Flos Carmeli

February 13, 2008

Light on Obama

I make no claim to be a political pundit. I am not. I have no insider knowledge and, frankly, I don't have a horse running in this race. Seems to be the truth from the time I could vote. I also don't pretend to deep knowledge, deep reading, or a profound ability to identify the symbols and read the semiotics of ordinary life. All I will record here is a reaction--a reaction that came to me as I was reading Faulkner's superb novel Light in August. One of the many passages of interest is below.

from Light in August
William Faulkner

He now lived as man and wife with a woman who resembled an ebony carving. At night he would lie in bed beside her, sleepless, beginning to breathe deep and hard. He would do it deliberately, feeling, even watching, his white chest arch deeper and deeper within his ribcage, trying to breathe into himself the dark odor, the dark and inscrutable thinking and being of negroes, with each suspiration trying to expel from himself the white blood and the white thinking and being. And all the while his nostrils at the odor which he was trying to make his own would whiten and tauten, his whole being writhe and strain with physical outrage and spiritual denial.

Unfortunately, that's how I read Obama's entire campaign--a desire to become "black enough," whatever that might mean, while, in some ways, denying his actual heritage. He seeks to play the race card when he is in an absolutely perfect place NOT to do so. He need not make a big play for a small minority, but he would make a big play for the majority and drop the whole racial pretension thing.

I don't dogbird politics, but I've seen enough to know that I don't like the tones of the campaigns--any of them. Of all of them, this is the one I like the least because it depends heavily upon a polarization that is not healthy nor is it helpful. Obama is and can be and can claim legitimately black heritage. Heritage is not something either to be proud of or to be ashamed of--we have no control over where we came from or who we are at the start. But we do have some measure of control over what we do with the cards we have been dealt--what we make of our heritage. In Light in August Joe Christmas makes of his a trail of tragedy, unhappiness, and longing to understand himself. I don't think Obama will end up there, but sometimes his rhetoric and his positioning reminds me of Joe Christmas's struggle with identity and it saddens and appals me because that is not the way to move forward. Not at all.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 16, 2007

Political Writing Revisited

The other day I wrote a short review of Ralph Nader's book The Good Life in which I said that it was disappointing but unsurprising; however, I'm unconvinced that I made my main point about disappointment because it was so lost in digression. And so, I'd like to revisit that in a more focused way.

Explicitly, my disappointment in Mr. Nader's book stems from the difference between stated objective and actual accomplishment. At the beginning Mr. Nader makes a powerful point about the necessity and obligation of the ordinary citizen to participate in the political and social world around them. In short, the ordinary person in the street is called upon to contribute to change. This is a powerful, wonderful, much-needed message. The book goes on to detail why such change is needed. Unfortunately, in so doing, much too much is made of those who are to blame for our present situation--and that blame is always thrown at anyone who disagrees with Mr. Nader and most of the time there appears to be in the implicit assumption of malice, conspiracy, or both. For example, the Republicans are out to deliberately oppress and create an underclass of the ordinary working person. While it may be true that there are some Republicans who might positively delight in such a prospect, I seriously doubt whether that is the express intention of the majority of Republicans, even powerful republicans, as they go about their daily duties. Why not look at the households of famous Democrats or liberals who hire and mistreat illegal immigrants routinely? I'm sure that the number of these is approximately equal to the number of Republicans whose deliberate mission it is to create an underclass.

In all political discussion of the present day, there appears to be an at least implicit assumption of ill-will or malice. This may be the case with all political writing through time, but I don't get the same sense from writers of previous eras. That may be because what survives to come to us today, survives because it transcends the tropes and diatribes of the time. It may, however, be indicative of the time, I do not have the breadth of experience to suggest the truth of the matter.

However, I do believe that it is possible to urge people to action on an issue without spending time blaming one group or another for the present situation. What does it matter who is responsible for allowing parking lots to be built on the watershed that directly feeds into the Everglades. The reality is that they are being built and will continue to be so until action is taken to prevent it.

Any effective action is by its own nature bipartisan any way. Yes, some laws are passed by a party, but those that stay in place are usually passed by a majority in both parties. The situation we are in is the result of input from both groups--it implies at least implicit consent from one group or another despite griping. (This goes, of course, only for true legislation, not for legislation from the bench, which seems almost impossible to overcome by any means allowed within the Consitution,)

My point is that civic action is a duty of all citizens. Involvement in the the political life around us is required so that we can inform it. It is the realm in which religion legitimately and purposefully enters into the social sphere. It is the intersection of "in the world" and "Of the world." and as such, helps to define that world for better or worse. As we choose to remain outside that interaction, society is deprived of the proper formation of conscience. Thus, there is a purpose to peaceful prayer outside of an abortion clinic, but no purpose to violent bombing of clinics or assassination of doctors who perform abortions.

My disappointment with the book stemmed from the fact that I was hoping to read about individuals who were working for the good life implied by the title. Instead, I'm told about how messed up life is and how it is all the result of Republican scheming to maintain and enlarge the underclass while exploiting the world.

Why is it not possible to engage in political discussion with an assumption of good will (if perhaps bad reasoning, or poor thought) on the part of all of those engaged. Why do we find it so hard to refrain from maligning the person rather than dealing with the idea? I think this is in part the same phenomenon that occurs when we drive and there are not longer people on the road, but cars. In the same way when we address people who hold ideas and call them idiots, morons, whoremongers, or whatever terms we use, we have placed a child of God within the vehicle of idea and have condemned them both.

By all means, bring every weapon to bear upon bad thinking. Help to correct the immoral or incorrect assumptions or bad data or other source of error in the thought of a person holding an opinion that differs from one's own. But my plea to all politicians and to all who would engage in political debate is to debate the ideas. Do not tar with one brush all people who self-label. All Republicans do not want to exploit migrant workers and toss them out of the country. All Democrats do not want to open the borders to all and sundry and allow the terrorists to overrun us. Why do so many writers write as if it were so?

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 13, 2007

Liberal and Conservative Thought--Economic Thought

As I view the situation there are problems with both liberal and conservative strains of thought. The problem with liberal thought is intrinsic to the philosophy, the problem with conservative thought is extrinsic, but so pervasive one might be led to conclude that it is an underlying principle.

The intrinsic problem with liberal thought is the Rousseau-derived absolute confidence in the ability of human reason to restore paradise and the assurance that human will follows human reason. The extrinsic problem in conservative thought is the underlying turf-rooted suspicion of absolute depravity and the Puritan assumption that the elect are identifiable by their lot in this life.

As a result conservative thought, particularly economic conservative thought, tends to overlook the plight of the poor and suggest that they shift for themselves. The suggestion that one might consider raising a minimum wage sends thrills of horror through them, convinced as they are of two things: economic disaster is immediately upon us, and those who are doing poorly are doing poorly because they don't care to work for themselves. The ultimate conservative economic statement comes from Ebenezer Scrooge--"'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there." Which is not to say that every individual conservative holds to these lines of thought, nor even that it is a majority, nor even that the thought is held consciously--I don't think it is. But I do not among conservative thinkers a distinct lack of appreciation of the plight of the poor. Conservatism has been and continues to be the economic philosophy of the well-off.

In this sense, the intrinsically flawed philosophy of liberalism offers seemingly better recourse. The problem here is that the recourse depends both upon the strength of the idea and upon an assumed willingness to see the idea through to completion. Liberal thought is the supreme philosophy of incompletism. There is the assumption that because government is established for the common good it is, within a society, the source of all good and what good may come should come through the government. In a sense, the liberal mindset establishes the prisons and the workhouses that the resentful conservative supports and pays for.

These two strains of thought working in tandem do and have done absolutely nothing to relieve the true desperation of the poor. Over the last hundred years or so fewer of the poor die from hunger, malnutrition, and other woes visited on those who do not have enough to eat (at least in industrialized nations), but the number of poor and their condition has neither diminished nor has there been any sign that it ever can be diminished. The welfare state grows larger and larger, and still the poor are poor and remain visited by non-economic manifestations of poverty.

The solution may not be in raising minimum wage or in any sort of governmental assistance, but it certainly does not rest in refuting and refusing all such helps and providing no useful suggestion about how to address the problem. More often than not, a conservative thinker will suggest why a solution is not viable without suggesting anything that is more viable. For example, alleviating poverty through an individual response to the poor. How is this to be organized, on what basis can we rely upon it to happen, what will be done to encourage and foster this response? On these question the conservative thinker is silent. On these same questions the liberal thinker, ever-ready to contradict his or her own Rouseauian roots doubts the capacity of individuals to address the problem. Not only do they doubt the capacity, but the willingness, and therefore the solution must be forced upon everyone through governmental interference.

What is needed in the realm of economics is for both sides to come to the table and admit their failings. Each needs humbly to approach the problem and seek viable solutions that may be organizationally or even governmentally mediated, but not institutionalized. In this sense "the thousand points of light" is the right view of how to approach many of the problems of poverty. Mother Teresa's approach to the alleviation of the strife of the poor was not to seek more money and set up a foundation that would dole out food or money or both to the poor, but to help each one with human hands and human heart. I don't know for a fact that she ever lifted anyone out of poverty, but she taught each person that she came in contact with what it was to be loved whether rich or poor.

The solution to poverty is in God's hands. But a first step is for everyone to see what it looks like and experience it first hand--frequently. When we understand that poverty is not a disease and not infectious, we might begin to have a better appreciation for how to begin to combat it, or at least the effects of it. As it stands, we remain opposed (rightfully so) to the forced reapportionment of goods that we work hard to obtain, while providing no other recourse for those who cannot fend for themselves. The hard reality we need to face is that for every child we pray or argue away from the hands of the abortionists, we incur an obligation to assure that that child will have at very least all that he or she needs to thrive and become a productive citizen. There is a cost to doing what is right, sometimes a painful cost, but that is our sacrifice offered up to God. In the words of this morning's morning prayer:

"We have in our day. . .
no holocaust, sacrifice, oblation, or incense,
no place to offer first fruits, to find favor with you.

But with contrite heart and humble spirit
let us be received. . .
so let our sacrifice be in your presence today
as we follow you unreservedly;
for those who trust in you cannot be put to shame.

And now we follow you with our whole heart. . . ."

Next stop--liberal and conservative social thought (maybe).

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:15 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 12, 2007

An Harmonic Convergence

Reading a number of things at once sometimes leads to some interesting observations that might not come from reading any one of them separately or from reading them sequentially.

Saturday the bookgroup decided to read Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. I duly went out and bought this book because I felt that it was one that I was likely to want to refer to in the future. It is certainly getting a lot of play in business circles and I thought it might be useful to have on hand. (I'm not usually one to read books that are popular in business circles, but this also seems to be about memes and the effect thereof on people--and that is of intense interest.)

Also to hand as a result of a visit to the library yesterday is Ralph Nader's The Good Fight. Subtitled, Declare Your Independence and Close the Democracy Gap, Mr. Nader's thesis is that we are slowly abdicating our form of government from a sense of helplessness and the futility of it all. (For example those among us who would argue that our vote "doesn't make a difference" because ultimately it doesn't boil down to one vote.)

It occurred to me that it would be possible that the "futility" argument could become a particularly virulent (and fashionable) sort of meme that would lead to a crisis of voting and governmental participation. While I wholeheartedly agree with folks who point out that when the choice is between Giuliani and Clinton, there is not no candidate to vote for, does that mean necessarily that I must or should not vote.

No. Once again, I'm led to the conclusion that we must vote. We must exercise the franchise each and ever time, even if voting means writing in the name of a person we liked but who didn't make it through the primaries. Even if it means writing in, time and again NONA. Even if it means, eventually, getting involved ourselves--on a local, state, or even national level.

If the way of life we celebrate today, given to us through the actions of many noble people who lost life, limb, family, and property while fighting, is to continue we are required to take action. Each of us is required to exercise that franchise in whatever little way we do, because THAT is the meme we want infecting future generations. Not angst, trial, apathy, and cultural anemia, but a strong statement that we believe in our present way of life and we will, in our own small way, honor those who came before by exercising to the fullest the freedom they bequeathed us.

Shalom to all on this Veteran's Day celebration. May the happy memory of those who gave their lives, literally or through their toil in the defense of our country, remind us always to be respectful of what they have secured for us. And may those who passed away in battle or as a result of war rest in peace and rise to the resurrection dawn assured of their place in heaven by their sacrifice for others. As we remember those who died, let us offer some suffrage that they might see God's glory and dwell in the light of the beatific vision.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 12, 2007

I Hate to Ask this Question. . .

but what the heck does global warming have to do with peace?

Every year the committee goes further out of its mind in following its insane and paranoid vision of world politics.

If they ever had one shred of validlity (for example when they nominated Mother Teresa of Calcutta) this undermines it all. Anyone less deserving than Al Gore of such a prize would be hard to imagine. I'm surprised it wasn't awarded posthumously to Saddam Hussein.

Such a blatant and obvious attempt to influence the American Political scene should be soundly repudiated by any person thinking properly.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:33 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 9, 2007

Rules of Engagement

This is in response to something that I thought both sad and exemplary of poor form for a Christian critic.

There are only a few very good reason for conducting public criticism of an author's work. Most important of these is to inform the public about a work that is either exemplary of Christian and literary value or utterly detrimental to a person in a profound spiritual way. Another important reason for literary criticism is to allow a reader to better understand a work. A third is to express an opinion or recommendation on a work by an established author to give the reader some indication of its worthiness for taking up an extended period of time. For private critique you may add the betterment of the author to complete the task of a writer--instruction and correction. This last is NEVER a legitimate purpose of public criticism. Such work should be conducted privately ONLY and ONLY at the request of the individual. Following Updike's rule for criticism, even if one doesn't care for a work, the exposition of it should set forth all of its best points even as one's own opinion of its merits is made manifest. But once again, this is ONLY for those well-established in the field.

Another reason NOT to pursue criticism is to show how much one knows. Or, by far the worse crime, to attempt to profit from making others look bad--either by the work of criticism itself, or by making one's own work stand out from that of the riff-raff that is not worthy to stand nearby. It is very unappealing to watch a person show off their intellectual prowess at the expense of another. If this is the way to success, it were better not to succeed.

Young writers, writers just starting out, are prone to a great many errors and a tremendous arrogance regarding the work of others. When this arrogance expresses itself in launching full tilt at T.S. Eliot, William Butler Yeats, and William Wordsworth, it can be at once amusing, and a marvelous example, as one ages of youthful folly--the literary equivalent of those pictures most mothers have of naked babies on sheepskin rugs. The folly is the author's entirely and as Yeats, Eliot, and Wordsworth are unlikely to suffer any real harm at the hands of one so arrogant as to take them on, only the author is likely to suffer any consequences.

However, when an author takes on contemporaries, and particularly contemporaries who are just beginning to emerge into the writing world, there is only one conclusion one can draw from extensive negative public criticism. That is, of course, that the critic intends to profit from this by making his or her own work look good. This is absolutely unacceptable. One becomes the John McEnroe or Bobby Fisher of the literary world. One takes what one is not entitled to and profits thereby--the very definition of theft. By calumny and hurtful speech one is set in a better light--either with respect to one's own literary writing, or by the sparkle of one's wit and intellect. It is simply better to keep one's mouth shut and continue to produce one's own good work rather than seek to profit by the destruction of another.

So, the bottom line, one should not try to excuse the literary equivalent of chewing with the mouth open, by noting that it could improve the world for literature. Arnold wasn't able to accomplish this goal, Eliot didn't do it, Wilson didn't do it. How likely is it that some 20-something literary ingenue is likely to do so? And more importantly, who really gains thereby?

No, if the strong need to help make the world a better and safer place for literary endeavors manifests itself express it in one of two ways: write those better literary works and leave the "lesser lights" alone in their gloom; or offer to share insights with the author of the works in question--then do so privately. Public display of aggressive intellect is no more appealing than PDoA. The only poor light it casts is on its perpetrator.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:56 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 3, 2007

The Legal Dangers of Gene Modification

This site details a miscarriage of justice which, even if it occurred only once suggests strongly the utterly demented view courts have of patent and copyright.

When you patent a gene, particularly a gene for a plant whose material is spread by pollinators other than humans, you cannot reasonably expect that the gene will remain bound to its original planting ground. Already we've seen several genetically modified plants "escape" from their original founding ground.

And, in fact, does it make any sense at all to allow patents on genes? After all a gene is not something anyone can own, and particularly not when genes spread through an aegis beyond human control.

In the realm of intellectual property rights, our legal system is utterly demented: it grants nearly eternal rights to works of authors and creators of works of art and then supports idiotic lawsuits such as the one detailed in the links above.

I am not a sensationalist regarding Genetic engineering. There are tremendous risks involved and tremendous potential benefits; however, I find the idea that I could be sued if some came around and discovered the corn in my field had a "patented" gene in it absolutely horrifying. The small farmer is already under enough pressure for the industrial farming business, there's no need to add this to it.

It's amazing how, too often, it is easy to overlook some of the astounding ramifications of our own twisted systems of logic. Among the most twisted strains are the theories of who can own what. In point of fact, on Earth, if you can't eat it, you can't really own it. You can take care of it, it can own a piece of you, but lacking portability, there are precious few things you can own. The European theory of land ownership, for example, is ludicrous in the extreme and made more so by the extremes to which it is brought in American jurisprudence.

Every material thing is simply a loan for our time on Earth--our sense of ownership of it deprives us, in a a very real way, of our sense of dependence upon providence. It deprives us further of focus on the One Thing that matters. We endlessly toil and preserve "what's ours" with no real sense of the fact that "you can't take it with you." Even our bodies are not our own--but sheer gift and grace--given by God and returned ultimately to Him should we find ourselves in the state of grace at death.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 6, 2007

A Poetic Haitus

I had a poem to post today. Unfortunately, I left the notebook at home or in the car or somewhere, so it will have to wait--by which time I may have two or three. (I'm sure this has my loyal fan-base chortling with glee.)

But I did want to say something that has been much on my mind of late. It is an issue for which I do not have the answers, but to which I have been more and more exposed of recent date.

I have two friends who are retired. One of them received a legacy from his parents and was able to retire earlier than most of us. The other retired pretty much in the normal course of events. Both are having some serious problems with the health system. One friend has felt compelled to sell his home in order to bankroll any medical expenses he may have. He's had a couple of incidents in recent days--really very minor things, that have exposed him to the tremendous costs of lacking insurance.

The other finds herself in straightened means. She has a very limited income--social security and what retirement was not swept away by corporate greed, 9/11, and other market-effecting events. She confided that she is no longer buying diet sodas so that she can try to afford the medicine she needs to be alive and stable.

I know, diet sodas don't seem like a major issue. And I suppose they're not--but the point is not the diet sodas--it is the system of medicine in this country that demands from people sacrifices great and small. What is most bothersome to me is that both of these people have lived active, productive, lives--and yet they have less access to care than someone who has relied for years upon our social support systems.

I don't have an answer. I don't know the answer. But I do know that the problem faces all of us of limited means as we approach retirement age. Even people who would be classed as well-off might find themselves in dire straights as they approach the years in which medical intervention might become a more present reality.

We don't tend to think about it much, but this is another group of people who need our prayers, our support, and our active search for solutions. Instead, because they appear to be comfortably middle-class, they are forgotten and are reduced to selling houses and assets to make ends meet.

No plan I have heard thus far makes a dent in this major problem. The run-away costs of the medical industry produce rapidly escalating prices for even the simplest forms of care. Medicines, which are developed in large part through tax dollars, are outrageously priced from the get-go, "in order to recoup development costs." And yet pharmaceuticals firms are making record profits.

Perhaps this all argues for no attempts to sustain life at later stages--that pharmaceuticals and artificial treatments that lengthen life and alleviate suffering really aren't all that important. I don't think this is true. Certainly there is no "right" to good medical treatment--not in the very broad sense that people today use the word "right." But there is an imperative that people who are not in a place to afford life-saving or pain-alleviating treatments be given some support in receiving these things.

I keep thinking of the dictum--"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good mean to do nothing." The evil described here is a natural evil. I don't think there is a conspiracy among medical firms and pharmaceuticals firms to deprive people of necessary medicines and treatments. I don't think there is any intent to reduce people who have served us all well to poverty on the basis of their need for medical treatment. Nevertheless, it does happen. And it is long past time that it should have stopped. Socialized medicine is not the answer--it is a disaster in countries like Canada and Great Britain when it comes to urgently needed care. Certainly we should take more care to plan for catastrophic illness; but even as we say that, there is the need to recognize that many people don't have the means to get through the month, much less plan for what might happen to them when they're 50 or 60 or 70 years old.

It is incumbent upon us to help diagnose the problem accurately and suggest a viable solution--one that does not pile the entire care of those without treatment on the backs of people who are themselves struggling to make ends meet. What form this can take, I don't know enough to say. But I would be happy to work with those who do understand the problem well and help devise a viable solution. It is our awareness of a problem and our willingness to really work with one another to solve it that leads ultimately to resolution.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:15 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

March 1, 2007

Global Warming--The Wrong Argument

My problem with this debate is that it is, as in almost every scientific controversy engaged in by non-scientists, waged in entirely the wrong terms.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that coming out of "the Little Ice Age" of the 1600s, global warming has occurred and is occurring. Anyone who makes even a cursory study of the climate of the past would discover that we live in one of the cooler eras of Geologic history, so warming is hardly a surprise. That addition of carbon dioxide to the air may be adding to the warming is certainly a possibility.

But set all of these things aside. Let's assume that the fluctuations are merely manifestations of Milankovich cycles, they come and they go in predictable ways. The question still boils down to--if we can avoid doing so should we be spewing noxious substances into the air, water, and land? Skip global warming--is it a good thing to burn down tropical rain forests to yield land that might give up one season or two seasons of crops?

We are facing a question of proper stewardship even absent calamity. We can do better, there are technologies for doing so. So why do we choose not to do so? Why do we mortgage our children's and their children's futures? Everything we dump into the air and water now persists for some half-life of recovery--that might be short, that might be, in human terms, nearly endless. Shouldn't we be taking steps to limit the amount of damage we do here and now? The Earth, like most humans, has remarkable recuperative mechanisms--but it is hard to recuperate from complete destruction. A tree is renewable, an entire forest is not.

It would seem that our community obligation is to protect and preserve to the best of our ability all of the goods that have come into our hands. Indeed, according to the parable of the Talents, it is our duty to foster these goods, to make them grow and to give back to God in the body of future generations more than we have been given.

These should be the terms of the debate. If we can control emissions, should we not do so? If we can find alternatives, should we not use them? If we can find means to produce less waste and preserve more of the natural world, should we not do so?

Politicians who raise the warning flag about global warming and then have energy bills in the thousands of dollars which they "offset" by purchasing "greening certificates" are doing a great deal more harm than good. You cannot offset tremendous fossil fuel energy usage by buying "green certificates." It's like sending someone else off to die in that war for you. Each person is responsible here and now for curtailing their own usage and waste--such a thing cannot be purchased from others as though it were a tradable commodity.

The reality is that I would be very surprised if Global warming were not occurring. Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is presently, and life has gotten along just fine. Multiple disaster scenarios are simply the way we seem to think in this day and age.

Christian stewardship demands of us responsible use of our own local resources and careful use of all Earth's resources. It requires that we make reasonable decisions regarding usage and conservation--neither curbing ourselves to ultra-asceticism nor squandering everything we have. We need neither to go out and hug trees nor to go out and cut them down because they are in the way of my view of the lake--but we need to find a middle road that accommodates us, our children, and the great diversity and gift of life on Earth.

And the global warming debate tends to mask the fundamental importance of these issues. It does not raise awareness, but rather focuses it improperly.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:10 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 12, 2007

The Social Gospel

I've always been a little suspicious of social-gospelers--those who would have it that Jesus came to Earth primarily as politician.

from "Foreword" by Archbishop Desmond TuTu
in Transfiguration
Fr. John Deaf

Traditionally the account of Our Lord's transfiguration and its sequel in the healing of the boy possessed by a demon has been interpreted as providing a paradigm of the encounter with God leading to engagement with the world, with evil, that the spiritual experience is not meant to insulate us against the rigors of life as experienced by most of God's children in a hostile world out there.

The encounter with God would constrain us to work for a new ordering of society, where we would beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks, and we would study war no more. . . . It is to see a fulfillment of God's dream, a new heaven and a new earth, when God will wipe away all tears and the wolf and the lamb will feed together and the lion will eat straw like the ox--"For they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, says the Lord" (Isaiah 65:25).

This book is a clarion call for us to be engaged in the project for world peace. We ignore it at our peril.

There is nothing in these words that is particularly provocative. It has long been central to the Carmelite tradition that contemplative prayer and union with God was not for the sake of the individual but for the sake of all the world. The plan of life of a lay Carmelite is to practice our faith and pray so that ultimately we might bring the fruits of contemplation to a world desperate for the smallest hint of the presence of God. The cloistered bring to the world the power of prayer and the presence amongst us of those who are God's intimate friends--to use a not-exactly correlative eastern term, Boddhisatvas--those who have attained enlightenment (in our case presence and Union with God) and remained behind to help others along the way--not necessarily by DOING anything, but simply by being a shining example to all.

However, my problem with the social gospel comes when Jesus is reduced to a political emissary from God whose sole purpose is to make things better on Earth for the majority of people. While this is certainly a part of His mission, it is, by no means, the full scope of what He came to do.

I approach this book, written by a disciple of the Berrigan brothers with some trepidation. While I strongly desire to agree with the central premise, I must admit to some prejudice against the case on the superficial evidence.

So, reading the book to record reactions will be an exercise in reining in those straining hounds that want to rip the premise to shreds on the basis of the fact that it appears at surface not to conform with the fullness of the Gospel message.

This is all said before the fact. I haven't read the book nor given the author the opportunity to argue his case. But I do myself and my audience no good if I do not start my undertaking with a sharp sense of my own suspicion and doubt. I want what is said here to be true, and I want to find elements of the truth, but I fear I may be overwhelmed by the tide of incidentals that while having nothing to do with the central argument, nevertheless inundate the central point. Tom, at Disputations, already noted one that I had observed in previewing the book--the constant dunning, drumming reference to the oppressive male hierarchy of the Church and how that is an instance of this same violence toward people. He speaks constantly of a male-dominated Church, while my experience is that it is one of the only Churches to hold up the supreme place of Our Lady, Mother of the Church and in a very real sense Mother of our Faith.

