right guy in charge...well then everything will work out alright. Like Plato we think if we can just find, elect, formulate, enforce, coerce, demand, insist that everyone follow the philosopher king then all will be well.
The problem of us still remains however, and the process of convincing everyone else to follow the great philosopher king can get ugly, ugly and deadly.
A friend told me of a conversation he had with a security guard at a university in the U.S. The undergraduate student body at the school is usually very wealthy and they are all very, very bright young people. But there is great sin there. My friend asked the security guard, who is a Christian, what he does with these white, middle-class, comfortable young who are caught doing the unspeakable. The guards response went something like this:
"You let 'em know they done something wrong." Exactly. Then maybe they might come around to hearing about the Gospel.