But already, I'm arguing, and I haven't even given my guest a cup of coffee and asked him to sit down. So, I must put myself and my misgivings aside and try to assess the worth of what is said.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 17, 2007

Small is Beautiful (Again)

We recently had a change in motor vehicles, trading way down from out "family-sized" mini-van to a Honda Civic hybrid.

And I love it. I wanted better gas milage and got it.

But I had also forgotten how comfortable it was to drive a smaller car. And this one is really cool. The instrument panel has a readout that provides feedback to allow the cautious and careful driver to gradually increase gas milage (that is so cool!). And this one came equipped with a GPS system built in, satellite radio, iPod jack and all sorts of unnecessary, but relentlessly cool stuff.

However, in reading the review for the car (we were deciding between this and a Prius) I was provoked and annoyed by one reviewer who said that you could hardly tell that it was a hybrid at all, having only a small plaque on the back. You weren't wearing your credentials--I guess.

I decided to move down in size as a kind of small way to do something about the Everglades. Silly, I know, but I was so moved and so delighted that it popped into my head that we should make some small concession. (The selfish part of the concession is that I will feel less bad about driving down to see them from time to time.) I didn't get this car so that everyone in the world will know that I have a hybrid. (Of course now they will through the blog, if they're interested.) But my point was not to "make a statement" but to do something that might help preserve a resource and might help overall environmental health. It is trivial in the grand scheme, and certainly not worth feeling smug or superior over. (I do however feel smug and superior over the totally cool GPS, which Sam and I are almost addicted to. We set it to give us instructions on the way home from the grocery store just to have it talk to us.)

But what a silly criticism. Buy a Prius because it makes an obvious statement. This is what commonly discredits those who are seriously concerned with environmental causes. They focus on such nonsense and blow it out of proportion.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:45 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 5, 2007

One Hyphenated Word

In response to this:

"he Democrats' criticism of a troop buildup was not new. But the letter underscored a new reality for Bush: With the new congressional leadership, his Iraq policy will be challenged at every turn by lawmakers."

Commander-in-Chief.

Congress is not. The president is. That isn't to say that I necessarily agree with the man in his decisions; nevertheless, that is his responsibility exclusively. On the other hand, it is within the purview of congress to withhold additional funds to support such actions. But they are not entitled to run the operation, no matter how much they think they will do better.

Checks and balances. I like them. I like to see them in place.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 14, 2006

On the Death Penalty

Let me make it resoundingly clear, I am opposed to the death penalty and I believe that in general the Church is opposed to the death penalty, although certainly not to the point of total exclusion.

That said, I find the concerns expressed in events like these to be totally out of proportion. We're told that the person subjected to this "suffered unduly," and yet what did his victim suffer? This disproportionate concern for the suffering of the guilty seems misplaced. Yes, it is terrible that he suffered. It is even more terrible that he took it upon himself to make another suffer and die as well. Is it possible to suffer unduly under such circumstances? Is it not just possible that he is working out a bit of purgatory on Earth (assuming of course that he sought and found God's grace). I think this focus on the guilty tends to suggest that what he did to another is not so very bad after all.

I oppose the death penalty, but not for reasons of clemency toward the guilty so much as for reasons of the dignity of the individual and other reasons that I think the Church is careful to delineate. And I wonder, are a few moments, or even minutes, of discomfort more suffering that thirty or forty years of slowly deteriorating in a prison? I don't know. But if we want to talk about undue suffering, perhaps the whole picture should be put into perspective.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 5, 2006

More Nonsense "For Our Own Good"

I'm not a liberatarian. I'm not a "small government is good government person" in general principle. But I am annoyed when government finds nothing better to do with itself than meddle in the kitchens of donut shoppes and fast-food eateries.

Yes, trans-fats are probably bad for you--but isn't that a matter of personal responsibility? Why should the government step in if I happen to like the taste of the trans-fats? Alcohol is probably responsible for an equal, if not greater proportion of deaths. Shall we phase out alcohol in our margaritas and rum-punches? Shall we ban raw vanilla?

Sheer silliness, sheer interfering silliness.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:52 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 17, 2006

For the "Death Isn't the Worst Thing" People

The abuse of an argument does not render an argument invalid, but it does suggest that it be used very carefully.

The words below are an excerpt of the defense of the latest doctrinal atrocity of the Church of England.

The bishop made his submission as public affairs’ vice-chairman for the Church’s Mission and Public Affairs Council. He said: “For a Christian, death is not the end, and is not to be avoided at all costs.”

So if it will cost a few hundred or thousand extra quid to see a struggling life into the world, I guess we're just supposed to remember that economic cost always trumps God's own will in bringing a life into the world.

To be absolutely fair, this may be the singular opinion of a wayward Bishop in Southwark--we know how individual Bishops can occasionally give rise to preposterous statements. However, if allowed to go unchallenged, this is clearly a serious threat to Anglican Doctrine--the Church of England may be following the trail blazed by their American Cousins.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 26, 2006

Credibility Gap

Nonsense like this completely undermines the credibility of real arguments against involvement in Iraq.

According to the hyperbole: "Armies claiming to bring prosperity have instead brought a misery worse than under the cruellest of modern dictators."

Misery worse than Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the two Kims? Really? Worse than that of the Rwanda Genocide. Worse than Saddam's genocide and rape rooms? Heck, misery worse than the entire province of Banda Aceh after the Tsunami. Please, get the rhetoric under control.

I have no problem with rational, real, and measured accounts of what is going wrong in Iraq. I have no problem with criticizing policy. But I have a real problem with the chronological memory of people who would say that this is worse than The Cultural Revolution. That people are more miserable here that they were in, say, Pol Pot's Cambodia. How is anyone to be persuaded to the real urgency of a situation when you start your exposition with this kind of nonsense?

There are many reasonable and rational ways to say that you think that it is not only a bad idea but that it is immoral and out-and-out evil. This particular way does not further the cause.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 6, 2006

Our Next Step?

Patient Loses Right to Food Case hat tip to The Western Confucian.

So "civilized" Europe goes, so lickspittle American intellectuals are in hot pursuit. Don't be surprised to see it coming to a hospital or doctor's office near you--funded, of course, by the hard-pressed record-profit-making insurance companies whose interest is not your health and well being, but their bottom line--wihich is deeply disturbed by keeping you alive. Hideous.

I was at a lecture a few weeks back which began with the prediction that few people in that room would likely be allowed to live out their natural span if things continued in this way. I can see it coming very, very rapidly. Efficiency and profit uber alles.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:12 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 16, 2006

Equal Time

While certain actions on the part of the Israeli government cannot be countenanced or argued away, with reports like this, is it any wonder?

Hezbollah's top official in south Lebanon said the group welcomed the Lebanese army's deployment even as he hinted that the Shiite guerrillas would not disarm in the region or withdraw but rather melt into the local population and hide their weapons.

"Just like in the past, Hezbollah had no visible military presence and there will not be any visible presence now," Sheik Nabil Kaouk told reporters Wednesday in the southern port city of Tyre.

So, we'll wait around for the cease fire to quiet things down and then start them all up again. It's no wonder that Israel might take some exception to Lebanese actions. It's hard to be too harsh on the Israelis when they are dealing with those who would be much happier if they didn't exist at all.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Equal Time

While certain actions on the part of the Israeli government cannot be countenanced or argued away, with reports like this, is it any wonder?

Hezbollah's top official in south Lebanon said the group welcomed the Lebanese army's deployment even as he hinted that the Shiite guerrillas would not disarm in the region or withdraw but rather melt into the local population and hide their weapons.

"Just like in the past, Hezbollah had no visible military presence and there will not be any visible presence now," Sheik Nabil Kaouk told reporters Wednesday in the southern port city of Tyre.

So, we'll wait around for the cease fire to quiet things down and then start them all up again. It's no wonder that Israel might take some exception to Hebollah actions. It's hard to be too harsh on the Israelis when they are dealing with those who would be much happier if they didn't exist at all.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Evolution--On Ann's New Book

I am no fan of Ann Coulter, just as I am no fan of any detractor. When one ceases to deal with issues and starts to deal with people in disrespectful ways, one ceases to command my attention. I haven't time for it.

However, this review has within it a provocative paragraph that may just go a ways toward supporting Ann's supposed hypothesis.

Rather, a lot of folks apparently like her ravings -- suggesting that, on some level at least, they must agree with her. And this means that the hundreds of thousands of Americans who put Coulter at the top of the best-seller lists see evolution as a national menace.

Well, that's hardly news. We've known for years that nearly half of all Americans believe in the Genesis account of creation, and only about 10 percent want evolution taught in public schools without mentioning ID or other forms of creationism. But it's worth taking up the cudgels once again, if only to show that, contrary to Coulter's claim, accepting Darwinism is not tantamount to endorsing immorality and genocide.

What I want to know is why anyone cares whether or not evolution is accepted as a theory outside of the scientific community. I am a staunch evolutionist (minus the philosophical trappings) and I could care less if all of St. Blogs were staunch young-Earthers. I would advise them to stay out of the fields of genetics, biology, and palaeontology, all of which have a certain necessity for the fundamental belief in the change of organisms through time. But so long as you are not a scientist practicing in one of these fields, why should I care about how you think the world came into being. It is utterly trivial and absolutely none of my business. And I like it that way.

I do not go about proselytizing evolution. I don't care who thinks it correct and who thinks it incorrect. What I do, and will continue to do is correct those who think they understand the matter at its base and then come of saying something like "ID is a better theory because." ID is merely a new smoke-and-mirrors philosophical construct built up around what is patently observable--organisms change through time. If people refuse to accept that empirical observation, I'm also fine with that--so long as they don't advance their opinions on scientific matters in ignorance of the facts. For example, if one wonders about the change of organisms through time, one must examine the cases of anti-biotic resistant bacteria and one must consider the case of ligers, and the many breeds of cats and dogs and horses. I don't want to belabor the point, but most people arguing for ID do so out of fear and plain ignorance of the facts of the matter. ID is not a scientific theory--it is a philosophical and religious construct that is no more subject to the rigors of the scientific method than is the neo-darwinist formulation of evolutionary theory. Both rely upon propositions that at base may be accepted or rejected but which ultimately can be neither proved nor demonstrated. It is no more probable that everything proceeds randomly than that everything is specifically designed and engineered to go the way it will.

In short, I don't care what any individual believes about how life came to its present diversity. It isn't my business, unless someone feels they must make it so, and I would prefer that it remain unknown to me. There are a good many evolutionists, myself among them, who at once hold to the essentials of evolutionary theory and to the complete teachings of the Catholic Church as understood outside of ultra-traditionalist circles. It is not beyond imagining, and it isn't really a problem for the faithful.

The problem is not evolution, nor its teaching, nor any number of other single attributes one might blame, but rather the whole societal synergy toward death. We live in the culture of death and this whole debate is about more of the same. It is a symptom rather than the disease, although, I suppose it gives some comfort to think that if only this evil thing could be rooted out condoms, pre-matital sex, abortion, and corrupt politicians would vanish at a single blow. It isn't going to happen--not by this mechanism at least. Those who think it will attribute far too much power to scientific discourse in the popular imagination of a fairly stringent anti-intellectual culture.

On a side note, this paragraph very aptly characterizes Ms. Coulter for me:

Coulter clearly knows better. I conclude that the trash-talking blonde bit is just a shtick (admittedly, a clever one) calculated to make her rich and famous. (Look at her website, where she whines regularly that she is not getting enough notice.) Her hyper-conservativism seems no more grounded than her faith. She has claimed that the Bible is her favorite book, she is rumored to go to church, and on the cover of Godless you see a cross dangling tantalizingly in her décolletage. But could anybody who absorbed the Sermon on the Mount write, as she does of Richard Dawkins, "I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell"? Well, I wouldn't want Coulter to roast (there's not much meat there anyway), but I wish she'd shut up and learn something about evolution.

One is left to wonder what the quotation taken out of context might mean. The charitable might consider that she is saying the notion of even so arrant a servant of the atheistic agenda as Dawkins burning in Hell is laughable; however, I don't think that my charity extends that far.

But I do agree with the first sentence. Ann manufactured for herself a certain celebrity in her abrasive brashness--she competes toe-to-toe with Al Franken, Molly Ivins, and Maureen Dowd, and I suppose there is some divine justice in leveling the sides in such a way.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 10, 2006

The Plot II--Why I Am NOT a Theologian

Here's the problem.

If we take as a starting premise, a premise I accept and even embrace and to which I can propose no reasonable alternative, that one may not do evil that good may result, one might be forced to conclude that information derived from certain sources that help to define today's potential catastrophe should not have been obtained and should not be used.

Let's consider several examples:

(1) Information derived from listening in on conversations: So far as I can tell there is nothing MORALLY wrong with this, nor within the profession of spies ethically wrong with it. There may in some instances be problems with it legally, but legality and morality often don't coincide. So unless one can tell me otherwise, it would seem that information obtained this way is "clean."

(2) Information from a plant or a mole. This, it strikes me, is much more problematic. In order for a plant or mole to succeed he must mimic the surroundings. He must dissemble or lie in order to fit in. There may be things that the group does as a whole that are completely immoral that he must participate in in order to remain undercover. Information derived from dissembling (bearing false witness) would seem to be tainted under the "You must not do evil that good may result."

(3) Information obtained from a paid informant. Once again, we're at a place that I wonder about. If betrayal of one's friends and comrades is a sin (Dante certainly seems to think it is) then suborning such action is supporting such action and is, how is it phrased proximate material collusion? It would seem that information obtained by paying someone to rat out his friends is indeed "tainted."

All of that said, I don't know if any of it is true, and it is the reason that I've decided that I need to be just an interested spectator in the bloody arena of practical and applied theology. If I really stopped this long to analyze all of my actions of a day I would just have to admit complete paralysis and give up doing anything other than analyzing the potentials. Obviously theologians don't do this because they know of some "loophole" that gets them out of the eternally descending spiral (Uzumaki) of omphaloskepsis.

Oh, and before you start badgering me about saying that I think the actions and information acted on today were bad, please know that I don't. I just wanted to use this illustration to show how my brain gums up the works and why it is simply better for me to sit staring at Jesus than to try to figure out the mind of God on matters too lofty for me.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:36 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Two Posts on the Plot--I

My first point about the plot uncovered in Great Britain to explode several airplanes at once should be noncontroversial. Praise God that it was discovered!

More than that, I am always astounded when we do discover these things. When you consider that they are the work of 25 or 30 people out of millions of possible "suspects," it seems nearly miraculous that we can avert any of the attacks. Unlike most of the nation, I was not disappointed in our security services with the 9/11 incident, rather, I figured it was only a matter of time before some key link was missed. In this case, let us hope that all of the key links have been found and all take caution from what was discovered today.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 3, 2006

Where Is Truth to be Found?

According to this article found at Western Confucian, the one defense offered for Israel's actions against the Lebanese is false.

This is one of the reasons why I rarely bother with the news. Is this article reporting the truth? Is CNN reporting the truth? Does the truth lie somewhere between? How are we to discern justice if we can't know the plain facts of the matter? Where is truth to be found in reporting? Where is enough of the bias stripped away that there is some discernible smidgen of reality? In this case I do not know if it can be because whoever is reporting has such a strong bias one way or the other in the matter.

However, if it is true, what does THAT say about the conflict? We need to be careful to separate the unquestionable right and responsibility of Israel to protect its people from a carte blanche to do whatever is required. We must support Israel as a sovereign nation while reining in the impulse to smash everything around them that might give rise to difficulty--an understandable impulse in an unstable part of the world.

I am a supporter of Israel and of her people, but not one who is willing to say that everything done in the name of defense is defensible. As with so many things I simply don't know, and frankly I don't even know how to find out. Whatever may be the truth I have grave misgivings about the present approach to the resolution of the difficulties between Israel and Lebanon. But I also have no advice to give on how to secure one's homeland in a fair and equitable way.

But back to the point--how do we know the truth?

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:34 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 30, 2006

The Worst Mistake

TSO makes an interesting and cogent point in this post from which an excerpt foloows:

But the Native American holocaust was a much bigger mistake. The Spanish-American war and the Mexican war were arguably much bigger blots on our record. And yet the ironic thing is that this war is seen as intolerable sin; a co-worker says some scholars say Bush will go down as the worst president in US history. I think whatever error we incurred with respect to Iraq is pretty mild compared to some of the errors of our past, such as slavery. I'm completely at a loss at how this war for an arguably good principle (overthrow of a despot) is somehow more obscene than taking other people's lives for a baser principle (land, power, money). That doesn't make this mistake right but the lack of perspective is astonishing. I feel far more squeamish about our use of the nuclear bomb in WWII than enforcing the ceasefire conditions Hussein repeatedly broke.

I think there is much here to think about, but what I wanted to reflect on wasn't the contention that we have done worse in the past, which I believe to be true, but the perceptions then and now, and why they give me hope.

I think TSO is right in our past blunders. The annhilation of the Native American, the long slavery debacle, and more debatably the Spanish-American War. But the reality is that in the past these were not regarded as blunders, and the people who undertook some of them were regarded as heroes. After the atrocities they committed in the Civil War, in which Sherman and Sheridan proved themselves, they were sent out to the west to commit even worse upon the Native Americans who were already near starvation and being crowded away off of traditional hunting and farming lands. At the time, the explanation, which remains in some part today, amounted to eminent domain. This land could be better exploited for larger numbers if only it were freed of this pesky nuisance.

Slavery was supported and preached about in the South, largely because the rice crop in South Carolina depended nearly exclusively upon the labor of slaves. Certainly, there was probably a good deal of special pleading in some of these sermons, but some were given by solid men of God who had a grave misunderstanding of what scripture spoke of.

Today we are embroiled in a war that could be called at best a mistake and at worst, according to Pat Buchanan (and I won't defend his opinion, because frankly, I don't know), playing into Osama Bin Laden's hands. Buchanan points out that 9/11 was all about getting us involved in a war like the one we launched in Iraq to our detriment, and eventual demise. I don't know that it will happen, nor does Mr. Buchanan seem to think it inevitable, but I think it has been shown that despite laudable goals, it was essentially an unjust war, and we are now reaping the whirlwind we have sown.

But what is wonderful about this is that so many are willing to speak up and express their disapproval. People are no longer being shoe-horned and steam rolled into accepting any party line. Where once we went along with slavery or went along with the annhilation of the Native Americans, now we protest a war some see as imperialist and others view as protectionist (of oil interests.)

I don't know if we are becoming more devisive, more aware, or simply tired of acting as policemen for the world. But I think it will help to promote a good deal more circumspection from those leading the country in the future. At least I pray so. And I think that this war has been very helpful in clarifying the concept of "just war."

For all of these reasons, I find the hue and cry heartening. It may not mean much of anything in the long run, but I hope that it is a sign of some slight maturing. Now, if we could just recapture any real sense of morality with regard to sexual matters and life in general, we might progress overall.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:41 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 27, 2006

CleanFlicks and Copyright

I've given the matter yet more thought and have concluded that part of the anger at the result of the CleanFlicks lawsuit stems from the fact that film is presently under a perpetual copyright. Supposedly the copyright last the life of the author plus 90 years, but I don't know the rules when the copyrighted work is owned by a "legal" person such as a corporation.

If things progressed as the Founding Fathers originally saw fit, films would enter the public domain at a steady pace. But the reality is no film is likely ever to enter the public domain (there are a few silent films, but that's it). So, there is never the opportunity to "edit for suitability" because copyright is eternal. And it is here that I balk at the judgment against CleanFlicks. The Courts have given both monopolistic and eternal rights to the companies that produce a work. It would seem to me that if they are forever, they should not be all-inclusive. A previous commenter pointed out that copyright was a trade-off allowing the owner a short period of exclusive use in exchange for the work entering the public forum.

I'm thinking that the only way this will cease is by concerted civil disobedience--but I can't think what form that might take. Anyway, the anger seems justified because many are left powerless in the face of this all devouring perpetual seizure of intellectual property.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 26, 2006

A Continuing Cultural Conversation

Tom likens Art to a cultural conversation, or rather someone has slipped that metaphor in along in the discussion. And that seems quite reasonable. Tom goes on to ask the question, "Is it reasonable in the course of any conversation to assume that every person engaged has the right not only to be heard, but in a sense to dominate the conversation as the only one whose word not only must be heard, but must be held sacrosanct and inviolable?" I paraphrase, but I hope I caught the essence of it.

Because Tom's definition of Art starts off much broader than my own, that question is reasonable as well. But where the difficulty comes in is that the cultural conversation takes not merely minutes, hours, days, months, years, or decades; it can, and often does take centuries and millennia.

While it is unreasonable to hold one person's view as more valuable or more sacrosanct than another's, when I argue for the preservation of the original, I am not saying that there cannot be other contributors, but rather, because the conversation takes so long, it is only right to hear the conversants in their own voices--as unmediated by another as is possible.

I make an inference here that Tom may be describing art as a kind of dialectic a kind of theme, introduced by the initial artist and modified through the years by responding artists in harmony or dissonance. And that may be a reasonable view of the process over all.

It is not the production of new works that bothers me. But let me try to explain just why I hold the view I do. St. Thomas Aquinas produced a large compendium of theology and philosphy, and I suppose natural science, and many other things related to theology and understanding God. This is the remarkable Summa Theologiae. Through time, many, many people have responded to this work, both positively or negatively. However, if I only read Farrell's study of the work, have I really come to terms with what St. Thomas Aquinas said? If I read only the two abridgments prepared by Peter Kreeft, do I have a clear idea of what Aquinas taught. Perhaps, perhaps not. But if I don't have the work of Aquinas to refer to, how can I know. If we allow the original to be so truncated to to be compiled in Kreeft's Summa of the Summa how will I understand the conversation?

Now the creation of the Summa of the Summa MIGHT be what Tom would refer to as a modification of the Summa Theologiae, if so, we have a different terminology for recognizing the validity of the same thing, because I would argue that Kreeft used his skills as writer and editor to produce from Aquinas not just a modification of Aquinas, but what is, in essence, an entirely new work. Yes, the bulk of it is Aquinas (there are notes and comments by Kreeft) but the process of editing picks highlights and reshapes the corpus of the work in such a way that it no longer fully represents the original. With this type of continuing conversation, I have no problem. Part of my ease comes from the fact that if I wished to know what Aquinas really said, I need only pick up one of several critical editions and learn Latin and read it. (Well, perhaps only wasn't a particularly good modifier in that sentence.) But the reality is that I have the original contribution to the conversation to play off of all the others and to hear the overtones and undertones.

But let's assume for a moment that an evil band of Kreeftian adherents stole all extant copies of the Summa and destroyed them. Then those initial remarks--the conversation starter is completely lost to me--and the conversation starter is indeed the seed of all that followed.

This is where we may part company, because I sincerely believe that it is good to know the full nature of that seed and even of the subsequent branches when we begin to engage in the conversation.

Now I've been queried about whether I would confer the same protections on Cheaper by the Dozen as I would on the Hagia Sophia. And the answer is an unqualified yes, with a codicil. I think it good to preserve as intact as possible all of the works of art so that future art has it as the "conversation starter." Ideally, that Art should be the authentic expression of the artist who produced it--complete and unchanged--but ready now to be modified by the future artist who encounters it. The codicil is, do I think Cheaper by the Dozen is as important as the Hagia Sophia. No! Rather I confer on Cheaper by the Dozen the protection I would like to offer the Hagia Sophia, not because CBD is necessarily worthy of that protection, but because if I have to choose between releasing all and keeping all, I choose keeping all. CBD is the side beneficiary of the protection I would like to see conferred on all great works of art.

A great work of art is a conversation starter--it is interesting to see the conversation develop, but I often lament things like Fragments from Paphias that give us enticing snippets of what could have been a most interesting whole. I regret the loss of many of the Pindaric Odes, though they may not have been worthy of a second thought. Who would have thought a minor comedy of an ancient Roman would have been worth recreating as a musical. And yet, it works.

So, if I am a protectionist, it is both for the good of Art as a whole, and I believe, the good of humanity. Some conversations are finished, have long since been but to rest and now are nothing more than footnotes in long abstruse studies of ancient Hungarian fragments or lesser Scholastics of the 14th century. There is a natural lull in the conversation. But the texts are there, ready for a resurgent interest that may uncover in these "lesser" scholastics insights that were far ahead of their time. If these works are redacted into nonexistence, this fertile field is destroyed, and part of the ability of Art is destroyed with it. I think of art as akin to John Donne's paean to everyman, "No man is an island, but all be part of the whole. If a clod be washes from Europe, Europe is the less." The loss of an original artwork is a great shame and a great loss. The centuries-long conversation that occurs around this artwork enriches Art, and if done properly, all of humanity.

That is why I suppose I impose my two categorical statements--(1)The willful misattribution of a work of art that has been changed to the original artist is sinful; and (2)The redaction of any original, no matter how seemingly trivial, out of existence is a great loss.

That said, I now need to come to terms with the very real part of me that says, "Some works don't deserve to exist at all. Would the loss of all of the pornography of the 20th century really be a bad thing." And perhaps it is in the distinction between Great Art, Good Art, Mediocre Art, and Bad Art, that I could find some answers to that question. (Bad art here meaning art that is both seriously, grievously mortally flawed, and art that while unflawed morally is so completely flawed technically as to be worthless.)

And perhaps my answer would be that Art in the first three categories deserves to have the original preserved, and that in the last, particularly if morally reprehensible should be consigned to the dust head of history. But then my statement wouldn't be categorical. And perhaps, with further reflection that's just fine.

All I really want is to be able to see what was originally there if I have cause to. As I once commented to TSO, reading a book by John Cornwell was a waste of time because I felt I had to go back and try to find all of the originals to see, what if anything, was true about it. But stop and consider. If we redacted everything out of existence and all that remained to say of Pius XII were the half-truths and less of Cornwell's book, then we would have done a great injustice--and I believe the nature of that injustice is related to Art itself.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:40 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Make Your Own!

There seems to be a divide between some philosophers of Art and those who argue from the point of view of the artist. The philosophers see absolutely nothing at all wrong with altering a work to make it aesthetically better; the artists (or those who argue from that point of view) disagree. And this may come down what precisely we mean by "altering a work of art."

There are two species of alterations: one of which is always objectionable, the other of which is the traditional way in which art grows--the way which present copyright law is trying to squeeze off entirely.

One form of alteration is to take an extant work and make a change to it. This is objectionable on a number of grounds:

(1) It misrepresents the view and the work of the original.
(2) It argues that alteration to make a bad work mediocre is a laudable act--thus propagating the endless galleries of Thomas Kinkade art with which every mall seems to be burdened.
(3) It is hubristic--pretending to know with some certain what objective artistic merit is. I've seen Zippy throw the term around and then actively support the burning of all Picassos; I've come to suspect that he has no better idea than I do of what this objectivity looks like.
(4) It is lazy.

Which leads to the second form of alteration--derivation, parody, and satire, [added later] or attributed alteration of a copy of the work--most traditional means of altering extant works. When one thinks one can do better, this is the path to take. One doesn't tinker with the poems of Robert Frost seeking to improve them, one writes ones own poems in the same vein, on the same theme, or even in parody of or homage to Frost.

This is the means by which art progresses. Most of our modern works are derived in some way. They are written as a response to, from the wealth of, or as adaptations of great works of the past. I think of Jane Smiley's A Thousand Acres which can be seen as an adaptation of Lear. I think of G.B. Shaw's Dark Lady of Sonnets in which he fights his lifelong battle with Shakespeare with some considerable venom. How many Romeo and Juliets have there been (itself a derivative work from Arthur Brooke's 1562 The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet, which in turn derives from earlier sources, and ultimately from Greek Mythology--Pyramus and Thisbe.

The right and proper work of the artist is this continual modification of tradition and addition to it. Hemingway is quoted as saying that "Mediocre artists borrow; great artists steal." Which is to mean that they take the work entire and make it their own. In this sense, the greater crime might be borrowing, in which we change this word, or that line, or this little scene and then pass on silently, having altered the work to our satisfaction.

At Disputations, Tom brings up the notorious "sash-painting" across the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, only recently restored to the right and proper vision of Michelangelo. This form of debasement of art is what one supports when one says that arbitrary changes may be made to improve the aesthetics of the piece.

The reality is that there are vanishingly few people who have the standing to make judgments about the aesthetic value or objective artistic merit of any given piece, and most of those are who they think they are. It's a catch 22 in my experience, if you believe you are qualified then you are most certainly not--a point M. Night Shaymalin makes along the way in Lady in the Water. If you think you have the right to change a work that will be presented to the public, you should rethink--you don't.

I stand opposed to the alteration in any way of a received work. If you don't like it the way it stands, don't participate in it. If you think you could do the same better--do so. Just don't alter what has become public property. And public property is not individual property but the right and due of all the people. No one person has the right to change this heritage in the first way. Every person has the right, and if endowed with the skill, the responsibility to change or contribute to this heritage in the second way.

If you can make a more moral, upright, or proper film do so. Don't change the one I'm watching. If you can make a poem better, then do so--set yours alongside the original and show me the improvement. I have yet to read an altered, bowdlerized, or expurgated version of any work that made a substantial improvement to the aesthetics whatever it may have done to the morality.

If you feel the urge to change someone's work, cowboy up and make your own. Don't tinker. Don't play at artist--you demean art and the artist with such playacting. And don't be tiresome and pretend you have some bead on the truth that will vastly improve a given work. Prove it to me--write your own. Jane Austen took on the melodramatic and overwrought Gothic genre to produce the magisterial Northanger Abbey and made a contribution far more profound than legions of gothic novelists. (However, she did not surpass Anne Radcliffe whose work she sought to parody. Ms. Radcliffe's work stands and beside it the parody that is almost a tribute. In a sense we have Ms. Radcliffe to thank for one of the finest novels in English--if only indirectly.)

So, hands off. Let what enters the public square live or die on its own.

And now the second part of part II. Copyright law. Our present copyright law seeks to keep everything out of public domain for approximately 150 years, at this point. With the next renewal that time will extend. Applying that to the past, we would not have been able to make films or derivative works of things like A Christmas Carol or Tess of the D'urbervilles until a few years ago. Yes, there's always the possibility of licensing the work, but what is the writing struggling with keeping food on the table to do when the very clay with which he or she works is locked up, just within sight. The modern copyright law is a travesty--a mockery of law, and a mockery of the purpose for which copyright became the rule. The most recent Supreme Court ruling on it, in every way a deliberate and conscious misreading of the intent and purpose as outlined in the Constitution itself. It is clear from precedent up until the 20th century that there was absolutely no intention of an artist holding copyright for 90 years after his or her death. And, as I said, with the lobbies and the free grant of the Courts, this is only like to be extended. This does wholesale damage to the common good, removing from the sphere of play thousands and thousands of works. I think of what might have happened had Jane Eyre not entered the public domain--we might never have seen Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea. The examples are countless. Congress has, for the interests of megaconglomerate businesses removed the right and proper heritage of art from the people, and we stand by and let it happen--unconcerned because so erudite a matter has no real meaning for us. (Okay, end this month's diatribe on copyright law--sorry).

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:59 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 20, 2006

A Retraction

My apologies to all. By my arguments I have apparently misrepresented facts in the case. Read the comments to the posts below.

There are two arguments here, each of which presents different merits, one of which is more important than the other in terms of consequences. In cases that I have described, where the changes made by an outside party are unilateral and unacknowledged I DO believe, whether the changes are made for reasons we might consider good or for reasons we might describe as evil, such changing (with a certain leeway for alteration in the creation of a work under contract or work-for-hire clauses) can result in misrepresentation of an artist and thus amount to an evil. Editing without consultation (except under conditions mentioned and carefully defined above) is a substantive evil. It may do more harm to argument and integrity than to person. They may not rise to calumny and scandal, but they should be avoided and the person so treated has been treated unjustly. There is a recognizable wrong done--whether that amounts to moral evil or not might be questionable--I honestly don't know. I know in most cases it seems clear to me that such misrepresentation is evil.

The other argument is aesthetic. When we ask whether or not an editorial change in the course of the creation of a work is aesthetically allowable and whether it constitutes and improvement or a reduction of the work, I think the case depends on where the art is in the first place. If you're trying to improve, even from a moral point of view, "Frat Boy Vacation," just give it up. There are small changes that can make the work more palatable, but may not "improve" the work. But this area is much more grey than that described above.

My bottom line, the argument I've inappropriately used CleanFlicks to make, is the unacknowledged usurpation and alteration of another's work subsequently attributed to them is a moral evil, regardless of the purpose for which it was done. Taking the sex and violence out of the Marquis de Sade without saying you have done so wrongs the Marquis by telling a substantive lie about him. (Now, why you'd even attempt to do this is another matter entirely.) That is an evil. You may have "improved" the work morally, but the end does not justify the means. And one is protected from this by a simple acknowledgment of "abridgement" and a forward that sets for the aesthetic theory under which this attempt at a miracle is conducted.

By issuing the original along with the altered version, CleanFlicks passes this test of morality--a question I confused in reading the arguments.

Once again, my sincere apologies for any confusion I may have created in making my arguments.

I still stand with those who hold that the works of artists should not be altered for our convenience--but this is an aesthetic not a moral issue. And the aesthetic argument is necessarily more nuanced and perhaps more subjective. I leave that to better minds than my own. For the time being, until convinced otherwise I will quietly hold my aesthetic theory even as I trumpet forth the moral argument. Editing is not necessarily a morally neutral activity. And this is still contra what I have understood Zippy and others to say on the matter.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

CleanFlicks again

Hollywood is amazingly persuaded by money and had they been approached by this company to license works and "clean them up" I have little doubt that they would have allowed the work to progress with some sort of disclaimer at the beginning of the film such as one sees every day on Televsion--"This work has been altered from the original--" with a list of how the alterations had occurred. In this case one might complete the list with some like "to remove elements offensive to the alterers and produce a film with a lower rating." I could see Hollywood demanding to see the film before release or to at least detail exactly what was removed--3 minutes of sex and nudity, 5 expletives--on the packaging.

But this company, working under the notion of moral superiority took it upon themselves to do this. (Well, perhaps not, but one must assume that the lawsuit occurred for SOME cause.) That seems to me to be the bone of contention.

While there is a legal aspect to all of this, I will contend that not all alteration is morally neutral, and my argument stands--to make an anti-Catholic sound pro-Catholic, to make a normal person into a racist/supremicist both are fundamental injuries to the dignity of the person. One might think one acceptable and the other not--but lying about a person, it would seem to me, is always morally questionable.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:52 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 18, 2006

Probably Not Much of a Surprise

I suppose it goes without saying that I feel pretty passionate about the subject of artistic control of a work (to the extent that is possible).

Perhaps a future review of The Kite Runner will help me to detail why.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Altering Artists-Bringing It Much Closer to Home

Let's consider a final, very real, very plausible case of what we are talking about.

This time, let's look at the works of Flannery O'Connor--most particularly The Violent Bear It Away. The novel ends when young Tarwater has a rather unsavory, well. . . how shall we put it on a family blog? Let's say Deliverance encounter with a character we can take to be Satan himself. While it is all very veiled and euphemistic, there can be absolutely no doubt about what has transpired and, in fact, in makes much of the point of the book.

However, because our sensibilities are assaulted by this "gratuitous scene," we deem that it might be better to prepare our children with versions of it that excise the "naughty bits" but don't really hamper the end of the novel.

Now, I ask, wouldn't the better practice be to leave the novel intact and allow our children to encounter that novel at an age appropriate to their understanding. But, I'm countered with, no, that would be ghettoizing our children, so we need to alter the work so that in the course of their conversations they will not even realize that they are talking with their peers about the same novel. They're out of the ghetto, but they're fully in the dark.

Once again, because I feel passionately about it, it is always and everywhere inappropriate to make available to the public at large works that have been altered against the will of or without the consent of their authors. It is most especially bad to do this while retaining the author's name and crediting the now antithetical work to the artist.

I really don't understand why this point is so difficult to understand. Public misrepresentation of an artist's work is simply wrong. Changing a work without the artist's consent constitutes a grave misrepresentation of the work.

I even object to doing this in private--but then, it is absolutely none of my business because presumably one has right and proper access to the work for one's own enjoyment, and if one's enjoyment is enhanced by deleting or eliding certain parts, I have no right to say anything about it; however, I'd prefer those who feel the need for this kind of alteration to keep their hands off of any of my "controversial" works. (I've a sum total of exactly 1 bad word in all of my published work; however, there may be a lot of implications people don't particularly care for.) (By the way, I make the final point about privacy not to chastise or berate any one who chooses to make these changes, but to state that my opposition is categorical--if a person, child or adult, is not prepared to consume the work in as unaltered a state as it can be delivered, they would do well not to bother with it at all. If their enjoyment is enhanced by deleting a "gratuitous sex scene," I feel compelled to ask, why would one be watching a movie in which any moment is "gratuitous?" Doesn't that counter the definition of a work of art? And more especially, why would one choose to watch a movie in which the gratuitous is morally objectionable? Doesn't such a moment render the entire work morally objectionable--especially if such a moment is put in only for the thrills and for the higher rating (hence, higher earnings)? )

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Some Thought Experiments

With regard to PUBLIC alteration of the work of an artist (the whole point of the CleanFlicks suit), perhaps a series of thought experiments may help elucidate:

You run across the works of G. Protestant Catholicbasher, who is a renowned Protestant theology and who has the very best explanation of grace you have ever read in your life. Included is this passage: "As a result, Catholics will not see heaven. They will not know the fruits of grace. They do not know God as God. They do not give Him sovereignty."

You decide that the work is really very good--the very best. But, it has a little problem on the Catholic side, so, to make it acceptable to your children (and to other children) you publish a version of the work, with the author's name attached that presents his arguments so:

"As a result, Catholics will see heaven. They will know the fruits of grace. They know God as God. They give Him sovereignty."

After all, in a work of two hundred pages you've excised six words for a total of sixteen letters. Surely not much of a change, and it does make the argument a lot more palatable for your audience than it was originally.

Case 2: A publisher of considerably less integrity than the OPC decides to publish the lyrics of the hymn Amazing Grace changing the line "that saved a wretch like me," to the more life-affirming and up-beat "saved and set me free." They attribute this change to the original author. (OCP had not done this in any older hymnals--so I do think they are a publisher with integrity, it something lacking in taste.)

Case 3: You've written a thousand line poem in praise of God, Country, Motherhood, Apple Pie and all things American. Within your poem are the following lines:

"It is not right to hate and fear
It is not right to judge by color
It is not right to despise another."

Your local hate-group reads the poem and decides it is absolutely perfect for their "Patriotism" issue, but to reach your audience and boost sales, it's necessary to remove nine letters, three "gratuitous" words leaving:

"It is right to hate and fear
It is right to judge by color
It is right to despise another."

But they leave your name on the poem and publish it in their blockbuster seller issue.

Case 4: A publisher, favoring the NAB for its clunky language and tin ear, decides that he would do everyone a favor and remove the famous Catholic bias against having fun and against sex by more closely attending to what the original author's intended for us to derive from their writings. Thus, every time the NAB descretely uses the biblical "know" or some other euphemism, our helpful publisher decides to use the vulgar Anglo-saxon fricative. He then publishes the book without noting this "minor" editorial adjustment to the text.

I think these illustrations get the point across. When anyone other than the author assumes the authorial role and changes the authorial intention and publishes that work as though representative of the thought of the author, then they are "bearing false witness." They are constructing a lie for one purpose or another. And usually they are profiting from that lie at the expense of another. For example G. Protestant Catholicbasher is drummed out of the Church of Anywhere but Rome. You are branded a racist. And the hymnist is accused of a lack of spine.

The CleanFlicks case is not about innocuous change. It is about a company usurping the role of the studio and deciding what should air and what should not without consultation with the film studio. These things are done on their own. People ask, "Well what about edits for television." The Licenser may grant permission for alterations to be made, they may demand a list of such alterations for approval before the work can be released. In short, they maintain ownership and control over how their work is represented.

Say I decided I liked the movie Chocolat (I didn't). But I sure didn't want Samuel to get a negative impression of the Church and I altered the film so he could see it. Within my own home, that is a question of my own integrity and for me to talk to God about. But say I let news of this slip and then started peddling the film to all my friends who really wanted a cleaned-up version. Part of the purpose, intent, and integrity of the film is the anti-Catholicism. To alter that and sell the work as the original does a number of injustices. (1) It misrepresents the film maker. (2) It steals another's work and profits from it. (3) It misinforms its recipients about the agenda of the artist from whom it came.

This last is one of the more insidious consequences of altering the film. Suddenly you've made an unacceptable director palatable. So now we'll go and see the next film. (What a shock that might turn out to be.)

What is at issue is the artist's control of his own work and the artist's right not to be misrepresented in any way--even in a way that we might think enhances the work.

I've been asked, "Well what's wrong with eliding a gratuitous sex scene?" My answer is, "You know the artist's mind and the work at hand well enough to know whether or not the scene is gratuitous." The whole point of Tristam Shandy is made by a "gratuitous sex scene" at the beginning of the book. No one, apart from the artist, has the standing to determine whether or not something is gratuitous to the point of altering the work in public. If, for your own enjoyment, you determine that it would be better not to view such a scene--that's a matter of personal choice. You probably aren't watching an art film any way. But to take that out and peddle it as the original without the artist's consent. . . I'm sorry, I know you'll disagree, but it just isn't right, and it may, depending upon extent and intent, be a sin.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:35 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

June 18, 2006

Mini-rant on the Local Library System

Suffering deeply from the absence of Boy and his mom, I went to the library to find surcease amongst the many volumes. (Despite what follows, the local library does have somewhat more books than are lodged in my domicile; although not nearly the breadth or the quality.)

I started my perusal with a trip to the 800s where I drew out a couple of books of literary/writer's life essays and writings. One of them, by Joyce Carol Oates, provoked me to search the shelves for some other things I had been wanting to read. One of these was also something I read about at another blog--perhaps it was "This Space Intentionally..." or one such. So I sought out Thomas Pynchon's Mason and Dixon--no luck. Well, I thought, perhaps the stories of Raymond Carver. Nope. Well, then, I'd been wanting to read the last few John Updike. In the Beauty of the Lilies--no. Terrorist--too new. Memoirs of the Ford Administration--Sorry. Any of the Bech books--no such luck. Rabbit is Rich, Rabbit at Rest--so sorry--all that's in is Rabbit Remembered in the collection Licks of Love.

Each time I would think of something I wanted to read--The Collected Stories of Katherine Mansfield--forget it, The Human Stain, I Married a Communist--you must be joking. The Sea, the Sea--look elsewhere. Indeed, of all of the things I sought I found only a couple--Joyce Carol Oates's Collected Short Stories and Collected Stories of Carol Shields--someone with whom I am unfamiliar, but by the perusal of Oates's book of critiques and reviews discovered.

Now, I know the library is public. I also realize that shelf space is very limited; but when one can't find some of the major writers of the 20th and 21st centuries, never mind Mrs. Gaskell's Cranford or North and South. Well. . . Let's just say that I'm thankful for the internet because I don't have to rely upon this repository of disposable subliterature for things like Vernon Lee's Hauntings, the novels of Marie Belloc Lowndes, or the works of Mrs. Oliphant (admittedly an odd, acquired taste).

Our public libraries tend to be in this condition because our reading public has ceased to read and instead spends much of its leisure time checking out DVDs and Audio discs--both worthwhile resources, but hardly the kind of thing likely to induce growth in depth and understanding of certain basic underlying principles of our culture. But then, that's part of the point isn't it. There is a subversive strain to all of this. As we erode the Canon and turn our attention from the great works of the past to the ephemeral and junk works of the present we no longer have a culture to stand on. And that's just fine with some. We can replace the edifice of western civilization with the post-modernist construct of multiculturalism, which extols diversity for the sake of diversity, rather than diversity as a means of understanding the shared human experience. Chinua Achebe is not great because he is African, he is great because the struggles he writes about are a shared human experience. They may come out of a different cultural context, and thus give us insight and perspective on the issues at hand, but the greatness stems from the ability to speak past the culture and into a very different one. Some Prefer Nettles is a magnificent book, not merely because it is Japanese but because it is deeply human, touching chords we all can hear and connect with.

The only access to multi-cultural understanding is through a solid grounding in one culture. That is, the gateway through which Chinese Literature is approached by a Westerner is a western gateway. That does render some aspects of Chinese literature nearly incomprehensible--but as with all great work, the essence comes through. One nearly need see Ran or Throne of Blood to understand how a truly great work can be assimilated and acculturated so that its themes continue to speak to the shared human condition.

But the multiculturalists talk out of both sides of their mouths--they want to share the contributions of many different facets of our own culture before most people have the basics of understanding the main-line of western culture. The effect is a dismantling one. Substandard multicultural entries are introduced as "literature" selections, and nothing is understood in its wider context, as to its roots and reactions to it.

This was to be a minirant--I go on too long. But you get the point. To be multicultural one must of necessity be grounded in some culture that gives a context for understanding. Multiculturalists fail to understand this, or, in the case of some, understand it very clearly and push their agenda to subvert it; thus, toppling the (as Roberts Hughes puts it so marvelously in The Culture of Complaint) "pale penile patriarchy."

Ah well

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 18, 2006

On the Immigration Issue

I have little useful to say, and am reluctant for fear of the controversy it will engender to say it. Nevertheless: consider the people as people, individuals, first. What best demonstrates love and charity in our present situation and what will best demonstrate it as we move forward. Let charity be our standard for anything that might be written into law, in material fact or in our hearts.

There. Perhaps I've avoided controversy. It's the most I can say and the least. Let God's will be done in how I demonstrate love to my neighbor.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 22, 2006

Pure Bloods

Many people regard the Harry Potter series with a great deal of suspicion. I don't wish to argue the point now (or ever, for that matter), but to lift a major theme from the works for a moment of reflection.

Throughout the six-book series thus far much emphasis is placed by some on being "Pure blood" wizards. In almost every case, those who insist upon purity of blood are at best loathsome and most often outright evil. Rowling isn't writing allegory, but if we look in the world at those who insist upon purity of blood as a mark of rank, we will more often than not encounter ideologies that are antithetical to life.

What brought all of this to mind was a minor passage in Wilfrid McGreal's At the Fountain of Elijah: The Carmelite Tradition, a well-written and brief survey of the history of the Carmelite Order. In the chapter on the contributions of St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, McGreal notes:

It is also interesting that both Teresa and John, to use a modern terms, were 'disadvantaged' and were therefore in a special way already poor. Neither Teresa nor John possessed limpieza de sangre--'purity of blood.' They had Jewish forbears, and this ancestry was viewed with suspicion and could be the reason for persecution. By the end of the sixteenth century religious orders in Spain had made limpieza de sangre a condition for admission. Fortunately the Carmelites did not put such legislation into place until 1596.

What a crime against love! Today, many of us can see that this is simply unacceptable for any Christian. It would be difficult to say and believe "You will know they are Christians by their love," under such conditions. And yet, such is the history of humanity--not merely of Christianity. And it is horrifying to think of what we would have lost had this edict been in place some years before.

Prejudice is ugly whenever and however it occurs. We have grown too haughty and proud--we think ourselves beyond it. But prejudice raises its ugly head in every corner and every precinct. Even now, each day, we are tempted to formulate opinions based on appearance, creed, or opinions. Prejudice hates a person for an artifact of that person. Christianity stands in firm opposition--loving the person but showing no mercy to the illicit accidents of the person. Whenever the cry of "Pure blood!" is raised, it is certain the the inevitable end is that blood will be spilled--"pure" and otherwise.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:46 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 9, 2006

The State of the State

Of recent date we have had cause to take on a number of people at work. Among them is one very bright, very enthusiastic, very promising young man. I have occasion to work with him closely. I was giving a bit of background/training/mentoring/pep talking. I pointed out some things that I don't particularly care for in the use of language--particularly, I was pointing out that we needn't utilize something when it is just as easy to use it. Following numerous dicta, I espoused the famous, "Always prefer words of Anglo-Saxon origin to those of latinate origin." I pointed out that this dictum was codified by George Orwell (among others) in his famous essay, "Politics and the English Language."

"Have you read it?" I asked.

"No," he answered.

"As a creative writing major, you should have encountered this essay. It's a succinct summary of some of the rules for clarifying your writing."

"Who did you say it was by?"

"George Orwell."

"How do you spell that?"

"The author of 1984"

"Of what?"

I was astounded. This man is a recent graduate of our so-called educational system and he has come through nearly completely unscathed by familiarity with important figures of Western Literature. And this is not his fault, but the fault of an educational system that kowtows to every special interest that comes down the road. There is no reason on Earth that he should not at least heard of Orwell. I can understand not wanting to read him, but given how much of Orwell is present symbolically and otherwise in our country, to lack a nodding acquaintance is cultural theft. It is akin to the horror (though much less) of the DRE who corrected my son's definition of a sacrament to say that it was "a special way of meeting God."

The Canon is important. Even if Orwell is only a minor figure in the canon, there are at least three works with which one should be familiar upon graduating college--Animal Farm, 1984, and Politics and the English Language. These three have contributed enormously to our culture. "Big Brother is watching." "Newspeak," and "minitruth" are all important reference points. "All animals are created equal. Some are more equal than others," stands as one of the foremost criticisms of communist regimes from their inception.

Our children are being systematically robbed of their cultural heritage. They are emerging from institutions of higher learning knowing less than I knew upon graduating high school. Indeed, in some cases less than I knew when I was a sophomore--and I don't regard myself as extraordinary by any means.

Moreover, the young man I am speaking of had a major in an area that would seem to entail a broad and deep acquaintance with the literature of our time. I could understand this in a business major or a psych major. But his major was English. Admittedly it was a creative writing emphasis--but how can one begin to create new works if one has no knowledge of what has come before?

Those of you with children, take care to guard against this. If they are in public school, help to supplement, as best you can, what they get there. If you are a reader, mix your present-day reading with classic reading. Let your children see that you are interested in good writing and that GOOD writing extends far beyond the bailiwick of Dan Brown, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, and Stephen King. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the proper enjoyment of these writers, but they certainly are not the font of literature from which most of our modern imagery springs. As with our CCD classes, it appears that parents must make a much greater effort on the part of educating their children than seems reasonable. However, unless you wish for your child to emerge from your care with the idea that Maya Angelou is the end-all be-all of poetry, care must be exercised to help them come to a wider awareness of the fullness of our cultural heritage. Star Wars is all very well and good in its place--but its place is far down the line from a heritage that starts (arguably) with Homer (and I don't mean SIMPSON).

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:14 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

November 2, 2005

The Limits to Language

I promise not to rant. But I did want to make one small point about my own inadequacies.

"God's covenant love with Israel becomes enfleshed in Jesus whose life and teaching unfold the deep mystery of trinitarian communion. In the Gospel of John, Jesus invites his followers into an intimacy of indwelling just as Father and Son indwell each other in the Holy Spirit."

When I read sentences like these my mind whirls and my thoughts spin off into important things like when the Sponge-Bob Christmas Special is going to start to air. Phrasing like this bounces off my shield of invincible ignorance and slithers to the ground there to thrash around and distract me from other more important things. I don't know why I have this reaction, but honestly these sentences point at something but don't seem to say anything that is particularly relevant to me. It seems a gossamer fabric of high language that forms more a web than a garment. But that is my limitation, not necessarily a comment on the skill of the writer who composed the sentences above.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:49 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 23, 2005

Is Bush a Christian President?

In his usual way, JCecil3 raises some interesting questions about the Bush presidency. I boil his central thesis down to the question in the title--Is Bush a Christian President?

My answer to this is simple. That is between Mr. Bush and God. It is presumptuous of me to do any other. I may take Mr. Bush at his word and assume that he is a good, Church-going believer.

Does his time in office make this a substantive reality in the world today? That is, if one had to go on evidence rather than assertion, would there be enough evidence to convict Bush on a trial for his Christianity? Not that I've seen. Everything in Washington is Politics as usual. There's a bit more of the relgious window-dressing and talking than there had been for a few words. Is it meaningful? Has it changed society for the better?

Honestly, not that I've seen. I don't see any surge forward in people loving one another as Christ commanded. I don't see the dawning age of new solidarity. I don't even see increased Church attendance as a result of the president's seeming endorsement of religion.

If Bush is a Christian President, it is a private matter that finds very little room for substantive expression in action. Yes, there may be prayer meetings in the White House and a nearly constant invocation of the name of God and the battle of Good and Evil. But the harsh reality is, the president is the president. He does as all have done before him if with a good deal less aplomb and a great deal more alienation. (Like any choice at the present time would have been better?)

Bush no more stands for Christianity than does Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin, or the President of the Phillippines. Nor is he meant to--and those who would like to see him so do a grave injustice both to the office of president and to the Christian faith. There is a very, very good reason for "separation of Church and State" in the sense of not campaigning on your Chrisitianity--you besmirch the faith and often, assuming you live it, you will end up alienating everyone any way--nothing will get done.

I do not think religion should ever stay out of the public square--the issues it raises and the causes that it supports need to be constantly brought before the eyes of the world. But I do think it poor policy to make faith an issue or mainstay of your reign or rule. Inevitably either the reign will be short and poorly received, or Christianity itself will get another black eye. (Think of His Most Christian Majesty Vlad Tepes--as one among many sterling examples.) The proper role of Christianity is always contra mundum, we are in the world, but not of it. If Christianity loses its power to confront and provoke by being subsumed in the mainstream battle of political discourse, it will have lost much of its meaning. Christianity is a sign of contradiction and a constant call to improve, not a seal of approval or an endorsement.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:46 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

October 19, 2005

Detraction

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Detraction

Over in the comments box at Disputations, Marion linked to the excerpt below from the New Advent Site posting of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I thought it worth repeating. The truth must always be spoken in love. It is very rarely right to shout out another's errors from the rooftops (exceptions include public safety). God bless Marion and Tom for pointing out these important truths.

from Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Detraction"

Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer. An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice. It is obvious, however, that the subject-matter of the accusation may be so inconspicuous or, everything considered, so little capable of doing serious hurt that the guilt is not assumed to be more than venial. The same judgment is to be given when, as not unfrequently happens, there has been little or no advertence to the harm that is being done.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 4, 2005

"Sacraments Are Not a Tangible Sign of God's Grace. . ."

"and a means of bestowing it." This newsflash comes to us via the person in charge of sacramental preparation. When she asked Samuel what a sacrament was and he gave a simpler version of the answer above she responded with a very curt, "No." It was the only time in the whole evening of maundering answers and lackadaisical responses that she had said an outright no.

I stopped her in her tracks with an, "Excuse me. When did sacraments become something other than this?" When I repeated Sam's answer she backtracked and said she thought he said something different and then, she asked a seven-year-old to explain what this meant. SHE couldn't explain it, but she needed to show up a seven-year old. I'm seething, I'm furious, and I'm calling the diocesan office tomorrow. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. If it hadn't been for Samuel mentioning it, grace would have received no mention at all. Her definition, a sacrament is an encounter with Jesus. Well that's lovely, but rather vague. Isn't prayer an encounter with Jesus? And yet prayer is not numbered among the seven sacraments. Isn't service an encounter with Jesus?

When the traditionalists complain about the "evils" of Vatican II, it is this kind of nonsense in particular, it would seem to me, that they would find troublesome. This is a perfect example of where the "spirit of Vatican II" teaching just goes off the rails and careens wildly out of control through acres of vague language and arm-waving.

Overall, the session was an excrutiating blend of vague namby-pamby nonsense and group encounter discussion about nothing of any relevance at all. I particular bristle at the fact that this will go on for three more weeks--an hour and a half of saying nothing worth saying each week. Teaching about reconcilation should take about an hour-and-a-half total and that includes memorization of an act of contrition.

I know that this lady is a paid relgious education professional. If she were a volunteer, I'd probably cut her more slack. But this is a monstrous abrogation of her responsibility to the parents and children of this class. If we had not been there, grace would have been left behind in the airy wisdom of "encounter theology."

If you can't tell it, I am furious. This teaching went in direct opposition of nearly everything we've been trying to teach Samuel in home religious eduation. Fortunately he was so tired I doubt that anything sank in at all. At least I pray it is so.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:49 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

October 3, 2005

New Nominee Draws Fire From Both Sides

Reaction to Bush's High Court Nomination - Yahoo! News

Rather than seeing how one interprets the law and sees the constitution, let's crawl inside their psyche and try to predict how they will judge every major decision likely to come before them. The Judicial Hearings with their emphasis on "reproductive rights" are a farce. Ruth Bader Ginsburg can take her seat without answering, but Planned Parenthood demands to know this woman's stand.

Frankly, all I need to hear is a firm commitment to interpret law and not to legislate from the bench. I don't need necessarily a strict constructionist--we live in the twenty-first century. But I'd like to know that the person interpreting the law is doing so in accord with the priciples laid down as the foundation for the law. AND that they are interpreting rather than finding new law.

Like development of doctrine, this can be a very subtle and nuanced thing. The line between the growth of the old and the espousal of the new can be very, very vague--very difficult to define.

As to Ms. Miers, I know nothing of her and cannot find reason for opposition based solely on the fact that she is the President's friend. Not a recommendation for me, but perhaps a heartier recommendation for those who are more enthusiastic fans of the younger Bush.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 12:12 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 2, 2005

Polygamy is a Right, Not a Privilege Says ACLU

WorldNetDaily: ACLU defends polygamy

And so it goes, precisely as Sen. Santorum predicted, from precisely the same cause. Lawrence v. Texas was a poorly decided piece of work which will have ramification for some time to come. (Which should not be read to say that I am in favor of anti-sodomy laws. They strike me as pretexts for the violation of other rights. But by having it struck down under the aegis of privacy, the door just may have been opened to a great many other ills--which people claimed would not happen.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 13, 2005

Hubris

Whatever Katrina may or may not imply about God's will, one would think that one thing we should have learned from it is humility. Instead, the great trumpets of hubris blow. "Bush is responsible for this by not signing the Kyoto accords." "Bush is responsible for this because he didn't plan enough." "Bush is responsible for this because. . ."

What is more to the point is something that I think we all need to take a heart-felt lesson about. Nature is big, savage, uncaring, and uncontrollable. Yes, we can continue to learn how to control. Yes, we can make better contingency plans. But when we do plan for that emergency, what natural disaster will there be that we have somehow overlooked. To suggest that we need to prepare for every conceivable emergency is to bind all the planning folks up in years of work that will have vanishingly small returns. Yes, let's make our plans for the coming Tsunami in Kansas. Yes, let's plan for the Earthquake in Florida.

What plans can you make that will address the devastation IF and when the New Madrid Fault let's go again. Last time it happened the Mississippi river ran backward in its channel for three days. On the day of the event churchbells were run by the waves as far away as Quebec.

We can plan until we turn blue in the face, but there are some contingencies, some things that we ought to have planned for that we will overlook.

I'll grant you, it is the height of misplanning for the local officials to have never considered the possibility of a category 4 or 5 storm (levees were bult to withstand a 3) making direct or close hit on a city on average twenty feet below sea-level. Those of us who are states' rights advocate do well to insist upon state responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the state to have planned, prepared for, and seen to the disaster. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government and all of the rest of us to assist when, despite all good planning things go awry. But to maintain that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to somehow have made these plans for Louisiana is overstepping the bounds of what the government should be responsible for.

Now, let me also make clear that I do not hold the government of Louisiana completely at fault. Yes, the contingency of a larger hurricane should have been considered long ago. But let's say that it was and that preparations had been made that prevented the levees from breaking but resulted in some other tremendous unforeseen difficulty.

My main point is that whether or not this is a "chastisement," it should be viewed as an object lesson in humility. Though modernism teaches us to think the world, and more, of ourselves and our abilities, the reality is that we are very, very small compared with the forces that drive nature. This is a horrifying, humbling catastrophe. I pray for those who were harmed by it, and I do what I can to help. But I also see it as a lesson in who we are before God. We think we can do all things, with or without Him who strengthens us. The reality is that on our own we are flawed, imperfect, and incapable.

Yes, more could/should have been done. But pay attention to the first lesson--we are not at the helm and we are not in control. We are pushed around by every stray breeze and drown in even a puddle of water. We are small, weak, and inefficient. It's a good thing to remember when we are tempted to think that "If Prez. Bush only did that, If the Guv'ner of Looseiana only did this. . ."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 29, 2005

Fact and Opinion: Making a Crucial Distinction

Yesterday our Parish Priest did something in the homily with which I strongly took exception. And the oddest thing was that I, in large part, agree with his point.

In the course of a homily that stretched wide and far our priest brought up two points that he thougth related. The first of these was clearly church doctrine. He said something to the effect that society takes an out-and-out sin, such as abortion and turns it into a right. Clearly he was articulating a truth of the faith.

But then he said something that, while not destroying the first statement, certainly cast some doubt upon it. He said, the Iraqi war was evil, unjust, and should be brought to an end.

Now, I have no problem with any priest expressing this opinion clearly as his opinion. Every person has a right to look upon these circumstances and decide for him- or her- self what a just war looks like. This priest decided that it did not look like Iraq.

Since I largely agree, you may find my demurral somewhat odd. But it has two prongs. The first of these is that while every individual is entitled to his or her private opinion, a priest, serving in the role of priest, breaking open the scripture and sharing with the congregation is required to make clear if he speaks his own opinion or church teaching. For the most part, the fewer opinions that issue from the pulpit, the better. And I say that not to try to clamp a gag on the clergy, but because their role is so sensitive, delicate, and crucial to the congregation, particular as they enact the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Word and Eucharist. They are the trustees of the bounty of Church teaching. Our Priests feed us. And if what they feed us is a plethora of opinions we will starve to death. No matter how much I might agree with any given stand, it should not be presented in the same breath as something that is unarguably church teaching (the evil of abortion). This is the first half of my objection.

The second half consisted of this--how would I feel sitting in that congregation if my son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father, any member of my family were serving in Iraq? How would I like to be the mother who is trying to explain to her child how she must support her father overseas even though what he is doing is evil? I know the good priest did not intend these ramifications--but while it is right and proper to convict someone of guilt in a case when we are clearly talking Church teaching, it is wrong a terrible to wave that brand when the question is debatable. As a Pastor it is the Priests terrible and glorious responsibility to uphold Church teaching in its entirety and purity, and to support the members of the congregation in following that truth. What is left to prudential judgment should not become the black mark of sin because of the preaching of Father. It should not create the internal struggle and the terrible weight it will for all of those families already burdened by the absence of their loved ones.

I didn't speak to our priest afterwards, because his point was short, and I hope because of his long tenure at this church the congregation understood clearly what he did and did not mean to say. Nevertheless, I say it here because it confounded me yesterday and I have been brooding on it for a while, trying to figure out why, when I so clearly agreed with the sentiment, I found its utterance so thoroughly out of place.

I'm not trying to lecture, merely to offer a perspective from the pews. Something I'm sure too many priests hear way too much of. But I truly think it's very important to clearly distinguish fact from opinion in so controversial and debatable a matter--both to defend Church doctrne and to support those who are so valiantly giving their lives in service to their country. They were not asked what they thought of this conflict--they stand and serve. For this they deserve our respect, our gratitude, our loyalty, our prayers, and our help. As they stand and serve, we need not to sling barbs and arrows, but to help in substantive ways the families they have left behind.

I may not agree with the war, but I have no disagree with those who chose service to their country as their life's ambition, and who now do so at the behest of our government. So long as they conduct themselves according to the laws governing such conflict situations and the laws of God, they deserve everything we can offer them, because they are offering us everything. Everything. In their service, they serve each of us with all that they have and all that they are.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:48 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

Shame

Perhaps what I am about to describe has never happened to you. If not, then you are an exceptionally strong person. But I write this as encouragement. It took me a long time to learn my lesson, but once learned, it is one of those things I wish I could share. However, while it might be learned, it can seldom be taught.

Have you ever been embarrassed, shame, or just plain bullied out of enjoying something because of the derogatory opinion of others? Have you ever found yourself apologizing for one aspect or another of your taste.

I write this because this afternoon I was listening to Brad Paisley's version of "In the Garden," and I found myself thinking how much I disliked that song, how maudlin and mawkish the lyrics. And suddenly I realized that those were not my opinions at all, but the opinions of one of those "sophisticated" music critics who are always informing us what is wrong with what we like. While I genuinely don't care for "Beulah Land" or "Battle Hymn of the Republic," I have always liked "In the Garden." I don't know if it is good hymnody or bad hymnody or indifferent hymnody. It speaks to me. I don't find it mawkish and sentimental. I like it. And it took me a long time to shake off an opinion by someone I respected and considered better informed.

We should not be cowed into liking, disliking, or feeling any particular way about anything we encounter. Who are these arbiters of Good Taste--these paragons of understanding and purveyors of opinion? They are, just like us, people. They may have a better notion of what subjectively is considered "better music," that is all it amounts to.

I think back a a bit of ugliness that transpired when Jonathan Franzen demurred at being selected for Oprah's Bookclub because it was so middlebrow. Oh, what a vaunted opinion Mr. Franzen, or any person advancing such an opinion must have of themselves. In order to call anyone else middlebrow, you must perforce be seated on the throne of the highbrow. And where exactly is that situated? Where exactly do these paragons of taste find a place to call their own?

Who cares what anyone else thinks? If it is licit and it is pleasurable, enjoy it. Don't ever apologize when your opinion differs from those you respect. Don't ever feel that your taste is not good enough.

Fortunately, I have outgrown most of my prejudices--recently conquering a life-long aversion to country music, and just this afternoon unearthing an untruth I had taken as my own belief. Sometimes these things just slip in. I don't know how it happens, but it does.

And so to my few readers--never let my opinions, strongly expressed though they may be deprive you of rightful enjoyment of works of literature, music, film, or art. My opinion may differ. I have different information and experience influencing those opinions. There are things to which I simply do not have access--emotionally or intellectually. There are arguments I cannot hear and truths that I cannot bring myself, quite, to fully espouse, even if I recognize their truthfulness. These are the struggles of a lifetime. Do not allow what I say, or what anyone says, to add to your own array of struggles. It would be a shame.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 12:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 22, 2005

Metrosexual--You Just Can't Keep the Bullies Down

I despise labels.

I think I've made that clear before in entry after entry, but in case I haven't. . .

I despise labels.

Other than scientific names and nomenclatural assists, human beings most often use labels as offensive weapons. A label is simply a tag that then typifies everything about a person. A label in many ways serves the same function as a car surrounding a person. Once a person is in a car, it is no longer people we are dealing with but cars. We can weave in and out, cut others off and do the most amazing things that most of us would not consider doing outside of a car. But within a car we are insulated from humanity--our own and that of others. So too with labels--we insulate ourselves from the humanity they are presumed to define.

Those who take labels upon themselves do so for a myriad of reasons, but it does not lessen the onus of the label. When I am dealing with a communist, I am no longer dealing with a person but with a mass of ideology. That we so easily fall into the habit of labeling is a sign of intellectual laziness and of a certain desire to define ourselves outside of the label.

The most recent example of this is a label imposed by persons who are afraid of what deviates, even by a small amount, from supposed norms. I don't even know for certain what a "metrosexual" is. Seems to me that this is some variety of heterosexual who can now be despised for his or her supposed differences from all those around him or her. By my reading a metrosexual has a heterosexual's orientation with a "homosexual's" interests. Now, what precisely describes a homosexual's interests and why do they fall outside the realm of what a heterosexual man should be interested in? Can a heterosexual man read and enjoy Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, and the collected works of Angela Thirkell? Can he delight in the works of Gilbert and Sullivan and Cole Porter? Can he have any interest outside of his car, his toolbox, and the Sunday game? From my reading, it certainly doesn't seem like it. A metrosexual (whatever in the world that might be) is a man who is hardly a man at all (as defined by those, who I suppose think they know what a man is).

Metrosexual is another label, even more useless and damaging than others that have arisen. It is a label designed to narrowly circumscribe the interests that a fully heterosexual male might consider. What idiocy! As though because a label has arisen I intend to sit around all day watching Spike TV and CNN, drinking beer, and waiting for the next season (for whatever sport) to start.

I'll admit it. I despise competitive sports. Greater damage has been done to our society and to me personally in the name of competitve sports than nearly any other facet of our entertainment industry. Early on I swear I tried, but I could not fathom the interest in one group of men or another chasing around one form of spheroid or another to some end that didn't seem exactly earth-shattering. Nope--just don't see the attraction--haven't for a long time, probably never will. I don't despise and hate it as I once did--when those who were interested in these things used them as a bludgeon for those of us who were not conversant (thus my header).

I see the label metrosexual as a way of distinguishing where there should be no distinction. I do not self-identify as a metrosexual (fortunately, for one thing I don't dress nearly well enough, and my taste in Hawaiian shirts is enought o refute the label for life). Even if my fashion sense did not exclude me automatically, I would still refuse to accept a label such as this which is designed to set apart.

When will we learn that separate is never equal. A metrosexual, separated out from the heterosexual mass, will either be greater or lesser, as indeed a homosexual, distinguished from the general humanity of male sex will be regarded either as greater or lesser depending upon his surroundings. Why is this a necessary part of our interaction with one another? Why do we insist upon hurtful distinctions? How does it help us navigate society and serve the Lord? I don't recall the great saints spending their time telling each other, "Well so and so is a well-known metro." They even accepted and embraced the humanity of those who disfigurements and diseases had far removed them from the ordinary run of humanity.

Labels do not help us to grow in love. The finer the distinction, the greater the possibilities for thinking of reasons why we need not love the person as an image of God.

As with all labeling--I repudiate and reject it. The labeling disfigures us, dismantles us, makes us less than human. It serves no useful purpose except to breed prejudice and disregard. Think about it--what do you think of when someone says, "NASCAR fan" or "Country Music Fan" or "Marilyn Manson Fan" or "Barbara Streisand Fan." The words themselves conjure a reaction, usually gut-level. They breed a prejudice that alienates us from the humanity of the individual. All on the basis of what we like in the world of entertainment--hardly a significant criterion for judgment. And yet we are so anxious to feel good about ourselves that we seize on any label, any pretext for forming a difference that will somehow enhance our own status--most often at the cost of another's.

Reject labeling. In your Christian walk refuse to identify any person as anything other than a person--someone made in the image and likeness of God, someone loved beyond all bounds, without reservation, without qualification. Prepare yourself for heaven where all will be as they are without label or insignificant distinction. Make the kingdom of Heaven on Earth, by refusing to classify and pigeonhole God's most marvelous and wonderful creation.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:25 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

May 12, 2005

A Few Words on Intelligent Design

I am not a critic of Intelligent Design. When it comes right down to it, I generally accept the principles of intelligent design. But intelligent design is NOT science and if one buys intelligent design, one is accepting evolution. I find it odd that people should be such enthusiastic stompers of evolution (a scientific theory) and endorsers of intelligent design (a philosophical construct.)

Scientists who attack intelligent design as "not science" are not being entirely true to themselves. It would be equally valid to attack neo-darwinism. Neo-darwinism is the philosophical construct that grew up around Darwin's original proposal of evolutionary theory. While neodarwinism added some aspects to the theory as a whole (for example allopatric speciation), it also set on top of evolution an interpretive framework. Although the scientists using it would probably think of it as value neutral, it is not. Neo-darwinism assumes as its underpinning the absolute randomness of everything that happens in the natural world and in the mixing of genes. But absolute randomness is, in fact, an axiom, an expectation and it is improvable. Moreover, it is loaded with a philosophical bias that makes the theory including it untestable.

I think it is safe to say that those of us who are not creationists can buy the fact that through the distribution of genetic material animals change slowly over time. We know this is true because selective breeding gives us different kinds of dogs, cats, horses, and even drosophila. Now science can tell us that this gradual change is the result of a shift in the gene pool and science can propose reasons for the shift--allopatric speciation, island biogeography, temperature variation, "survival of the fittest," evolutionary morphospace and baupläne, etc. All of this so far is valid and scientifically testable. You can do experiments for a great many of these things and see if they cause genotype shifts in populations. What is untestable is that the mechanisms behind all of this are random. For example, when we do our experiments, we are using controlled conditions and the happenings are not at all random. The mixture of genes might be to some extent, but we cannot even say that for certain---brownian motion is not a truly random event--it is shown to be weakly deterministic.

Thus the assumption of randomness and unquideness is the philosophical bias that underpins science. Science is the pursuit of explanations of phenomena in the natural world apart from those factors that cannot be observed by science. In other words, science has an underlying "neutral" hypothesis that implicitly assumes atheism. The atheism is not antagonistic (in most cases) it is simply the condition required to try to determine what happens in the natural world. If scientists always had recourse to "the a miracle occurs" their explanations would amount to nothing.

Now, intelligent design comes along with various problems that have been observed before in evolutionary theory. For example, what good is half an eye? Gould proposed an odd little theory called exaption in which he proposed that an organ or body part that had previously served some other function is co-opted to become an eye or ear or something else. Now, as with a number of Gouldian notions, this is not a testable hypothesis it is a speculation. The same is true of his theory of contingency. Contingency is a marxist overlay employing Hegelian dialectical materialism to suggest that if everything did not occur precisely as it occurred in evolutionary history then we must perforce wind up at a different place in the present day. Such a speculation precludes scientific knowledge that the DNA of nearly all species is multiply redundant--that is there are a great many copies of genes that code for certain things that can be turned on and off by regulator genes. Right here we have a mechanism for redundancy. In Wonderful Life Gould speculates that if Pikaia had not assumed its place in the Cambrian Burgess pantheon then vertebrates would not have developed or would have been very, very different creatures. Perhaps. But how do you prove this scientifically? How do you experiment with it? What observational set can you propose that would isolate the appropriate factors and leave us with only the conditions required by Dr. Gould. In fact, there probably aren't any. Contingency is a philosophical speculation supported by a great deal of reasoning but no evidence whatsoever. It is the marxist class struggle imposed on the history of life.

I have demonstrated amply by this point that science has its share of nonscientific thinking. Intelligent Design is part and parcel of this. It is a philosophical lens through which to examine data. It sees what Behe calls "irreducible complexity" and leaps to the causal conclusion, "intelligent design." But it begs the question--we have labeled the thing irreducibly complex, but is it really, and is there some other mechanism to produce this. Obviously Behe does not think so, but Behe is also looking at it through a biased lens. I honestly don't know enough about the biochemical pathways that Behe speaks of to pronounce intelligently on the question of irreducible complexity, but others have suggested that the words themselves entail the bias of the philosophy.

Intelligent design is evolution in theistic garb. That's the first thing everyone should understand. They propose no new mechanisms, they basically accept the Darwinian lines of massive overproduction of offspring, natural struggles, development of species. What intelligent design does is it defies the implicit atheistic assumption of naturalist science and says that all of this is guided by a designer. Now, it may come as a big surprise to you, but this still implies that humans had ape-like ancestors (NOT as is so often stated humans evolved from chimps). The paradigm hasn't shifted. What has shifted is the philosophy through which the paradigm is interpreted. Now we have determinism laid on top of the natural world.

I happen to think that this is the correct explanation of things. God can cause through whatever mechanism He wishes any changes in the natural world. Knowing as He does His own rules and laws, He can easily cause to happen whatever needs to happen to lead to the end. What I reject is that proving this statement falls into the realm of science. It does not. It falls into the realm of religion, belief, and philosophy. God cannot be proven from these mechanisms. Because of its implicit bias, science can only be surprised by God, it cannot find Him in the data. Now, a scientist looking at the data may see God--that is the work of the Holy Spirit communicating through the data--but using that data to "prove" God is simply not viable.

The objection to intelligent design is not that it is bad science (although this is what scientists might tell you) it is that it contravenes a necessary assumption of science and the way science works to make a special exception for a sensitive case. The objection to intelligent design is that it is a philosophical assumption that poses as a theory. It offers nothing that evolution does not offer already. It is simply the theistic side of the coin. Atheists (Dawkins among them) argue that evolution proceeds in a random fashion (a point they cannot prove with any evidence whatsoever) and theists say that it proceeds by design. In either case the mechanism is as Darwin originally suggested--natural occurrences acting upon a population.

So, intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical construct. Evolution IS a scientific theory that must carefully be teased apart from a philosophical assumption of "no intervention." Proper teaching of evolution would require a very careful statement that we can assume nothing about how the mechanism proceeds. What appears random may be random but we cannot prove randomness. What we assume to be guided could be guided, but we can even less assume that.

Intelligent design is a philosophy attempting to disguise itself as a new scientific theory. It offers nothing in the way of evidence or proof of its propositions. It has discovered nothing new and it offers no insight that those of us who were believing Christians didn't have before its formal statement. Through my entire career as paleontologist, I believed and I still believe that everything that happens is guided and determined, watched over and supported by a God who cares and who has an end in mind. But I wouldn't dare propose this as a startlingly new theory of science or faith. Intelligent designers should have the intellectual honesty to examine their underpinnings and admit that what they are teaching is a philosophy--a different slant on the same data. Now, we can debate a different issue which is whether or not public schools should offer this understanding as a philosophical alternative to neo-darwinism; however, that is an entirely different issue and one that requires different "rules of engagement." For the time being I merely wanted to make clear what intelligent design is and what it is not. It is a philosophical construct, it is NOT a scientific theory that can be acted on according to the rules of science. That is why most scientists object to it. How do you disprove "then a miracle occurs?" It is entirely possible that just our use of terms--"irreducible complexity"--presents a barrier to other hypotheses and explanations for those who embrace the terminology.

We need to keep in mind Gödel's theorem, which reduced to a non-mathematical statement boils down to--within any given closed system there are propositions that can be made that cannot be proven using the axioms of the system. Intelligent design is one of these (as is atheistic evolution) neither is provable under the rules of order for scientific investigation.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:18 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

April 15, 2005

Contra Contraception--The State of Illinois

A link at Mere Comments (the Touchstone blog) sent to me by my good friend Tom. Those of you in the state of Illinois, in a position to do the most good--please respond. The rest of us, please pray. Daily, it seems, there is some new assault on the right to practice our faith as we see fit. This is simply another, more egregious, more obvious problem.

Moreover, we need to pray for this Bishop, brave enough to directly accost the powers and principalities that dominate our present society. Here is a man who has heard John Paul the Great's teaching and has responded with the best possible tribute to our Holy Father. For that, we should be thankful.

Pope John Paul the Great, pray for us. Through your intercession, continue the work you started in your life among us. May we all be blessed by your continued heavenly support and may we someday come to walk within a culture of life. Amen.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 23, 2005

The Danger of the "Rogue Judiciary" Concept

To start with, and to make emphatically clear, I do not condone, excuse, or offer any quarter to the judges who have made the decisions that have thus far condemned Ms. Schiavo. As Dickens says at the beginning of A Christmas Carol, "You must understand this for without it there would be no story."

However, there is a serious danger in lilmiting the blame to the individual judges. That they are morally culpable for their decisions cannot be doubted. Nevertheless, the fact that several judges now have arrived at the same conclusions leads us to a more frightening possibility. If these judges are judging fairly, on the merits, and by the rule-of-law (I don't stand capable of judging these issues), then the law by which they are guided to their decisions is seriously, indeed dangerously flawed. In this sense the actions of the Florida legislature are required immediately to remedy the flaw in the law.

I suspect part of this flaw may have to do with the medical and legal definition of life-support. As countless people have already pointed out, being forced to breathe and pump blood under the aegis of a machine constitutes extraordinary measures. Providing food, while technically life support, is hardly extraordinary. What may be happening in the law is a failure to distinguish between these two methods.

Ms. Schiavo's plight is a wake-up call for all of us. Some take it to mean that we must be explicit in our durable power-of-attorneys or living wills. I take it to mean that we must begin to redefine and truly understand what extraordinary measures are. There may be circumstances under which withholding food MIGHT be moral--I am not enough of an ethicist to understand every possibility. But when we are speaking of a living, functioning human being who happens to be operating at less than their former capacity, there is absolutely no question of the immorality of removing ordinary means of maintaining life.

The courts do not care about morality. They care, rightfully, about the law. That three sets of courts can find no merit in the arguments surrounding Ms. Schiavo must be our tip-off that something is seriously amiss in the legal system. Believe me, I am no friend of the judiciary--however, I think the focus must be on changing flawed laws to assure that future decisions are made in favor of sustaining life whenever there is any doubt as to the person's wishes. We cannot err by sustaining life and allowing God to make the decision as to when and where and how a person will join Him; however, when we take it upon ourselves to pretend to know this, we are in moral jeopardy, and for those who know better, in possible jeopardy of soul. A judge who knows the morality or immorality of the law is not likely to be able to hide behind the excuse of "I was just following orders" when called to account for his or her actions.

As concerned citizens, we must heed this wakeup call as we continue to pray for Ms. Schiavo. We must work quickly and in concert to move our legislatures toward laws that make sense and are compassionate and pro-life. The danger of focusing solely on the individual decisions is that we may not eradicate the root of the problem--bad law and bad legal definitions and understandings. The judges may be in the wrong morally, but the calamity is they may be in the right legally. If so, we must work as each is able to assure that such a thing as this never happens to another family.

Mr. Appleby, who neither endorsed nor approved the message above, does ask that we make everyone aware of his message with which I am in complete agreement. The immediate necessity is to pray, call and work to save Ms. Schiavo--but in the longer term, we must band together to prevent a recurrence of this nightmarish evil.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:14 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Hannah Arendt and "the Banality of Evil"

from "Evil: The Crime against Humanity"
Jerome Kohn, Director, Hannah Arendt Center, New School University

There are ways in which Eichmann in Jerusalem recalls the last sections of The Origins of Totalitarianism, but there are also important respects in which it differs. Arendt laid considerable emphasis on these differences in a number of letters. To Mary McCarthy she mentioned three of them. She wrote first that she no longer believed in "holes of oblivion" because "there are simply too many people in the world to make oblivion possible." Secondly, she realized that "Eichmann was much less influenced by ideology" than she would have assumed before attending the trial. What had become clear to her was that "extermination per se" did not depend on ideology. Thirdly, and this was by far the most important difference, the phrase banality of evil "stands in contrast to . . . 'radical evil.'" This last distinction is developed in more detail in a letter to Gershom Scholem (see letter to Scholem, July 24, 1963). There she wrote: "It is indeed my opinion now that evil is never 'radical,' that it is only extreme." "Thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated." That there is nothing in evil for thought to latch onto is what Arendt meant by the banality of evil. Not the murderous deeds but the evildoer she faced in Jerusalem and the massiveness of the evil he inflicted on the world are banal in that sense.4 The realization that the most extreme evil has no meaning that the human mind can reveal, that it is not only senseless in its own terms but meaningless in any terms, was momentous; to say the least it afforded Arendt relief from a burden she had borne for many years.

[complete source here]

I have no great philosophical mind. I do not always understand things written in the way they are intended. But what I derive from this brief discussion is that evil has no deep roots and no intrinsic sense because it is, in a sense, utterly alien from what we are. That is, we are created good, only good can be radical because it stems from the depth of our being in God. Evil, which subverts these depths, which starts in a place outside the ground of our being, can have no depth and can ultimately make no sense.

The phrase "banality of evil" was used to descirbe Adolf Eichmann as he faced trial in Jerusalem. He was an accountant of death, dealing merely in numbers. Free from passion, simply exercising his functions within the legal system of his time.

Eichmann's example occurred to me as I considered the plight of the police officers who are standing guard over Terri Schiavo. There are still people who are willing to do evil and prevent good as a matter of course. Perhaps they do not understand the evil they do--I pray it is so. But if they are aware of it and do it anyway, they have entered the realm of senselessness. While their moral culpability may not be sinful, nevertheless, it should give us all pause to consider how we cooperate with this same evil and accept the shallow, the rootless, the invasive. And unfortunately, it seems, there is no end to the people who are willing to enter the realm of the senseless. Even if every officer present today were to quit, there would a cadre of others to replace them. This is not to say anything about police. Were the police to leave, there would be a cadre of misguided "compassionate souls" who would be willing to preside over her execution. (The same souls, I might add, who are aghast at the barbarity implicit in Scott Peterson's possible demise--after twenty to thirty years of appeals. I echo their concerns, but see the terrible compassion that leads to the gas chambers.)

The real danger of what we face here is outlined by Arendt's discovery in a trial in Jerusalem.

[source as above]

Perhaps the most provocative aspect of Eichmann in Jerusalem is its study of human conscience. The court's refusal to consider seriously the question of Eichmann's conscience resulted in its failure to confront what Arendt called "the central moral, legal, and political phenomena of our century." The Israeli judges understood conscience traditionally as the voice of God or lumen naturale, speaking or shining in every human soul, telling or illuminating the difference between right and wrong, and this simply did not apply in the case of Eichmann. Eichmann had a conscience, and it seems to have "functioned in the expected way" for a few weeks after he became engaged in the transport of Jews, and then, when he heard no voice saying Thou shalt not kill but on the contrary every voice saying Thou shalt kill, "it began to function the other way around." (see Eichmann in Jerusalem, chapter 6) And this was by no means true only for Eichmann. Arendt was convinced by testimony presented at the trial that a general "moral collapse" had been experienced throughout Europe, from which even respected members of the Jewish leadership were not exempt.5 (see Eichmann in Jerusalem, chapter 7)

The systemic danger we face from this single case is far greater than we might imagine. It is the sound of the torrent that turns us from Thou shalt not to Thou shalt. Too many mistake the law for what is morally right--the reason of the law replaces the light of God and conscience. Indeed, in a society where religion is sidelined, it is possible that what is legal becomes the definition of what is moral.

Ms Schiavo's case is not over, and I pray it has a better end than seems possible now. But if it does not, I think we need to recall Donne's prescient understanding, "Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Two Views of the Law

Aristotle wrote, "The law is reason free from passion."

Modern society accepts, "The law is agenda free from reason."

The law cannot but fail us if it is reason free from compassion, and it has once agin failed us in the defense of life. However, one can no longer argue that the unfortunate, indeed evil, result of Ms. Schiavo's case is a single person's point of view. Too many sources have reviewed and uphelf it. I do not know the law, but it appears that all who do seem to think things were conducted as they should be. This suggests that there is something malign and dangerous about the law as it presently stands. Hence, the law must change.

I also do not know where God's will lay in this matter or what, ultimately, may happen to Ms. Schiavo. What I do know, is that no matter what the outcome, legislators must continue to fashion laws that will protect the innocent and the ignorant. Casual statements cannot be taken as the source of our ultimate disposition. I am surprised that the law allows hearsay without considering hearsay on the opposite side. The law must find in favor of the spouse, but when there is serious disagreement over a person's wishes AND that person cannot be consulted, the law should be forced to decide in favor of life--particularly when the measures used to support that life are merely the provision of sustenance.

If a mother withheld food from her child until it died, the law would, at a minimum charge her with neglect and abuse. Unless a person categorically states that they would waive right to nutrition, how can we presume otherwise? How does this case differ?

Judges should be forced in such cases to witness the results of their decisions. Law may be reason free from passion, but it should not be reason free of compassion. And compassion is not cultivated in the courtroom.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 9, 2005

Hooray for Mel!

Our Senator from Florida is trying to intervene for Terri at a Federal Level--Praise God and keep praying.

See here

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Reminder for the Tone-Deaf

There is a new, and uncommonly tone-deaf "inclusive" translation of the Bible, that does once again great harm to God's word and even greater harm to the English language. Those who cannot hear its dissonances (how in the world can you take the concrete "Kingdom" and turn it into "reign" and think that you have not done violence to the meaning?) are merely too enamored of their own agendas to recognize the damage they do to scripture and to language. Of them John Donne wrote the first four lines of this:

from "UPON THE TRANSLATION OF THE PSALMS BY SIR PHILIP SIDNEY, AND THE COUNTESS OF PEMBROKE, HIS SISTER." John Donne

ETERNAL God�for whom who ever dare
Seek new expressions, do the circle square,
And thrust into straight corners of poor wit
Thee, who art cornerless and infinite�
I would but bless Thy name, not name Thee now
�And Thy gifts are as infinite as Thou�
Fix we our praises therefore on this one,
That, as thy blessed Spirit fell upon
These Psalms' first author in a cloven tongue
�For 'twas a double power by which he sung
The highest matter in the noblest form�
So thou hast cleft that Spirit, to perform
That work again, and shed it here, upon
Two, by their bloods, and by Thy Spirit one ;
A brother and a sister, made by Thee
The organ, where Thou art the harmony.

Modern translations seek to accommodate modern sensibilities, to update, renovate, and refresh what is ever new. There is a word for this--presumption.

Inclusivity need not be hideous, nor need it be so obsequious as to find fault in the word Kingdom. The Kingdom of Great Britain is ruled by a Queen--the word in itself has no gender, but the foolish rive it and find fault. (Rather like women and wymmin--or however it is "neutered.") It is also foolish to take the concrete "kingdom" and turn it into the nebulous "reign." A plot of land becomes a piece of time. This is not a matter of inclusivity--rather it is a paean to obfuscation and a grand example of what Orwell inveighed against in Politics and the English Language. This should be required reading for all who presume to improve upon past translations--they should be certain that what they do is actually an improvement, not merely an agenda. Inclusivity is NOT the issue, where the original lacks any sex or gender referent, so the modern can convey; however, it should do so gracefully, and not in a way that rends the fabric of language and meaning. Too few seem to understand the violence they do.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:33 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

March 2, 2005

The Ten Commandments Controversy

Is anyone else of the opinion that we would do well to return to the text of the constitution and examine what it says rather than continue in our merry way of ignorance. Today the Supreme Court will hear two cases regarding the display of the 10 commandments and whether that violates the so-called "separation of Church and State."

The text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Explicitly it is congress that shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It seems very clear that this text refers explilcitly to congress requiring any group of people to worship in a way contrary to their conscience.

Note that the first amendment does not in any way preclude congress from festooning their chambers with texts from the Bible, statues of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, or paitning cherubs on the ceiling. It does not say what may happen within the individual states (though I will accept that it is logical and reasonable to assume that the several states would also not make laws regarding the establishment of religion.)

However, what the consitution DOES NOT prohibit is any display of religious identity at all. There is no word regarding opening prayers, or art, or speeches, or any other aspect of religion. It does not say that Congress shall keep the law completely separate from religion and shall not be influenced thereby.

Our modern doctrine is an egregious misrepresentation of what the Constitution says. There is nothring whatsoever about an individual's display of the Ten Commandments, nor even about the government's dispaly thereof. One of the argument for the removal of all relgious articfacts is that it makes an "uncomfortable" environment for those who do not worship as the majority does. We are to preserve a space of comfort for the minority opinion. But my question continues to be, why must the majority be put out to accommodate the minority in ever case. I would derive a great deal of comfort from the thought that the law was derived from and seasoned by the Law of God.

This is one of those cases in which the most appropriate response to whatever the ruling may be is Andrew Jackson's famous, "Mr. Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it." Because, in fact, while congress has made no such laws, the Courts has inundated us with restrictions and hedgings to such an extent that it is not possible in some schools to read and report on the Bible. If this isn't a "law" restricting religion, I don't know what it constitutes. And it did not come from congress, but from the courts.

It is really long past time that we should take back what is our own from the courts. We have had too much taken from us and I would encourage Texans to petition their governor, regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court's rulings on this case to keep the monument on the Statehouse lawn. It is ridiculous that our lives have become overrun by an oligarchy that seems bent upon recreating society in its own image. In the sixty years of the Roosevelt dominated courts, the tone of society has so far degraded that we look nothing like what we once did. In some ways these changes have been very good. It is good to see that people of color are more accepted than was once the case. (There's always the exceptions.) However, for the most part the insistence upon extreme secularization of society has been a detrimental influence on society and on individual behavior. It is time as a society to tell the Supremes to get off their high horse and get back on track. They are not the law of the land, nor were they ever intended to be. They were to interpret that law, not formulate new law. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in a great many years and we all suffer for it.

May God be merciful unto us though we do not deserve it and may He spare us from further depradations of the Court.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:06 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

February 27, 2005

My Note To Judge Greer

Informed and inspired by Smockmomma's actions, below is the transcript of my remarks to Judge Greer--may the Good Lord lead him in right paths for His name's sake.

Dear Judge Greer,

Sometimes I think in the routine of day-to-day operation we forget some of the profound truths that influence and shape our lives. You are in the privileged position of having led a life dedicated to the legal system of our great country and now you are faced with a terrible decision. Logic dictates that if no written record exists and two parties disagree on an issue the better solution to the entire problem lies in a decision that is not irrevocable.

More, it seems that a legal system is erected first and foremost as a bulwark against the depredations of the strong against the weak. The first rule of law is to be the defense of the defenseless against those who would unjustly use them. This necessitates your intervention in the case of Ms. Schiavo. She has people willing to care for her. She responds to voices and is obviously engaged. It would be a disaster of the first water for our legal system to determine that it would be allowable for someone to say she cannot be fed. That way opens the door to horrors we dare not contemplate. A new-born child cannot feed him or herself, would it be all right to withhold food on the basis that they cannot care for themselves or they are not aware of the world around them in the same way we are?

I know that the law is not necessarily compassionate. But those who administer the law must be. The greater error here would be to take away what cannot be restored. Please do not let Florida once again be the leader in the paths of infamy. Please allow Ms. Schiavo's mother and father to take her home and care for her. Please don't sentence her to a slow, agonizing death by starvation.

Please remember that the law was made to serve us, not we to serve the law--it is not implacable, remorseless, nor immovable and it is time to decide in favor of life, compassion, and hope.

Here is the place where you can take your own appropriate action. In this time of waiting, please write--frequently if necessary. Make it your Lenten bond of justice.

Thanks Smock!

Posted by Steven Riddle at 2:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 23, 2005

Terri--Keep Praying!

Is Judge Greer coming to his senses? Let us pray!

CLEARWATER, Fla. - A judge Wednesday extended a stay keeping brain-damaged Terri Schiavo's feeding tube in place, saying he needed time to decide whether her husband, who wants to let her die, is fit to be her guardian.

Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer extended until Friday an emergency stay that was to expire Wednesday afternoon. He said he also needs more time to determine whether Terri Schiavo needs more medical tests to determine if she has greater mental capabilities than previously thought.

And this note:

Meanwhile, the Florida Department of Children & Families moved to intervene in the legal battle over the life of the severely brain-damaged woman. Details of the agency's involvement in the case were not immediately available. Greer denied a DCF attorney an opportunity to speak at the afternoon hearing.

The DCF involvement came hours after Gov. Jeb Bush told reporters he was seeking a means to intervene in the case.

George Felos, who represents Terri Schiavo's husband criticized the DCF move, saying it "reeks of the intervention of politics into the case and is an affront to the court."

I don't know if Terri's site has been slashdotted, has a DDOS, or is simply reflecting the outpouring of concern. Here is the notice from the site about today's ruling.

The Schindler family are encouraged at the outcome of today's hearing before Judge Greer and are overwhelmed at the public outpouring of care and concern being shown to them and their daughter, Terri Schiavo.

The Schindler family also welcomes the involvement of Florida's Department of Children and Families (the state's health and human services agency) in their investigation into serious and detailed allegations of abuse and to ensure that appropriate care and treatment of Terri and patients like her is being delivered.

We ask that you please continue to think and pray for them and for Judge Greer as he takes this matter under advisement. Terri's life and the lives of many disabled, elderly and vulnerable people in Florida hang in the balance.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 22, 2005

For Terri

Barring a miracle, today is the date scheduled for the destruction of an innocent human being at the whim of another. Please pray for her and for God's will in this whole matter. Also, if you can choke the words out (and it is very difficult) please try to pray for her misguided and outright pernicious husband/guardian, who in pursuit of some other "good" has decided to destroy this poor woman.

Those who are more knowledgable, help us work toward an end in which this outcome is not possible. I don't understand a court system that allows an execution when the facts are not clear. I don't even understand the personal motivations of Judges and Lawyers who could think of supporting this horrific act. May God have mercy on them and on us.

I now understand Jesus weeping for Jerusalem in a way I wish I never had experienced. We are so lost as a society and we don't even know it. If ever there were a time for civil disobedience and the showing of some Gubenatorial spine, this is it. After all, what's to lose--you defend an innocent woman in your last term as governor. Yes, I know we're hoping for a White House run here, but what is the balance of powers for if not to thwart the tyranny of one or another group?

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 21, 2005

More on NASCAR

Throughout the book St. Dale the point is made of how most people regard fans of NASCAR. It seems that NASCAR gives those who are interested in hockey, soccer, and rugby someone to look down upon as rubes, rednecks, and somehow less than creditable.

I've thought a lot about this and it strikes me as absurd that people who can extol the virtues of jumping on a lump of pigskin, or striking a horsehide (I know, no longer) ball with a stick of ash would have the audacity to look down on anything.

Personally, I have no time or interest in any of it--it all strikes me as a form of bread and circuses with which I can readily dispense--I've too many time-wasters in my life anyway. But, I cannot fault those who enjoy these things. And in some ways I would love to be able to emulate them. I would have so much more to discuss with other "normal" men whose thoughts seem to channel in one of several ruts (pun intended). But it does provide ready entrance into the society of men in some circles, and I do not have that.

I also don't regard NASCAR racing as a sport as such (which is not intended as a criticism and may reveal only my ignorance of the matter). It may require great endurance--it does require great skill. (Think about being in a perpetual traffic jam at between 90 and 180 mph.) It apparently requires a great deal of knowledge and strategy--I'm astounded by some of the things that racers appear to consider. NASCAR racing doesn't seem to be a sport, but it is a contest--a legitimate one.

So were I to undertake to examine contests including atheletic sports and car racing for their virtues, I tend to think I might find more to admire in the skill and knowledge of a racer than in two teams of people who use each other as crash-test dummies.

Consider this just a plea for those inclined to look down upon others for what they enjoy to look first in the mirror and see what you enjoy boiled down to its essentials. I don't claim to have any great understanding of any sport or contest and I often wish I did. But I admire the enthusiasm of those who do participate--I find it refreshing and oddly, another way of encountering God. In truly allying yourself with a team or with a contest or with a person you live in that moment and in a sense abandon yourself to the joy that God has opened for you. Sports have the great value of what Disputations is inclined to call eutrepalia. I don't get it, but I rejoice in those who do. I only ask them to look kindly upon the enthusiasms of others.

(I guess my "sport" of choice ranks close to dead last in everyone's estimation of the worthwhile. But where else can you see water as blue as God's eye and people balanced on the edge of eternity, falling, falling, falling so gracefully, so perfectly, so evenly into the wide blue water.)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:45 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

February 16, 2005

Shakespeare Does Psalm 8

To honor Ms. Schiavo and the Terri Schiavo blogburst:*

from "Hamlet" Act II scene 2
William Shakespeare

I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

"The beauty of the world--the paragon of animals." How horribly appropriate in the savagery surrounding this innocent woman and those who wish her dead--that these two should be juxtaposed. For people can indeed be the paragon of animals in both the positive, and in this case the negative sense. How much more an animal must one be to stoop to the slaughter of those least able to defend themselves. May God have mercy on them and deliver Terri from their "tender" care.

I am with you in spirit (those in Tampa) though I didn't hear about the gatherings until too late to manage a day off. My prayers are with those who gather in her defense.

*A note of clarification from Hyscience--Visit hyscience blog and search for Terri Schiavo Blogburst to find the script to add to your blog, etc. E-mail hyscience at scienceblog@3oaks.com once you have it added or if you have any questions. It's time to burst the blogosphere for Terri! Ultimate goal? Getting her out of the hands of those trying to murder her and back on the road to her recovery in the care of her parents/siblings/etc. and those who love and want to help her.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:15 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 14, 2005

Interfering Courts

Once again the courts have overstepped in and pushed the secularist agenda.

here

A federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia, has ruled that a suburban county school district's textbook stickers referring to evolution as "a theory not a fact" are unconstitutional.

Now, I'm not in favor of these stickers, nor do I think it particularly helpful to muddy the waters about what the word "theory" means in science. Nevertheless, to put a sticker on a textbook that says something is a theory not a fact is not governmental support of religion. If the government said, "Evolution is wrong, God created all in seven days," then you would have a case. However, they did not. They said merely what is NOT usually said in textbooks--the theory should be critically evaluated on its own merits. They did not propose what the alternative might be to evolution nor did they encourage children to believe whatever alternative there might be.

Once again the courts are pushing the limits--suggesting that any demurral from the empiricists is a suggestion of religion. In other words, Science has become the state religion and to dissent from it in any way is now unconstitutional. This is sheer nonsense. To start with the establishment clause is invoked as the gag order is enforced and once again we look at the establishment clause which states specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Now it seems to me that a school board posting a sticker is hardly congress (that's the first point). The second point is the second half of the clause which the court in fact violates. By removing this sticker, they are in fact establishing a religion and violating the free exercise of one already established.

Since when is a school board Congress? What happened to the idea that whatever rights were not granted the centralized federal government belonged to the states themselves. Will a sticker on a textbook lead to rampant theocracy and a subversion of the imagined separation between church and state? Hardly. Might it lead to subversion of free religious practice? No, because it already abrogates free religious practice.

I don't know what to do about activist courts. But if I were on the school board in that county, I would simply say with Andrew Jackson (with whom I disagree as to application) "Mr. Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it." Are you going to send in police to confiscate textbooks and remove the stickers? The time has long since come when small acts of civil disobedience in defying the idiotic courts are in order. The activist judiciary needs to be defied right and left until they start interpreting law and cease making it. And their interpretation of that law should be confined to what is written, not what has been invented since FDR deconstructed the courts in the 1940s.

Okay, I'm over it. I don't agree with the message of the stickers. I think it is misleading and misrepresenting how science works and what science is. Nevertheless, I don't see the court stepping in to correct every ill-considered action of a school board. They need to keep their noses out of community affairs and learn what the word "interpretation" means. Interpretation does not equal reinvention.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:52 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 29, 2004

Revisiting CE and BCE

It's odd the way things come in cycles and this week I've had my attention focused on this issue twice. The first time was with Sr. Malone's book (reviewed below). The second was as I was writing a reflection of this scripture from St. John:

"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.
He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. " (John 1: 10-11)

Of this passage I wrote:

. . . historians have started to use a dating system that dates everything B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) because the Latin phrase "Anno Domini" or A.D., the Year of the Lord, is "not sufficiently inclusive." What could be more inclusive than salvation for all who believe in Him? What could possibly be more inclusive that honoring Him who created all.

(The text above reflects the edits suggested by the editor and accepted by me.)

What I originally wrote may vanish because it is probably not well-conducive to serene reflection; however the editor of the column wrote to me and here, in a slightly altered version, is what I replied:

My point was, of course to emphasize the phrase "And the world knew Him not." That's the world we live in today perhpas even more so than the world of Jesus. At that time, the transmittal of news was limited to caravan and personal communication--it was at leasat understandable. In today's world it is more like an enforced amnesia--more like "We knew Him, but we're trying our best to forget Him."

I should emphasize that I do not wish not to criticize those who find themselves in academia and for the sake of academic survival must accept the system imposed upon them. What I want to point out is that it is not a "value-neutral" inclusive act. That is--it is not as though this action has no ramifications. There is great harm done when Jesus Christ is excised from historical memory by academic fiat in the name of some illusory "inclusiveness." If the dating system still dates from the traditional A.D. (even if the calculation was originally wrong) then we are still saying (no matter what the letters we use) that the history of the world was so altered by this event that we begin our dating there. Were we really to try to place a value-neutral date for beginning our chronology, it would have to be something like the date of the Shang scapulomancy fragments (earliest written language), or perhpas if all were amenable the establishment of the Sumerian civilization. And, perhaps, if academia is to have its way, we will see that proposition in the near future. If so, I suspect that it will be confined to the rarified atmosphere of the ivory tower. I would suggest that the usages BC and BCE also be confined by popular demand to the post-modernist Christ-amnesiac academic establishment. Those of us outside it should make every effort to remember Jesus even in so small a thing as two letters after a date.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:03 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

December 27, 2004

On Tsunami Detection

This morning I heard on NPR that the "Ring of Fire" (basically the Pacific Ocean Basin) is peppered with little buoys that can detect the presence of a Tsunami hours before it makes landfall. In most cases, this would probably be enough time to escape the shoreline and preserve life and limb.

This is not true of the Indian Ocean, although, NPR implied, after this disaster it soon would be. And my thought on the matter was--and then the rich who had access to the mediate and the means to get away would do so and the poor would be left behind to suffer just as they do now. In reality, the poor take the brunt of any disaster--they are disproportionately affected by such things because they lack the means to find out and the means to do anything at all about it even if they do find out. And I wonder what can be done. I suppose that what can be done must be done on a person by person basis. That is, those of us who have are responsible in some measure for those who have not. If I am fleeing to the mountains and my car can hold more than me, perhaps it is incumbent upon me to bring those who cannot so flee.

It is a problem without any easily recognized solution, but it strikes me that there should be something more we can do than stand ready to mop-up afterwards. And when I speak of we, I don't necessarily refer to a corporate body, but to individuals who have the means to make a difference.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 24, 2004

Speaking of Schism

One really must hand it to Episcopalian Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia. Recently he was quoted as saying that when it comes to a choice between heresy and schism, one should always choose heresy. In fact, whether we like it or not, one must at least respect the integrity of those who are in schism. Why would you want to hang around a Church that didn't have a handle on the truth as far as you were concerned? Why would you wish to consent to heresy--to secure integrity? Well, you might be integral in one sense (unified) but unified in error that condemns all. Why can't the leaders of Churches see and understand this? It is quite a sobering spectacle to see a Bishop condoning, indeed, for the sake of unity, encouraging, heresy. Thank goodness tonight we celebrate Him who makes all things One.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 5, 2004

Trying Very Hard to Turn Off the Judgment

In Mass today we had a visiting Priest who gave a stirring and wonderful homily directly in tune both with advent and with the Eucharistic Year. While he was speaking to us the woman directly in front of us spent the majority of the homily talking, albeit quietly into her cell phone. Has she no sense of priorities? Is she unaware of what her example teaches the three children she was with? If it were an emergency, why not take it outside the Church?

I don't know the nature or the meaning of the conversation; however, I will be praying especially hard for this woman and for her three children.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:29 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

November 23, 2004

Iraq--An Irony

I'm sorry so little posting of recent date. Hope that it will pick up shortly. Today just a moment for this short note.

I heard that some Sunni Clerics are calling for a boycott of forthcoming elections in Iraq. I don't suppose they stopped for a moment to consider that now they can call for such a boycott without consequences. What would have happened in the days of the Ba'athist regime had a similar call taken place against the pseudo-elections of Saddam and Ba'ath?

But being involved in it they cannot objectively see--blilnd hatred has indeed made them blind and they cannot know how far they have come in little more than a year.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 19, 2004

JCecil3 Called It Early On

Whatever one might conclude from Mr. JCecil3s varius arguments about Kerry, he hit the nail right on the head so far as the dedication to pro-life of the present administration. It strikes me as window-dressing. If they stand idly by and allow Arlen Specter to chair the judiciary committee, we are very close to "all is for nought." Specter, as you know, has as much as promised that there will be a pro-abortion litmus test for Supreme Court Judges. Under those circumstances, doesn't much matter what the rhetoric was all about. It appears that the republican dedication to the pro-life cause is a public face. It ends once the family begins its conversation.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:13 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

A Pro-Life Democrat

I'm cautiously optimistic.

With all of the "bad news"--the Spectre of Specter and such like--the elevation of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to the seat of Senate Minority Leader vacated by Tom Daschle sounds like wonderfully good news. He sounds like fiscal democrat (we can debate the merits of that elsewhere) but a social republican. NPR reported that he is pro-life (what that means in their parlance might require some investigation) and anti-gun-control (not one of my favorite positions). But if Mr. Reid can begin to work with Republicans on some of these issues we might be in a very good place on life issues.

He did say that he didn't think much of the elevation of Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice, but that he would be much more sanguine about Scalia. I'm not keen on Scalia since he announced himself a better interpreter of Church doctrine than our current pope. But from what I've seen of his decisions, they seem well-reasoned and usually on "our" side.

Anyway, it's wait and see time.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 18, 2004

This Morning's Rant Courtesy of Judy Blume

I heard the remarkably vacuous remarks of the recipient of National Book Award distinguished Contributions to Arts and Letters. "I never dreamed my books would be the object of censorship."

How idiotic, how robotic, can one set of remarks get? Judy Blume has never been censored. No government agency has ever prevented the pressing of ink to paper in her name (though heaven knows, arts and letters would be better off had one done so.) Judy Blume has been the object of boycotts. Well-deserved completely self-earned boycotts. It is the solemn responsibility of all parent to carefully patrol and circumscribe the reading of their children. It is a necessary function of protecting childhood innocence and of nurturing one's child with the appropriate set of values and ideals.

Censorship is a government prohibition of the distribution of material. And don't get me wrong, I am not at all certain that I oppose all censorship. I don't think the news should be able to report details of murders or lavish loving attention of the lives of serial killers while said serial killers are fighting their convictions. Censorship comes from a government agency with the power to repress--and I do think that some "expressions" are imminently worthy of repression. The problem becomes, of course, who decides what those might be--but that's an argument for another day.

Judy Blume's books have been taken off the shelf because she is a substandard hack writer (some of her very early works are pretty good) who peddles adolescent smut under the guise of talking about "real issues of the day." Parent have told schools to remove these books from the library. It is not the school that has taken it upon itself to remove the works--but the pressure of boycotts. This is not censorship--this is the free market in action. If your ideas are repugnant to the free market, then expect that they will be rejected. Go get yourself published by a vanity press and stand on the street corners distributing your work. It isn't censorship.

Nor is the rejection of sacrilege, blasphemy, and other sundry invasions of personal space perpetrated by talentless people whose sole ambition is to produce enough "shock" to make their half-brained "works-of-art" worth purchasing.

Let's get it straight--censorship stems from authority. If a press refuses to print your book because it won't sell, if people refuse to buy it and even protest it because it is trash--that is not censorship. If the government says that it may not be printed--you've been censored and under our current federal guidelines you have a right to complain.

But I've said it more the once and will say it again in the future. Any person may have the right to freedom of expression (whatever that means) under our constitution. No one has a right to an audience

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 6, 2004

Publishing Politics

You know, every time I write about politics, I just become more confused about the whole point. I really think Jeff Culbreath, the Amish, and the Mennonites have a really keen idea.

However, until I live in a separated community, I really don't have much choice but to participate. Or is that true? The Church teaches that it is a moral obligation to work within the system, and yet I cannot but wonder if it isn't at times a moral obligation to turn your back on a system that consistently fails you.

The withdrawal from the affairs of politics offers harmony, peace, and good-living without extensive argumentation on either side. I do not have to support someone engage in dubious battle, and even less someone who would countencance the slaughter of the innocents.

Well, what is a blog for but thinking aloud? I think I'll return to things my mind was made for--literature and spiritual writing. I am always distressed in writing even remotely about politics and while I try to persuade myself that I have no convictions, what i actually discover is a mass of self contradictory convictions on which no reasonable person, let alone party, could build a platform for living. Better just to travel the gospel way.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 5, 2004

A Personal Note--On Church Teaching

In light of yesterday's post "Mixed Feelings," I felt it important to make certain provisional statements.

My personal credo, whether I acknowledge it or not, is "Always question authority." It turns out to have been how I have lived my life. This goes for Church teaching as well as anything else.

But my questioning of authority does not start with an automatic bias against authority. The questioning of authority is more about elucidation that it is about rebellion. "Why should that be the way things are?" is an important question to me.

As a result, I often struggle to come to terms reconciling personal experience with Church teaching in certain areas. One of these is the subject of homosexuality and homosexual expression of love. While I do not necessarily by the "genetic predisposition" argument, I also do not completely by the "matter of choice argument." It appears in the characterization of the upbringing of a great many homosexual men there are similar elements. These environmental factors appear to shape as irreconcilably as genetics. That is not to say that there is no alternative; however, it does mean that alternative paths are extremely difficult to take and people being the fallen creatures that they are, it is exceedingly easy to step off the straight and narrow. It is this fact, among others, that makes reconciling Church teaching with appropriate attitude extremely difficult. Compassion tends to overwhelm and reason tends to take a back seat. If I truly believe such conduct is a sin (and I do) then real compassion would dictate that I would confront it in the same manner as I would any sin. However, for some reason, perhaps because of past experience and wide acquaintance with the homosexual community, this is very, very difficult.

So, this is a very long-winded way of saying, please understand that I am not trying to say that the Church is wrong or that the Church should change its teaching to accommodate me. I am only saying that it will take a while for me to internalize and truly accommodate Church teaching. I will need to strike a balance between recognizing and reproving the sin and welcoming the sinner. In the meantime, I'll let the heart struggle and I will be true to the feelings of it. They may be wrong (in this case, my reason grants that they are wrong) but trying to wrestle them into line with reason never works anyway, so I'll let them be and continue to have mixed feelings even as I recognize that those feelings stem from misplaced compassion. Better misplaced compassion than misplaced anger--compassion can at least usually be persuaded to do what is really best for a person--anger is much more difficult to reason with.

So thanks to all who have responded so far. And to those who were uncertain of what I intended by the post yesterday--it was merely an expression of feeling. It was not intended to cast doubt on present or past Church teaching or to call into question the wisdom of the Church. But I do think it salutary to share the difficulties one has encountering the teaching as well as the triumphs. Most of us struggle with one point of doctrine or another somewhere along the line. It's okay to struggle so long as we always hold in mind that long-held, traditional teaching of the Church is always correct. The teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium bears the same seal of infallibility that the teaching ex cathedra does. I know that and I am thankful for that above a great many other wonderful things the church offers. The guidance is clear on the matter. I have a lighthouse and I have the various tugboats of St. Blogs that will assure that I do not find myself wrecked in the shoals. My thanks to God for His Church, and to all of you who heed His word and help those who struggle (myself included) find their ways.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:46 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 4, 2004

Mixed Feelings

I rejoice in the fact that 11 states voted to recognize the traditional, sacramental definition of marriage. It is likely that there will be a great deal of legal wrangling over this, but the people have spoken unequivocally on the matter.

I am a good deal more conflicted over the fact that 8 of these states apparently also voted to outlaw gay civil unions. I suppose the matter is merely semantic. At least in my mind that is how I have drawn the boundaries--marriage is between a man and a woman--a union recognized both by the Church and by Law. But a civil union? Why should I oppose the legal recognition of a long-term relationship.

Why, for example, should it be possible for a spouse to inherit with or without a will in most states the estate of a spouse upon the demise of the spouse, but such cannot happen without a will in place for persons of the same sex.

I see justice-of-the-peace marriages as simply a legal recognition of a bond between people. While I may be required to insist that such a bond cannot and does not exist sacramentally, what sense does it make to say that it does not exist legally?

I think the bishops have said that we should certainly fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage. And I suppose one could reasonably make the slippery slope argument with regard to the legalization of civil unions. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the heart is entrained in the strict line of reason. In this case, for me, it is not. Yes, I regard homosexual practice as a sin, but is it not possible for the homosexually attracted to live in a committed, non-sexual relationship? I suppose the temptation is always present, but temptation is not sin, and it is, frankly, none of my business and certainly not within my purview to regulate it.

In this case I will say, "The heart has its reasons that reason cannot know." I don't know why I am saddened by this turn of events, but I am. I feel that in some sense justice has been denied even while truth has been reaffirmed in the main statement.

So, I rejoice in the 11 states that have defined marriage traditionally, but I am saddened that the two issues seem to be one in at least eight of those states.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:35 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 3, 2004

Two Things I Hope All Democrats Learned

Although, they tend to turn a deaf ear to these causes.

(1) I heard on NPR that the number 1 issue above all others in the majority of states was Moral Decline. (Not that I think Bush is particularly an exemplar of moral stability.) But of those who stated that morality was an issue 80% of them voted for Bush. Thought provoking numbers.

(2) Again from NPR, Kerry's strongest showing was in young people. I forget the age range, but something like 24-29. The NPR commentator's statement was, "But there just weren't enough of them to carry the day." Well, as someone else pointed out (and I wish I could remember the article) these are the consequences of aborting your constituency. If the 1.2 million people who might have been born each of those 5 years were voting, perhaps there would have been enough to make a difference.

I certainly hope the Democratic party begins to wake up. [Before: Republican economic policies simply do not reflect Catholic social justice teachings no matter what they may claim to the contrary.] [Amended: because Ell is right in intent] Republican policies that have been enacted have not evinced any particular interest in a "preferential option for the poor" or support for the underprivileged or disenfranchised. This seems less in tune with Catholic Social Justice than does the RHETORIC of the Democratic party. However, if you do not have a constituency because you have killed all of your children, there can be no social justice at all. As it stands, Life is the ultimate social justice issue and on that alone, the Republican party still holds the upper hand. I don't know what it will take for this to sink in for democrats, but I hope they can learn not to ignore the vast red heartland that cries out for morality and justice in government.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:37 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 2, 2004

If I Never See Another "Rolling Roadblock". . .

. . . it will be too soon.

Those of you who live in states that were "already decided" should heave a great sigh of relief. Over the past five days, I've received more than forty automated "informational" calls for George Bush, John Kerry, and a plethora of others supporting Bush or Kerry, and then one or two for Sheriff, Dogcatcher, Soil Conservator, Groups supporting one or another constitutional amendments.

Traffic has been meesed up one way or the other nearly every day since last week with huge rolling roadblocks that parade the candidates from one place to another.

I will be glad at the end of this day regardless of outcome. We have to live with it anyway, so we simply pray for the best and move on.

I was, of course, outraged that Kerry attended Mass here in Orlando this morning and presumably received communion (on the other hand, I would have to admit that refusal at this point amounts to political grandstanding and really bad judgment.) But I'm appalled at the gall of the man continuing to flout the Church's teachings and presenting himself--he ought to be ashamed of himself.

All I can hope is that we do not repeat the election of 1800. This has been the most polarizing election to date and the divisions become deeper and more injurious with each passing day. Whoever wins, I plead with the other side saying, "Relent and learn to live with what God has wrought. Heal the division and stop the partisanship that is so relentlessly destructive."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 1, 2004

El Dia del Muerte

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that this year's elections shall be held on the Day of the Dead? I think the only other more appropriate election day might have been in the "intercalary days" of the Mayan Calendar. Those 5 doomed days between the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 25, 2004

More on Posting Less

It turns out that I am not posting less, just less original stuff. And I got myself to thinking, "Why is this particular election so very difficult?"

I think I find two reasons--one is greater maturity on my part, the other is the essential intractability of facts and reason. The first of these--I am more aware of what my faith requires. I am also more aware (largely from being in the blogosphere) of what the Church teaches--which points are negotiable and which ones are not. Greater information leads to less comfort in some cases.

The second reason is by far the more difficult. There are a number of questions that must be answered in the course of this election that admit of no easy resolution. Probably the greatest of these for me is the question of whether or not the war in Iraq is a "just war." Being doubtful of the theory of just war at all, I find myself at a disadvantage in this determination. But a secondary question does arise. Assume it is not a just war--was it unjust from intent or unjust from misunderstanding. That is, did the president entering it knowing that he would not find what he claimed to be the reason for it. I don't know the answer to this question, so I will assume in his favor. Thus we have by the postulates given an unjust war entered into with the idea that is was somehow just. Does ignorance provide enough of a "shield" as it were?

Notice that there is not question at all about Mr. Kerry. There need not be. He has two major strikes against him, as well as a myriad others. Bad enough is the fact that the man would out-Herod Herod in his desire to push an utterly evil agenda to its furthest extent. But worse yet is that this man then teaches a mostly ignorant public that his own stand is compatible with Catholic Church teaching. Both of these are crimes against humanity in a fundamental way. There is no excuse that can be given for Mr. Kerry on either count. As a public figure, he is, de facto a teacher about what the Church IS in reality. Many people look at him and see a "Catholic in good standing." Now, I suspect that many of us harbor notions that may not be completely reflective of Church teaching. For my own part, those ideas that I hold, I hold largely in ignorance, or I hold them, in battle. For example, above I questioned the validity of the notion of a "just war." I don't know what standing this has in Catholic teaching--doctrine, dogma, opinion, somewhere in between these things. But I fight with it--I push against it. I do this in full knowledge that when I have done so before, I have been shown to be wrong in short order, I expect to be shown so now. However, there can be no question about the Church's teaching on abortion and life matters. As such, there is no wiggle room. There is one truth the Church teaches that admits of no variance.

Hence, I struggle with the question of whether or not I face two more or less equally immoral candidates. Engaging in an immoral war (question 1) with full knowledge (question 2) is unquestionably immoral. The difficulty is that there is no chart to show me, no quantifiable data. I have a mass of the opinions, informed and otherwise, of other Catholics. I am grateful for this data, but it is insufficient to determine the reality to the degree that would allow me to vote comfortably.

Here in Florida, we can vote before election day. Given the "irregularities" already "observed" in such voting, perhaps I would do well to hie me to a voting place and cast my ballot. Perhaps it will be invalidated, challenged, or litigated over. Then, at least for the president, it would little matter how I voted. (Sorry guys, I don't buy the statistical argument that one vote doesn't matter. It does, to the person making the vote and to the integrity of the fabric of democracy. Whether or not it affects the outcome of the election we can debate--I believe it does and that it matters.)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:54 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 22, 2004

The Hideous Machinery of Death

Our corrupt and duplicitous legal system once again fails to protect the innocent. I do not understand why, when there is any doubt whatsoever about a person's wishes, actions like this can be enforced. See here for the details.

And a special thanks to Mr. Appleby and to all others who have been and continue to be advocates for those whom our society and legal system would destroy out of hand. Each step toward death makes the future a little less bright. I sure hope Samuel really likes me as well as loves me.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 20, 2004

On Stem Cell Research

This gentleman says all that I would say, have tried to say, and have to day on the matter. It's so wonderful when someone obviates the need for my own work.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

To Be Completely Fair

to both St. Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics (contra another comment at Disputations) I quote:

One of the favorite things to ridicule is the supposed debate among the Scholastics on the question of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". Apparently, however, none of them put things in exactly these terms, as those concerned to rescue the reputations of Aquinas and the others are anxious to emphasize. The Scholastics could have very reasonably focused on this funny question, however, for it does concentrate several of their points of dispute, including whether "angels" have a corporeal (bodily) or merely spiritual existence.

And in fact, some of the Scholastics, such as Aquinas, did dance quite close to the precise question, as this little taste from his "Summa Theologiae" shows:

Q. 52, a. 3 - "Whether Several Angels Can Be At The Same Time In the Same Place? There are not two angels in the same place. The reason for this is because it is impossible for two complete causes to be immediately the causes of one and the same thing. This is evident in every class of causes. For there is one proximate form of one thing, and there is one proximate mover, although there may be several remote movers. Nor can it be objected that several individuals may row a boat, since no one of them is a perfect mover, because no one man's strength is sufficient for moving the boat; the fact is rather that all together are as one mover, in so far as their united powers all combine in producing the one movement. Hence, since the angel is said to be in one place by the fact that his power touches the place immediately by way of a perfect container, as was said (Q. 52, a. 1) there can be but one angel in one place."

The original source in its entirety.

That said, I will point out that even the point made here by Aquinas has vanishingly little relevance to how we are to conduct ourselves as Christians, and that is the point of the mockery "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" In a sense that study becomes so abstruse that it becomes disconnected from the reality of living and hence, useless.

That said, the questions about angels comprise a minute portion of the Oeuvre produced by St. Thomas Aquinas. While some of the other questions may have similar small relevance, there can be no denial of the immediate importance of the vast majority of his work. There are probably many "hobbies" of Saints to which we could take exception were we so inclined. I don't see how speculations about angels are out of order in the enormity of the serious and focused work done.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:44 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Thinkers Think about Doctrine and Practice

The contributors to Maverick Philosopher think so hard it makes my head hurt. Sample this brief discussion of Doctrine and Practice. Then continue on down to read assessments of PoMo deconstructionists and other delectable philosophical tidbits. I can't claim to grasp all that is going on there, but it makes for some highly entertaining reading at times.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 14, 2004

On the Debates

One of the great, wonderful things about being a Catholic loyal to the magisterium (as much as I understand it) is that it makes completely unnecessary any attention to this year's debates whatsoever. Nothing Mr. Kerry could say, not matter how prolix (on the one hand) or oratorically grand (on the other) can redeem his stance on the slaughter of the innocents. Nothing Mr. Bush has to say will eradicate his past and present record.

I had long ago concluded that no matter how I might like some social policies, it would be impossible for me to vote for John Kerry. As the issues I am concerned about are not going to be discussed in the course of the debate, or at least not resolved, that makes listening to the debates an exercise in redundancy. It little matters who "won." My only trial is to consider the candidate remaining to me and to decide where conscience really leads after serious consideration of all sides of the issue.

It is not an easy matter (the difficult part of being a Catholic loyal to the magisterium (as much as I understand it). However, the debates have not played in my house nor have I amused myself with the sound bites and recaps, which, being extracted by a media biased against our incumbent, would never show him in a good light anyway. So once again, the truth has set me free!

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 13, 2004

"Cheer Up and Vote"

Mentioned by TSO in a comment at Disputations, this article by Benjamin Wiker at Crisis. Excerpt below:

We won�t be judged, then, on how we would have acted if things had been perfect, nor even on how we would have acted if things had been better. We will be judged on how we acted in the midst of the actual imperfection into which we were born and under which we lived. More accurately, recalling that sins are also committed by omission, we will be judged on how we did not act, as well as on how we did. If we wait to vote until we have a candidate of the intellectual and moral caliber of Abraham Lincoln, then we will be responsible for the repeated election of a rogue�s gallery of presidents during our repeated sins of omission.

(Let us put aside the question of the moral caliber of Lincoln for a moment--which is a matter of some lengthy debate.) What is astounding in the excerpt above is its lack of recognition that refusal to vote is NOT inaction, it is action at its very highest. Refusal of moral compromise is the most important action we can take.

I won't comment on the political state at the moment, nor on my own view of what should and should not be done. However, not voting is rather like refusal to move when blocking the doors of an abortion clilnic. You get yourself thrown in jail, reviled and hated by the media, branded a fanatic, and ultimately probably don't change even a single mind that day--but that steadfast refusal is a witness to a societal evil so profound that even if you witness accomplishes nothing else it is a testament of the courage that accompanies refusal of moral compromise--it charges the world with a greater good. I read Mr. Wiker's article and it suggests that moral compromise is perfectly acceptable, that we must make do with what we have. And I think the unwillingness of many to do so is a sign of the times. Many may feel that it is the continuous chain of "making do" with what we have before us that has led us to this debacle.

I find the suggestion that we should lower our principles to vote for what is morally repugnant distressing. But I am in all likelihood mischaracterizing a small portion of what I read. This is simply what stuck in the craw. Don't take this critique to mean that Mr. Wiker said these things--just consider it the exaggeration caused by the aftertaste of reading.

Elections like this one make Erik's authoritarian tendencies look positively appealing. But I would refer to the first of the Dylan Thomas poems I posted yesterday and encourage everyone who is of the moral conviction that it would wrong to vote for either candidate--"Do not go gentle into that good night" of compromise and complacency. Democracy has its failings, but one of its virtues is that no one is compelled to support evil. Rather than compromise, it is time to start raising up morally acceptable candidates. And by that I don't mean morally perfect, but those who strive with all that is in them to walk the right path. It may be that one of the present candidates fits that bill for many readers, and for those readers it is not only right, but it is mandatory that they support this candidate. However, it may well be that it is not the case. If so, don't relax moral vigilance. Most of all, do not expect from the government what it is incumbent upon us as Christians and as the light of Christ to deliver to the world. Justice does not come from a system (witness Terri Schiavo.) It comes only with the blood of martyrs and the work of the chosen.

All that said, as much as I disagree with what I read in Mr. Wiker, I think what he has to say is well said and should be carefully considered by every person who thinks that they cannot (morally) vote for a candidate this election. Perhaps his arguments will give you cause to change your minds.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:21 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 12, 2004

Who Mourns for Derrida?*

Courtesy of a friend: here

a brief excerpt:

But even if deconstruction cannot be defined, it can be described. For one thing, deconstruction comes with a lifetime guarantee to render discussion of any subject completely unintelligible. It does this by linguistic subterfuge. One of the central slogans of deconstruction is il n'y a pas de hors-texte, i.e., "there is nothing outside the text." (It sounds better in French.) In other words, deconstruction is an updated version of nominalism, the view that the meanings of words are completely arbitrary and that, at bottom, reality is unknowable.

Jacques Derrida along with Paul de Man gave us the systematic undermining of modern morality and respect for the truth. And then there is this lovely little piece of filth to deal with:

Stock in deconstruction has sagged a bit in recent years. There are basically two reasons for this. The first has to do with the late Paul de Man, the Belgian-born Yale professor of comparative literature. In addition to being one of the most prominent practitioners of deconstruction, Mr. de Man--as was revealed in the late 1980s--was an enthusiastic contributor to Nazi newspapers during World War II.

That discovery, and above all the flood of obscurantist mendacity disgorged by the deconstructionist brotherhood--not least by Mr. Derrida, who was himself Jewish--to exonerate Mr. de Man, cast a permanent shadow over deconstruction's status as a supposed instrument of intellectual liberation.

Sorry I've quoted so much, but atheistic existentialism (in fact most existentialism) and postmodernism are two hobby horses I would like to ride to death and bury them shallowly so that the more worthy vermin may pick their bones. They have done more to destroy the fabric of culture and society than anyone or anything except perhaps Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists.

May Mr. Derrida rest in peace, I pray ardently for the repose of his soul, despite the damage he may have wrought on culture in general. But may his work crumble and be consigned to the dimmest lit, mustiest, and moldiest back shelves of the library of culture along with Deism and other worthy contenders for philosophies just short of insanity. The foulness of this philosophy taints even sterlling members of the Saint Blogs' community who are accustomed to talkling about "victimization" and the "need for emancipation from the hegemony." Those who tremble in rage at the pale penile patriarchy and who go out of their way to give me inclusive language that is yet a further assault on the ears and intellect. The reach is vast--may it be eradicated. I pray never to hear another word about the "imperialism of ideas" or about the "lesbian phallus." Yes, all of these things are courtesy of Mr. Derrida and his merry androgynes et al.

* Not that Derrida in any manner compares--but the source:

Adonais: An Elegy on the Death of John Keats

Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)

XLVII

� � � � ������Who mourns for Adonais? Oh, come forth,
� � � � ������Fond wretch! and know thyself and him aright.
� � � � ������Clasp with thy panting soul the pendulous Earth;
� � � � ������As from a centre, dart thy spirit's light
� � � � ������Beyond all worlds, until its spacious might
� � � � ������Satiate the void circumference: then shrink
� � � � ������Even to a point within our day and night;
� � � � ������And keep thy heart light lest it make thee sink
� � � � �When hope has kindled hope, and lur'd thee to the brink.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:07 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 11, 2004

Single Issue Voting

TSO linked to Touchstone which supplied this:

A recent convert to Orthodoxy wrote in response to Orthodox Confusion and Clarity: "I have been accused of being a 'single-issue voter,' but I firmly believe that a politician's stand on abortion and the sanctity of life can predict that politician's other values and is an indicator of how that State Rep. or Senator will vote or how that President will lead."

And while I agree with the conclusion, I find the pathway there much easier. Without life, there is no other issue. Everything is moot if there is no life.

This space was filled with vacuous maunderings on about political matters, but now has been replaced with this nondescript filler. I will leave it to others to talk in a more informed fashion about political issues. No one needs to be bothered with my diatribe again.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:53 AM | TrackBack

October 5, 2004

On My Political Views

It will come as a great relief to you that while I drafted an exceedingly long screed with regard to my political opinions, I have concluded that no one really needs to be bothered with them at all. You've heard enough from me about this, and it is October, too glorious to be further sullied by my meandering tortuous political musings. So, as I have granted you this reprieve, I think you should all return the favor by indulging in either fifteen minutes with the KJV (or other appropriately beautiful translation--Douay Rheims, RSV, etc.) or a similar amount of time with the 1662 BCP.

Later I note after the fact that TSO has also foresworn some degree of political blogging. Tant pis! (and yes, those are false cognates and you should get your mind out of the gutter). He fears he may alienate the 2.5 progressives who occasionally drop by to visit. I don't know where I fall in that mysterious political spectrum having few defined opinions on issues outside of "life." But no amount of political haranguing would ever alienate me from so pleasant a conversational grotto. So, TSO, I say, blog away. If it poses a near occasion of sin, avoid it but otherwise, say what's on your mind and Vive la differerance (opinionwise of course--see above comment about gutters.)!

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 30, 2004

Why I Should NOT Post on Ms. Schiavo's Plight

First, and worst, it causes me to oversteep my green tea. Five minutes yesterday, seven this morning. As the tea is a green masala that tends to make it somewhat bitter--color the mood for the entire day.

Second, it gives me a distinctly negative impression of some parts of the legal profession who defend everything by the letter of the law and not by the spirit of justice. Unquestioning obedience to precedent is no better than those who stood by and let Jews be carted off in trains during the reign of Nazi Germany. The law needs to be more greatly concerned about justice and less concerned about its own rules and regulations. Yes, I know to some extent they serve hand in hand, but I also know that when one person dies because of the refusal of the law to look at anything beyond their narrow rules, the law has failed us.

Third, it makes me think ill of the people who have brought this plague to us. I try hard to pray for Michael Schiavo. It become progressively more difficult. I cannot fathom why he doesn't use the same legal system to work out an iron-clad contract to remand Terri to the custody of her parents while retaining control of the money that remains from her own settlement. Surely if the law can sentence an innocent person to death, it can find a way to justify this much more minor crime as well.

Fourth, it saddens me and takes away some measure of the peace I seek in God. I don't know why it does as this does not influence me personally and I do not know the family. But somehow, this one issue has captivated me and I must push one calling attention to the travesty of justice that is acted out in executing a woman who had the temerity to fall ill--even persistently ill.

Fifth, I'm afraid it gives me ample opportunity to display my profound ignorance about any number of things (the law included). However, I suppose I'd rather be ignorant and morally right, than fully informed and morally wrong. (Although ideally, I could be fully informed and morally right--that isn't going to happen here because I don't care to come close enough to the law to be that informed. It strikes me that some aspects of the law likely have a contaminating effect on one's life and you must be made of sterner stuff than I am to resist this pull. Thus, my profound admiration for lawyers who follow St. Thomas More and can at once practice law as it is meant to be practiced and maintain a reasoned and reasonable Christian view of the world.)

That's it. I pray for Ms. Schiavo, for her husband, for the warped legal system that allows this travesty to continue, and for the people of the United States that they will wake up and see this for what it is--one more inroad upon the sanctity of Life disguising itself as a civil liberty. God have mercy on us all, undeserving though we are.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:59 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 25, 2004

On Terri Schiavo

A statement from Life Matters on Terri Schiavo, along with the family's statement.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:41 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 23, 2004

No Wonder Jeanne Was Kept So Long in the Offing

The Florida Supreme court has declared itself God once again.

I do not believe that God causes natural disasters in punishment for human sins. But I find myself persuaded that this expected, but nevertheless vile abomination and the forecast of Jeanne sweeping up the entire coast, does have a certain element of poetic justice to it. I just hate to be in the middle of the stanza.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 12:06 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

September 22, 2004

On Crisis--Reconsidered

A few weeks ago I announced that for reasons of my own I was considering letting my subscription to Crisis lapse. It was prior to the revelation of the scandal.

Now the scandal has broken and it has added fuel to the fire of thought.

And the vitriol noted by TSO in various places about blogdom has spurred me to reconsider. I might not read it at all. I may just donate it to my Parish Church (which seems desperately in need of some enlightenment.) But Mr. Hudson's exemplary conduct in the face of a revelation that should have remained a private matter, has inspired me. I do not know all of the details. I know what I read from Mr. Hudson, and while I suppose it was necessary given the public nature of the revelation, even that was too much for me. However, it was what he chose to do. And in my estimation, he chose correctly. We are all sinners. He owes me no apology. The persons deserving an apology long-ago received one--he owed me nothing except a visit to the confessional, which I will believe he did as a matter of course. I have no claim to anything from Mr. Hudson. But his courage is inspirational.

So even if I don't read the magazine, I will probably renew my subscription as a way of saying thank you for a Christian witness in a world sadly lacking in such.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:18 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 16, 2004

A Modest Proposal

Following on the strategy of those who "support women's rights" in properly staging our propaganda, I modestly propose renaming the group.

Pro-abortion suggests something positive. The pro-abortion group has caught on to this and their journalists commonly label pro-life people "anti-choice." This is a very strong piece of subtle propaganda and very well delivered. Anti- carries with it an enormous onus, and when one is anti-choice, well. . .

Perhaps, then, following the leads of our confrères in this regard we should consider a more appropriate, more astringent label for those who "support women's rights" while depriving the unborn of all, even life itself. Perhaps a more appropriate name for the ardent pro-abortionist pack would be "Anti-life." In this manner we may use the appropriate censuring tone, while stating our own displeasure and disapproval of being labeled. If we cannot choose our own label and have it respected, perhaps the same courtesy should be offered the opposing camp. And as regards the child in the womb, anti-life is nothing short of true.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:33 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

August 17, 2004

The Plight of the Florida Homeowner

For a long while after Andrew, it was difficult to be insured in Florida. The state more or less forced insurance companies to insure new homeowners. However, the state continued to make concessions to the insurance company to the tune of the present calamity. While it is estimated that there was something on the order of $15 billion in damages caused by the hurricane, $10 billion will have to be paid by the individual homeowners.

It is right a poper for the insured to bear some part of the burden of so great a disaster. What strikes me as a bit unfair is that the state has a disaster fund into which insurance companies may dip if their pay-out goes over a certain amount, but to which homeowners have no access. Thus the average homeowner has anywhere from a 2% to a 5% of the cost of the house deductible. For many, this is insupportable.

But there doesn't really seem to be any other way to deal with the enormous costs that occur in the wake of such a disaster.

Traveling through Orlando, I found myself occasionally gasping at the extent of damage possible from what amounted to a Category 1 storm. I saw brick fences that had been "blown out" (not fallen on by trees). Signal lights that had been torn from their moorings. (And boy are those lights big. You don't realize how large a signal lamp is as it hangs up above, but down on the ground, I was shocked at how large it seems.

I may try to go and photograph some of the local damage during the day today and will post a picture or two. In the meantime, you might want to look at this report (see the section titled "Picturing Charley's Wake) as you continue your prayers.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:21 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 9, 2004

Once Again the Church Is Persecuted at Tyburn

Via Amanda, This delightful tidbit about how the Church is once again under persecution at Tyburn. There is a time for the aggressive pursuit of the rights of the oppressed and a time to have some sense of what this will entail to small groups and businesses. It is a pyrrhic victory if for lack of a ramp a shrine is lost.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:43 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 8, 2004

Why I Am No Longer a Jeffersonian

See this delightful piece of reasoning, with all the moral astuteness of "To make omelettes you must break a few eggs."

from Founding Brothers
Joseph Ellis

[Excerpts from letters to Coxe and William Short]

"The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the contest [the French Revolution]" he observed in 1793, "and was ever such a prize wond with so little blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed I would rather have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and Eve left ine very country, and left free, it would be better than it is now."

[A later comment by Ellis]

But Jefferson was the kind of man who could have passed a lie-detector test confirming his integrity, believing as he did that the supreme significance of his larger cause rendered convention distinctions between truth and falsehood superfluous.

Along with his questionable actions in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, his conduct toward his slaves, etc., I'm finding myself hard-pressed to work up much respect for Jefferson these days. That will change as the data change. But for the time being, I think Jefferson. . . Clinton. . . Jefferson. . . Clinton. . . The latter certainly had an appropriate middle name, did he not?

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 7, 2004

Personally Opposed--Part II

As noted below I was looking for the life of George Wythe, a prominent Virginia Lawyer, teacher of Thomas Jefferson, Signer of the Declaration. In all of the noted biographies of the man we get a statement like the one that follows.

Reflecting a lifelong aversion to slavery, Wythe emancipated his slaves in his will. His grave is in the yard of St. John's Episcopal Church in Richmond.

And every time I read something like this, I think--"If the aversion had been so lifelong, why did he endure it until he died?" Why not choose to put an end to what you have been so aversive toward? It lies within the power of the individual farmer/planter to do so.

This was part of the problem of slavery. I think it must have been rather like an addiction. People knew it was bad, but they just couldn't shake it. Most of the famous people who liberated their slaves, protesting how bad slavery was all the while, did so upon their deaths. In George Washington's case, I believe it was in waves, one set upon his death, the remainder upon Martha's death.

Or perhaps they devised ingenious arguments about why it would be harmful to the slaves themselves to liberate them. For example, Thomas Jefferson, despite the vaulted language of the Declaration with its famous excised clauses concerning slavery, not only kept his slaves until his death but did not manumit them upon death because "they did not have sufficient learning to care for themselves and must be cared for."

Like the addiction of slavery before, we are societal, and some individually, addicted to death. We call it choice, or "death with dignity" or any number of other euphemisms to disguise that what we really want is convenience. If someone is inconvenient to me and to my purposes, they should die and make things easy for me. Again, the attraction of such an addiction is understandable. And as with slavery, society has all sorts of clever reasons as to why it should be permissable. It boils down to the fact that we need death on demand to fulfill our own purposes. (I'm speaking societally.)

There is a cure for this addiction as for any number of addictions. His name is Jesus Christ. He died on the cross so that we would not have to bear the cross of our addictions. Nor should anyone else be faced with that terrible fate because He took it upon Himself.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:51 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 5, 2004

On Crisis

I have decided to let my subscription to Crisis Magazine lapse. There are many things that go into this decision. (1) I have an unfortunate propensity for packratism. Once it enters the house it may never again leave. If it weren't for the fact that I have a six year old about I would probably be one of those people you read about that have narrow tunnels winding through their house between piles of books and papers. (2) Generally I read the reviews, some letters, and one or two columns. All of which are enormously entertaining, but hardly worth the money. (3) I've decided, quite arbitrarily, that it is constitutionally bad on my psyche to be reading a magazine that every months announces to me that I and all I hold dear are in Crisis. That may well be. However, I don't feel particularly in Crisis. I see the bad things around me and recognize them for what they are but when Jesus promised that the church He would build would be such that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it," I made an assumption that the reason for that is because of Him and not because of me running about worried about the latest Crisis.

All of that said, I must recommend both the erudition and the depth of the articles in Crisis. For those whose moods and attitudes tend not to be so easily swayed as my own, it is a wonderful periodical and I have enjoyed much of it for the last five or six years. And here's really the final reason. More and more recently, I find the Deal Hudson, who edits and contributes to the magazine, seems to criticize every motion the Bishops take. While there is undoubtedly much to criticize and we do need watchdogs and people willing to sound the alarms, I have grown tired of the constant barrage of intimations that the bishops don't know what their doing. Perhaps this is more prominent in the e-newsletter, and perhaps it is simply a mistaken impression on my own part; however, I find this perception dismaying and not conducive to increasing my faith life. I fear I may have grown past the place where Crisis Magazine was a help to belief to a place where it may be distracting or delaying further progress.

So all of these conditions come together and I must make an evaluation about how to spend my money. For the price of crisis I could buy two or three really fine books about Carmelite Spirituality, or other aspects of contemplative prayer. It seems better to pursue this course.

Now, talking out of the other face, I do recommend to you all attention to and purchase of one of the finest Catholic Periodicals out there. Crisis along with First Things and sometimes Touchstone (most particularly when our own Mr. Luse is present) present a high point in Catholic journalism and commentary. I almost regret my decision, but I think it a good one for my present state in life. Perhaps there will come a time when the magazine will again hold a place of importance in my reflections on life in the Church. My real hope is that I can attain to the state of our own Ms. Knapp and Mr. Disputations who both espouse an ideal of what it means to be Catholic that I should take to heart--Crisis or no crisis.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:21 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Why I'm Not Green

TSO makes an interesting point in this post regarding the need for balance. He suggests that some of us might benefit from a swift kick of cynicism while others would do well to inhale the gentling spirit of the "Resurrection People."

For some reason it brought to mind one of several reasons I'm not out and out green. Apart from the pro-abortion platform, my chief difficulty with the green party is the somewhat naive belief in the perfectability of humankind. TSO comments that the "Resurrection People" tend to have forgotten the importance of fallen human nature in much that surrounds us. If the resurrection people have forgotten it, the green party never knew it.

Much of the green platform is as idealist as I was at 17. And that is, perhaps, a very, very good thing. Young people probably should be idealistic because it is on the bare shreds of that idealism that the ski their way into the cold territory of advanced maturity.

However, I can't position myself to vote for a neo-Rousseauian political philopsophy that denies the fact that some people will simply choose to do wrong and that not everyone is interested in seeing that all people do well and have sufficient means to support a decent standard of living. (And by that I don't mean to accuse any group--and not any identifiable single individuals. Suffice to say that I know from personal experience that there are some people whose very existence is made better by knowing that there is an underclass than can be oppressed at will.) There are some people who simply do not will good for themselves or for anyone else. To predicate a philosophy on a utopian vision of everyone giving up excess and surrendering their benefits for the sake of the poor is idealist, but not particularly leadership material.

To continue on TSO's point however--I like the presence of extremists at both ends of the spectrum. (While I may not care at all for the extremists themselves or for the bulk of their philosophy.) Extremists tend to keep ideas flowing and surfacing--sometimes very good ideas. Anti WTO groups are good to remind us that while globalization has the great potential for good, misuse, abuse, and lack of policing is likely only to lead to further oppression.

Extremist views are rarely rational on all fronts, but there is within some of the extremes the germ of something worthwhile. Sometimes an idea is transferred from the very fringe to the heart (for example--Slavery is immoral and evil--this wasn't mainstream thought at all). And that transference redounds to the good of all. So while I prefer to stay somewhere in the middle with no pronounced views on much of anything other than issues of life (I frankly don't know enough to decide whose economic policy is best), I do appreciate hearing from the sidelines--hearing from those who are aware that power can be abused in any number of ways. Sometimes these far-flung views help us to more carefully identify a personal "political center."

Later clarification: I don't seem to be able to say quite what I mean on this issue, so I'll try again. Extremist notions should probably never be embraced, but they should be considered, modified, and adopted if they have merit. I could never embrace the entirety of the PETA philosophy. And yet some of what they have to say has considerable merit and should be taken out of it radicalist framework, adopted, and set as a goal for the entire community. (I frankly haven't found any merit in groups whose extremism is related to hatred. This is one of those times when I thank God for the freedom of speech and assembly so I can readily identify who I want to avoid and pray for in the future.)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:44 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 4, 2004

Personally Opposed

How mysteriously familiar the following may sound. Certain key words have been deleted in the interest of articulating the profound similiarities:

When urged. . . to support the . . . petitions in the House, [he] responded, "Altho I feel the force of many of your remarks, I can not embrace the idea to which they lead." When pressed to explain the dispcrepancy bewteen his hypothetical position and his actual dedication to self-imposed paralysis, he tended to offer several different anasers. Sometimes it was a matter of his . . . constituents: "Those from whom I derive my public station," he explained, "are know by me to be greatly interested in that species of property, and to view the matter in that light."

All through you knew that it wasn't the person who speaks today. But who is the speaker?

The excerpt comes from Joseph Ellis's magnificent study Founding Brothers (p. 113-114 in the trade paperback edition) and the speaker is James Madison. Of course, the subject is slavery.

When Madison and his generation refused to deal with the problem of slavery they simply left a pot on to boil. That pot would eventually erupt into one of the saddest and most divisive struggles in the history of our nation--a war that lasted a little over four years, but the implications and emanations of which survive until the present day.

For those that argue that it is legitimate to allow evil to continue to exist in deference to a majority opinion or out of service to one's constituents, this should provide lesson enough on where that path leads. When such fundamental moral conflicts simmer, the end result is either what we know to be right, or the potential for a great deal more wrong.

Our present debate may take as long to erupt, it may never erupt in this fashion; however, it does tear at the fabric of society.

For those who argue that we should not pass laws that impose our own vision of morality on others, I think it's important to point out that nearly all laws impose someone's vision of morality upon us. If we do not struggle to try to keep that line clearly defined, the laws that will pass will land us in the same world as people in the Netherlands now face. We start with euthanasia upon request and we end with euthanasia at the request of another. A variant of the slippery slide argument I realize.

However, support of a candidate who supports what is unquestionably a moral evil derived from an immoral license tends to dull our senses to what is truly evil. To say that we will vote for so and so and then work to change this stand is like so many women who move from one abusive relationship to another. In each they have great hope for changing the person they knew when they entered the relationship. The sad reality is that it happens all too seldom.

It is unlikely that we will change either the people or the parties that back them. Many have already said, and I agree, that the only recourse is not to participate in one of those two parties, but either to find some other party that represents our interests or start a party that would do so.

The problem with this last suggestion is that given the diversity of opinion just within St. Blogs on any number of non-religious issues, what would be the unifying principle other than pro-life? Perhaps that is enough. But is Pro-life also pro-gun-control? Is it economically conservative or liberal? Is there a prefential option for the poor or "medical spending accounts" as a solution to the problem of no health insurance? What is the face of pro-life once you move beyond that issue? Is that issue in itself enough to form a party? Would the internicine divisions allow it to be effective in any way?

I think the issue is strong enough to form a party. But would it end up being like the Women's Christian Temperance League? Would it work toward an end that society ultimately could not tolerate for one reason or another? Would this one issue group push us toward the new version of the nineteenth and twenty first(?) amendments?

I don't know the answer. But it all comes back to the rhetoric that has been with us since the beginning. "Personally, I find it morally repugnant; however, who am I to force my morality upon others?" Leadership is more than making laws, it is showing the way to live. If you don't feel qualified to speak on moral points and to point the way for a people lost in themselves, then perhaps you should consider another profession.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 2, 2004

Who Shows a Preferential Option for the Poor?

I have already broken my reading system proclaimed last week (surprise! surprise!) but I also anticipated that things might intrude--such as books that arrive from the library and must be back. So it is with Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in American.

A short time ago I provoked a correspondent by asserting that everything that was inexpensive was, in fact, quite expensive--we just didn't really pay the price--the poor did. He responded cogently with a clear indication that I had failed to say what I intended. And reading this book, I feel the need to make the point again.

As we enter the season of political debate, the question of who addresses the needs of the poor is, in fact, critical to the determination of how we will vote. But before we can address the question, we should ask ourselves, "Who really sees the poor at all?" The answer is that we all do, though we may not recognize the fact.

People who are working minimum wage jobs and attempting to support a family fall easily into this category. This encompasses many of the people who wait on us at restaurants, who clean the rooms we stay in when we are away from home, who help us when we shop at Wal-Mart or any number of other retailers.

Think about where you live. Now stop for a moment and consider a paycheck that consists of six dollars an hour for forty hours a week--two hundred-forty dollars a week--just shy of $1000.00 dollars a month. Where does one live on $1000/month. How do you pay rent, utilities, food, gas, clothing, etc. on that amount of money. And what if you are not single, what if you have a family?

I know that I am guilty of not seeing the poor and not realizing the implications of these low wages. Ehrenreich's book spells them out clearly. No health care, poor meals, failing health. Some of the people that she speaks of in the book lived in their vans and "borrowed" the showers of others who lived in cheap hotels. I don't know that this is exemplary of the life of all--for example, being a college student is a kind of training in poverty that most of us go through. But most of us are really only in "mock-poverty." If something dreadful were to happen, most have recourse to returning home. The truly poor work without a net. There is no wealthier home for most of them to go to.

I recommend the book as an insight into the world of poverty. Most of us know that it exists, and most of us figure, as Barbara does in the book, that the poor have some mechanism, some means of coping that is beyond our view. Her conclusion--most of them do not.

And so, who offers a preferential option for the poor? I think we're foolish to think that any political party can do so. The best they can do is throw money at the problem through a massive bureaucratic system that tends to eat up the funds before they arrive at their intended goal. With all good will and good intent, the government can only help so much.

Now think about the last time you were in the DMV or had to deal with any part of the local or national government. If your child were ill, is that what you would like to go through to see to it that he was cared for? If you were hungry, would you want to jump through the hoops necessary to put food on the table?

I say, don't look to the government to make the world of poverty disappear. We, each and every single one of us, offer the preferential option for the poor. We do so through our work and through our donations. We also do it through our consideration. I'm sure most of St. Blog's consists of people who understand the necessity of tipping when one eats out. However, bear in mind that the average server gets less than one-half of minimum wage. (At the time of writing, Ehrenreich says that the law required payment of $2.13 an hour with the proviso that tips brought the wage up to minimum wage. If not, the employer was responsible for the entire bill.) The next time you get service that isn't everything you think it should be, consider the circumstances that you may not be seeing.

The poor are not asking for our help. According to the book, many are not expecting a hand-out and don't feel particularly oppressed. But, just because people are resilient enough to adapt themselves to horrendous circumstances, that does not mean we should perpetuate the circumstances. The first step in abolishing poverty is to face it squarely and to be willing to take upon ourselves some share of the burden--even a small share. Perhaps we leave a slightly larger tip for the waitress. Perhaps we treat people who assist us in shopping, who check us out at grocery stores in a somewhat better and friendlier way. Perhaps we bring more food to the pantry and we work with our local Church to expand our services to the poor. We each have within us the capacity to help make the world just a little bit better for others. We need to seize each opportunity. We need to revise our opinions of those who are less well off. (Ehrenreich noticed that when she was dressed as a maid or cleaning person, she could not even get waited on at the restaurant without obvious contempt.)

In short, WE are the preferential option for the poor. The government can go only so far, it is up to us to bridge the gap that makes life livable for those less fortunate. Surely it is part of our duty to consider which government plans are worthwhile and to support them. And indeed, when all other factors are equal, this is one of the issues that should dominate the consideration for whom we elect to office.

The poor are always with us--then and now. They are a direct challenge to us and they are an image of Christ among us. It is up to us to choose whether to help lift them up from poverty or to once again crucify Jesus by leaving them where we find them. We cannot solve all the issues of the world, but we can embrace those issues that come into our lives and in so doing attempt to make life better for everyone. Poverty is a weight upon us all and the responsibility of all. I know that I do not do enough and Ms. Ehrenreich's book brings it home for me. I hope that I can extend what I learned here into a constant practice of alms-giving and genuine concern.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:24 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

July 28, 2004

The Plight of Sodom

A small post at TSOs yesterday or the day before titled �Not a Parody� made me think about the Sunday scripture from the book of Genesis.

I know that there is a bevy of doom-mongers out there who spend much of their time finding parallels between our own society and the decadent societies that preceded it. But as I was hearing the scripture proclaimed (or is it merely read?) unbidden there rose to mind an image of the fifty states.

A moment of additional background: presently in Florida there is a lesbian couple suing the state for recognition of their marriage in Massachusetts. This, in fact, was precisely what I feared and what most people who oppose the Marriage Amendment won�t say anything about. Under the 14th amendment (I think, although I leave it to the many lawyers and constitutional experts who visit the site to correct my mistakes) there is a provision that requires states to recognize the legality of certain actions performed in other states. That is, while Florida may not have to permit gay marriages, they would have to recognize and legally validated gay marriage conducted in states where it is legal.

The connection between gay marriage and Sodom probably is significant. I was hearing the doom of Sodom with Abraham begging God to look with mercy upon the city. And Abraham argued with God down to 10 good people remaining.

And I thought of the fifty states as these men. Will God find 10 still standing after we are done with gay marriage, with abortion �rights� and with all manner of the outcry of the innocent to God. (Well, Gay Marriage isn�t a outcry of the innocent, nor is it particularly as alarming to me as the obvious embrace of abortion noted by TS in his post, nevertheless, let�s roll with it.) Will ten still struggle for traditional morality? Are we standing in the place of Sodom? Will we be like the Cities of the Plain? Is it already so? (No, I didn�t start asking about when the Rapture was going to occur.)

But as I noted in an e-mail to a correspondent, so long as God preserves His Church and the truth it represents, we have nothing to fear from these trends. They may drag the whole of society down (they may not�let�s face it, we�re not terribly good at predicting what these trends may mean.) But the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church that Jesus establilshed.

The Holy Spirit informs, protects, and guides the church in all of its ways. So long as some number of us abide in Him and He in us, the gates of Hell will not prevail. It is as John Paul II quoted at the beginning of his pontificate (long may it continue), �Be not afraid.�

The one thing we cannot afford in our encounters with the culture of Death is fear. To quote Frank Herbert �Fear is the mind-killer.� (aside: Those of you who have not read Dune have missed out on some great stuff.) And in response, a quotation from the first letter of John (1 John 4:18) �Perfect love casteth out fear.�

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 20, 2004

What Does DVC Say About Us as a Society

Yesterday T.S. O at one of my favorite blogs Video Meliora made a point concerning The DaVinci Code that I'm not quite certain I agree with, and yet I find fascinating. In context it reads:

The only answer I have to that is that, whatever their merits, Crichton & Clancy & others are living off the fame of their past books. They are a name brand now and could put out anything and it would sell. The key is their FIRST book, their break-out book. DVC is Brown's break-out book and there is something in a breakout book that might say something about a culture...

Now, let me set aside any misgivings I may have about the premise--they are as yet poorly formulated and more along the lines of murky stirrings in the depths more than fleshed-out thoughts. Let's accept the premise that this breakout book reveals something about the culture. Does it reveal anything new, interesting, or exciting.

I think it is a harbinger of something relatively new and an avatar of several old bogies that have not yet lost their patina of attractiveness. Let's start with the old. In the United States anything suggesting that the Catholic Church isn't all that upstanding or trustworthy has had a very long history (as long as the European-derived nation itself) of popularity and acceptance. One of the easy stepping stones to success is to suggest that there's something just not quite right about the Catholic Church. It's adherents might be all right, but those powerful old men in their secret chambers are out to keep hidden great mysteries and truths that a more open hierarchy long ago would have revealed. For example, if it had been about a group of Southern Baptists, they would never have suppressed these truths, having experienced centuries of suppression themselves (according to their own convenient history of existence.) So that's the first old bogie.

The second is the ever popular, ever new heresy of Gnosticism. Salvation comes to those with secret knowledge, knowledge that exists (as it were) just beyond the edges of scripture. This special revelation comes to only a few who, inspired by God Himself, do their best to share their knowledge, but ultimately only a few are destined for this inner circle anyway. This has bad a popularity since the time of Jesus Himself.

And there is yet a third appeal--one that isn't so much an old bogie as an Archetype with an enormous power even over those of us who have detached ourselves from the old stories. The appeal of the search for the Holy Grail remains. It crops up in odd places and it has odd resonances in society.

In this book we combine the Holy Grail (which always bespoke in some degree of Gnosticism) with anti-Catholic mutterings to generate a powerhouse of a story. But there is still another, newer element, that I would suggest as perhaps the predominant element of the attraction.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have been casting about for the new demon, the new evil force that will destroy us. We are looking for an enemy anywhere, and an institution as large and as ancient and as multi-storied as the Church provides the perfect vehicle. Moreover it ties in nicely to the first old-bogie.

If I were to read anything into this in terms of societal trends, I would suggest that society is looking for a focus, any focus. We have become unanchored and are drifting around in a sea of terrorism with no focused enemy and dangers behind every chador and under every turban. We have sufficiently freed ourselves of every burdensome consideration of propriety and morality that we are in a free-fall. I don't want to suggest apocalypse, but I do think Yeats's words resonate more powerfully today than they did when written.

The Second Coming
W. B. Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

I would suggest that the popularity of The DaVinci Code represents the "turning and turning in a widening gyre" in search of an anchor, any anchor, for our fears, our anxieties, and our uncertainties. We hold onto any truth because we falcons can no longer hear the Falconer. His word diminishes in meaning because we do not feel bound by it.

And The DaVinci Code certainly exemplifies "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Mr. Brown himself would swear up and down on a stack of any holy book you care to designate that he is revealing hidden truths while scholars and supposedly intelligent people do little or nothing to counteract the idiocy. (This is speaking purely of the secular world, not of the more that 30 books from religious sources that are combating the ludicrous.)

If Mr. Brown's book fulfills a need, I would suggest that the need of the moment is not so much the "truth" he reveals, which in a year will have been forgotten, but rather that he has provided for us a focus for our fear and uncertainty. The monolithic and evil church of the turn of the 20th century--a la The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk.

The Church, after all, is the only thing that stands in the way of "true" freedom. By this I mean that the secular world sees it as the obstacle to everything good that society could accomplish through understanding and gentle loving guidance. On the other hand it is my view that the Church indeed IS the ONLY thing that stands in the way of true freedom--true freedom from sanity. Mr. Brown's book may be one symptom of the descent into societal depression and concomitant delusional behaviors.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 30, 2004

The Lao-Lao Price Watch: The Reality of Laogai

In correspondence with a friend, my conscience was inadvertantly stung and I wrote this entry rapidly in response. He could not know that his reply would activate my own extraordinary frustration and guilt over this issue (I know that I don't do all that really does lie within my power to do), nevertheless, this may sound a bit more bitter and harsh than I normally do. If so, please forgive me, but I think this is an issue of enormous importance to the idea of Catholic Justice.

Here's a place to track how we can maintain all those low-low prices we find in stores.

It is this monstrous regime that we grant "most favored nation status" because it behooves us to farm out work in this direction. While there, be sure to check out other atrocities such as reports (I don't know how well confirmed) that United Nations Population Funds supporting coerced abortions. (Has nothing whatsoever to do with Lao-gai, but the site reports on everything from coerced abortions to slave labor and Death Camps in North Korea.)

Those of us who have grave reservations about the wisdom of internationalization have merely to look this far before finding a stinking cesspool. And we don't even begin to know how many businesses are working with North Korea or other oppressive states.

Encouraging the economic growth of underdeveloped countries is a wonderful business commitment that needs to be very carefully undertaken and monitored. Unfortunately, too often, the government and the citizenry are not too keen to look beneath the hood. And if this is what is there, more often than not, they have good reason.

Next time you shop at a Wal-Mart, a Target, or almost any major chain, look to see how much of what is there is made in China. It will appall you (I hope) and perhaps sting you into action. Next time you think about buying Chinese, visit this site and remember Cardinal Kung and others of his ilk who suffer under this most favored regime.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:36 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

June 11, 2004

On President Reagan

I don't quite understand the furor. I've never disliked the man, but I didn't see him as all that great. You would think that he should stand beside acknowledged greats like Washington and Lincoln (of whom I also fail to see much of the glamor).

So why do people line up for five hours to file past his coffin? What was really so great about Mr. Reagan? What are people admiring and adulating? I'm not attempting to provoke controversy with these questions.

The only policy I can remember from the Reagan years is one that began to tax the pitiful stipends of graduate students AND their tuition exemptions as "benefits." So my friends, making seven-thousand dollars a year had to pay taxes on that and on up to 13,000 dollars a year in tuition fee wavers. What is there to admire in this foreward thinking economic policy? I cast my mind back to Reagan and I think Iran-Contra. What is there to admire here? Certainly the administration was no worse than many, but what are people seeing that I cannot seem to see?

I mourn for the family who have lost a loved one. In a sense I mourn for the loss of an era. And as always, I recall, "No man is an island. . . send not to know for whom the bell tolls--it tolls for thee." I am reminded of my own end.

Nevertheless I am puzzled. Puzzled, but in some sense pleased because this shows humanity at its very best. People willing to line up without complaining in a line that stretches from the Capitol biulding to the Air and Space Museum--waiting five hours to file past a man's coffin--to pay respects. There is something about this that appeals, that suggests the nobility of spirit that humanity is capable of.

In this particular case, I just don't quite understand its subject, Mr. Reagan. Regardless of my understanding, may he rest in peace. "May choirs of angels sing him to his rest."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:39 AM | Comments (28) | TrackBack

June 8, 2004

Here Is Something Frightening for Catholic Democrats

From a blog I discovered via Father Jim (RatherNotBlog), an excerpt of an op-ed piece in NYT (be sure to visit the site and read a fuller excerpt of this interesting piece):

from "Circling the Wagons" (NYT)
David Brooks

But that is not how things work in real life. As Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler argue in their book, �Partisan Hearts and Minds,� most people either inherit their party affiliations from their parents, or they form an attachment to one party or another early in adulthood. Few people switch parties once they hit middle age. Even major historic events like the world wars and the Watergate scandal do not cause large numbers of people to switch.
Moreover, Green, Palmquist and Schickler continue, people do not choose parties by comparing platforms and then figuring out where the nation�s interests lie. Drawing on a vast range of data, these political scientists argue that party attachment is more like attachment to a religious denomination or a social club. People have stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves.

Once they have formed an affiliation, people bend their philosophies and their perceptions of reality so they become more and more aligned with members of their political tribe.

If this is, indeed true, it should give any Catholic in good standing pause. I do not think it is necessarily true, but I do think that it is more often than not true. Even the best of us hold out against peer pressure but poorly and if our principle interest strays away from God and toward politics, it strikes me as entirely plausible that one would soon find all sorts of good Catholics scrambling to defend the indefensible--referring here not to candidates but to specific items of the platform.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:07 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 4, 2004

Philip Pullman

In terms of real threats, Philip Pullman ranks far higher than the objects we commonly launch defenses against. See this insightful overview for the details.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:01 AM | TrackBack

June 3, 2004

The Present Futility of Legislation

Not that we shouldn't try, we certainly should. However, it is stories like this one that cause me to question the viability and purpose of legislation among a people with such hard hearts and broken minds. We can't even effectively ban infanticide without one wiser-that-thou supposedly constitution-interpreting-Judge pronouncing that we are wrong.

A while back I posted my "opposition" to legislation, which consisted largely of the fact that while not really opposed, I didn't really see much purpose to it with the present make-up of the courts and the present mindset of the populace. This just convinces me more and more of the necessity for prayer and fasting as well as charitable, meaningful, sincere person-to-person action and conversion. As Jesus said, "This type comes out only with much praying and fasting." We've invited Moloch in--it's very, very difficult to shove him back out again. While effective, substantive law will help, we're not yet at the stage, it appears, where such will be allowed to take effect. Please pray.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:40 AM | TrackBack

May 17, 2004

Questions about Opus Dei

I have been asked to add this link to my side-column. I do not believe I shall do so, but I put it here for those who would like to investigate what is said about Opus Dei. I really don't know what to make of either the prelature or its detractors and I would be interested in hearing from persons who know better than I do what is going on.

Later: Mr. Cork made clear that I should express my purpose in posting this link more clearly. It is this--I don't know enough about Opus Dei to say anything whatsoever informed about them. However, I have long heard rumors about "dark practices" among the group--among these practices the use of "the discipline" and other things that seem foreign to modern sensibilities. Whether or not these things constitute real problems I suppose has yet to be seen. However, this site points out many of the "rumors" I have heard and I think it would be wise for those with greater understanding that I have to address some of the things this site presents as fact. I do not intend to detract from Opus Dei nor from its founder St. Josemaria Escriva whose works I read and whose spirituality of work I truly admire.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:25 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

May 13, 2004

Denial of Communion

Our Coadjutant Bishop recently came out with a statement that all politicians who claim to be Catholic and who support abortion ought to be denied communion. I see very good purpose in making such a statement. The Bishops are charged with teaching the true faith. While the Catholic faith can tolerate a diversity of opinion on issues such as liturgy, language, just war, and all manner of other issues; there is no "wiggle-room" on the issue of abortion. To hold one opinion is to be in line with Catholic teaching to hold the other is a sign of faulty understanding. To act upon this fault understanding is to break communion--you have left even the wide bounds of Catholicism. When a bishop issues such a statement, he is giving notice as to the truth of Catholic teaching.

Now, I don't right know if our Bishop intends to act upon the statement or is speaking in solidarity with brother Bishops who may already be doing what he has supported. It is one thing to say that this is what should happen. Oddly, I find myself torn apart as to whether it ought to happen or not. In one sense, such Catholics ought to voluntarily absent themselves from communion so as to not create scandal. They know the teaching and this is one of those places that no matter what their personal conscience, there is no chance that Catholic practice and doctrine will change to accommodate them. For example one could reasonably hope that the practice of celibacy might go by the wayside. (I don't particularly care one way or the other on this one--there are very strong arguments both ways.) However, to hope that doctrine might bend to allow for procured abortion under any circumstances is just to be ignorant of the reality of the Catholic faith.

But should they be denied communion? Certainly it sets an example. Certainly it is within the rights of a bishop to regulate this. But something about it disturbs me. It strikes me a bit like debtors prison. You throw a person in jail because they can't pay their bills. How does one ever get out of prison, as one will never earn anything to pay them. If people are forced to stay away from communion because of their stand on abortion is there some way in which we might be depriving them of what would be necessary in order to change? By that I don't mean communion itself, but the entire Mass. A person who will not receive communion might not come to Mass (and this responsibility falls on no one except the person who chooses not to.) Isn't it possible that continued attendance at Mass is the only thing ever likely to help form/change an opinion?

That said, how likely is the eventuality I suggest? How often would a person attending Mass and not receiving communion change their opinion on abortion? I don't really know. And abortion is a crime of such great hideousness, of such horrible offense to the Lord that one can reasonably argue that the only thing to do is to follow to the letter Church law on the matter.

I'm not really all that conflicted about it in one sense, but there is a deep sympathy for people who have been confused by the world and its values that makes me not want to encourage this. I wonder how often I would consider taking communion if I were to look intensely at all the things I believe and weigh them in the balances of Church teaching. Look how often I have found myself on the opposite side of the fence as Tom at Disputations--and how incorrect I have been on essential matters. If I were to hold myself responsible for each of those opinions, I might never receive communion. If I were to wait until the illusions of the world cleared away from my vision before I were to come to communion, I might never make it.

So as I say, I don't fault the Bishops. The real fault is in the people who support abortion and expect the church to support them. However, I do strongly sympathize, not with the opinion, but with the position they find themselves in. We are all sinners, and I know that I find a myriad of justifications for what I want to do. The world is all too supportive of whatever foulness I want to commit. There is room for every manner of deviance in the heart of the world. So I do empathize with the predicament these people find themselves in--they are told by the world one thing and they listen with one ear--by the Church another and they listen less intensely. Perhaps these bold pronouncements do the bracing good of a faceful of cold water. I don't know. But I guess my solution shall be to continue to pray for those ignorant lost ones to face-to-face with the reality of God's love and realize their lostness. What I cannot and will not do is criticize the pastors who simply reiterate church teaching. (But then, I suppose that comes as little surprise to those who have spent any time here.)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:49 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

May 7, 2004

I Just Don't Believe It

Quoted from Tom's blog, Ono Ekeh, whom I like but whose views I do not share, says this:

If social conditions were changed so that women were empowered, and if we effectively addressed issues such as health care, child care, family leave, wage inequity, domestic violence and other women�s issues, we could reasonably expect a significant reduction in the number of abortions in the United States.

I believe this to be the usual utter nonsense liberals like to feed us in the promotion of their cause. I don't think bettering social conditions will undo the perceived need for abortion. In fact, as we empower women, it may increase that perceived need as they move into positions of authority that require more attention than a mother of two can give them.

I don't think addressing social issues (as defined above) addresses the abortion problem at all. I think we need to address spiritual issues. We need to address very real fears held by individuals--not some shapeless mass of Women and their needs. Women who are driven to seek abortions are individuals with individual problems, needs, and concerns. When I speak of addressing this level, I'm not talking merely about health care and empowerment. I'm talking about loving concern for an individual in time of trial. Support, a kind voice, a shoulder to cry on, a person to come to when everything is overwhelming. When I argue that this is better than legislation, I do not mean to rule out legislation but to promote this "hands-on" person-to-person caring.

Let me try to use a very loose analogy to convey what I mean. There are several ways of addressing the issue of poverty and helping the poor. One way (shown to be largely ineffective) is to throw a lot of money at agencies designed to research, address, and remediate the problem. Another way was Dorothy Day's. She didn't theorize about poverty, she ran kitchens and shelters to help the poor. I don't know if her way was ultimately any more productive in a strictly bottom-line sense, but I do believe that it was redemptive. It show passionate, caring, redemptive, personal love.

When I eschew the high-falutin' laws, it isn't in favor of more laws about other things, it is in favor of this personal one-on-one contact--the kind of contact that occurs with people who pray at abortion clinics every day. I can't pass legislation. I can't make the courts leave it alone. But I sure as heck can reach out one woman at a time and try to help. I can try to let scared and frightened teenagers and children know that there is someone who cares and there are alternatives, viable, real alternatives. I can reassure them that life is not at an end, but at a thrilling new beginning. It is scary, but it isn't or needn't be the end of the world. (Although in some cases, these women need help constructing a new world--parents who have thrown them out of the house, boyfriends who have prostituted them, etc.) No law as outlined by Ono will ever touch these things. These things are only helped by concerned, prayerful individuals.

When I tout individual action over legislation this is where I am standing. If we can pass laws that stand--by all means, let us do it. Let us help society understand morality through our instruction. But as long as we face the impediments courts place in our way and the reality that we might not see a reasonable law that stands any time soon--the greatest action we can take is not to pass a passle of laws and regulations and requisitions for money to go to agencies to study the problem, but to reach out as one caring, loving person to another. To be the hands, feet, eyes, and ears of Jesus Christ and to let these women know, each and every one that they are loved--first by our weak and vacillating love, but more importantly by the Almighty love that never wavers and shows no shadow of change.

Anyone who believes the line espoused here has been duped. We've been doing this for thirty years only to see the abortion rates continue to rise. If we must legislate we should not legislate around abortion, but those who have the ability to do so should agitate for direct action. I doubt its efficacy at this point in time, but it is better than deceiving ourselves that we can leave the central issue alone and legislate all around it to achieve our ends. If we can't make it illegal, then we must not rely upon other laws to redress it. The problem calls for the presence of Jesus Christ in the world.

And I'm back to my central point--the Presence of Christ in the world requires me to contemplate and live His life for others. There is, so far as I know, no other way to bring His love to others. We do not bring His love and His healing by passing another series of utterly unrelated laws. It has done nothing heretofore other than salve the consciences of those who would say, "We've done the best that we can." We have not done the best that we can until we have done all that Christ commands.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:32 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 18, 2004

Implications--Contemplation and the Active Life

I share the thoughts below because they have much troubled me the past several days. I have cast about for ways of saying what I would like to say and what I believe needs to be said, but this interior monologue expressed exteriorly is the best I could manage.

Tom of Disputations has stated that it is his belief that the teachings of St. John of the Cross do not comprise a universal call to holiness, that, in fact, they are really only for Carmelites and those inclined to Carmelite spirituality--not everyone is called to union nor to the contemplative life.

IF I believed that, I would have to discontinue blogging, because the only purpose to blogging is to share the NOT-EXCLUSIVELY Carmelite message of the call to Union with God. There would be no point in writing about these matters for the seven or eight Carmelites who are already on the boards, they already know this stuff as well or better than I do. I cannot say better than St. John of the Cross what he himself said.

However, I don't feel it to be true for several reasons. St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Thérèse of Lisieux are all Doctors of the Universal Church. Not doctors of the Carmelites, not merely great sainted leaders of the Carmelites. Now, there have been a good many founders of orders who are also Doctors of the Church, but many, as well who are not. It is not the founding of an order (which Teresa and John did not do) that makes one a Doctor of the Church. It is the articulation of a universal truth of the Church recognized as such. Thus what they have to say isn't spoken merely to Carmelites, or, for that matter merely to those inclined to mystical experience. Just as what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say is not confined to Dominicans or to those inclined to the exercise of intellect in Church matters.

For example, I quote John Paul II letter on St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Divini Amoris Scientia:

In these three different manuscripts, which converge in a thematic unity and in a progressive description of her life and spiritual way, Th�r�se has left us an original autobiography which is the story of her soul. It shows how in her life God has offered the world a precise message, indicating an evangelical way, the "little way", which everyone can take, because everyone is called to holiness.

In fact, St. Thérèse's teaching is a distillation of the work of St. John of the Cross. Following His direction and that of St. Teresa of Avila, the Little flower concentrated their writings into the very concise, very small, very precise "little way."

from Divini Amoris Scientia
His Holiness John Paul II

From careful study of the writings of St Th�r�se of the Child Jesus and from the resonance they have had in the Church, salient aspects can be noted of her "eminent doctrine", which is the fundamental element for conferring the title of Doctor of the Church.

First of all, we find a special charism of wisdom. This young Carmelite, without any particular theological training, but illumined by the light of the Gospel, feels she is being taught by the divine Teacher who, as she says, is "the Doctor of Doctors" (Ms A, 83v), and from him she receives "divine teachings" (Ms B, 1r). She feels that the words of Scripture are fulfilled in her: "Whoever is a little one, let him come to me.... For to him that is little, mercy shall be shown" (Ms B, 1v; cf. Prv 9:4; Wis 6:6) and she knows she is being instructed in the science of love, hidden from the wise and prudent, which the divine Teacher deigned to reveal to her, as to babes (Ms A, 49r; cf. Lk 10:21-22).

Pius XI, who considered Th�r�se of Lisieux the "Star of his pontificate", did not hesitate to assert in his homily on the day of her canonization, 17 May 1925: "The Spirit of truth opened and made known to her what he usually hides from the wise and prudent and reveals to little ones; thus she enjoyed such knowledge of the things above - as Our immediate Predecessor attests - that she shows everyone else the sure way of salvation" (AAS 17 [1925], p. 213).

Her teaching not only conforms to Scripture and the Catholic faith, but excels ("eminet") for the depth and wise synthesis it achieved. Her doctrine is at once a confession of the Church's faith, an experience of the Christian mystery and a way to holiness. Th�r�se offers a mature synthesis of Christian spirituality: she combines theology and the spiritual life; she expresses herself with strength and authority, with a great ability to persuade and communicate, as is shown by the reception and dissemination of her message among the People of God.

Th�r�se's teaching expresses with coherence and harmonious unity the dogmas of the Christian faith as a doctrine of truth and an experience of life. In this regard it should not be forgotten that the understanding of the deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, makes progress in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit: "There is growth in insight into the realities and words that are passed on... through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts (cf. Lk 2:19 and 51). It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth" (Dei Verbum, n. 8).

In the writings of Th�r�se of Lisieux we do not find perhaps, as in other Doctors, a scholarly presentation of the things of God, but we can discern an enlightened witness of faith which, while accepting with trusting love God's merciful condescension and salvation in Christ, reveals the mystery and holiness of the Church.

Thus we can rightly recognize in the Saint of Lisieux the charism of a Doctor of the Church, because of the gift of the Holy Spirit she received for living and expressing her experience of faith, and because of her particular understanding of the mystery of Christ. In her are found the gifts of the new law, that is, the grace of the Holy Spirit, who manifests himself in living faith working through charity (cf. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., I-II, q. 106, art. 1; q. 108, art. 1).

We can apply to Th�r�se of Lisieux what my Predecessor Paul VI said of another young Saint and Doctor of the Church, Catherine of Siena: "What strikes us most about the Saint is her infused wisdom, that is to say, her lucid, profound and inebriating absorption of the divine truths and mysteries of faith.... That assimilation was certainly favoured by the most singular natural gifts, but it was also evidently something prodigious, due to a charism of wisdom from the Holy Spirit" (AAS 62 [1970], p. 675).

8. With her distinctive doctrine and unmistakable style, Th�r�se appears as an authentic teacher of faith and the Christian life. In her writings, as in the sayings of the Holy Fathers, is found that lifegiving presence of Catholic tradition whose riches, as the Second Vatican Council again says, "are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and prayer" (Dei Verbum, n. 8).

If considered in its literary genre, corresponding to her education and culture, and if evaluated according to the particular circumstances of her era, the doctrine of Th�r�se of Lisieux appears in providential harmony with the Church's most authentic tradition, both for its confession of the Catholic faith and for its promotion of the most genuine spiritual life, presented to all the faithful in a living, accessible language. . . .

10. The spiritual doctrine of Th�r�se of Lisieux has helped extend the kingdom of God. By her example of holiness, of perfect fidelity to Mother Church, of full communion with the See of Peter, as well as by the special graces obtained by her for many missionary brothers and sisters, she has rendered a particular service to the renewed proclamation and experience of Christ's Gospel and to the extension of the Catholic faith in every nation on earth.

There is no need to dwell at length on the universality of Th�r�se's doctrine and on the broad reception of her message during the century since her death: it has been well documented in the studies made in view of conferring on her the title of Doctor of the Church.

A particularly important fact in this regard is that the Church's Magisterium has not only recognized Th�r�se's holiness, but has also highlighted the wisdom of her doctrine. Pius X had already said that she was "the greatest saint of modern times". On joyfully receiving the first Italian edition of the Story of a Soul, he extolled the fruits that had resulted from Th�r�se's spirituality. Benedict XV, on the occasion of proclaiming the Servant of God's heroic virtues, explained the way of spiritual childhood and praised the knowledge of divine realities which God granted to Th�r�se in order to teach others the ways of salvation (cf. AAS 13 [1921], pp. 449-452). On the occasion of both her beatification and canonization, Pius XI wished to expound and recommend the Saint's doctrine, underscoring her special divine enlightenment (Discorsi di Pio XI, vol. I, Turin 1959, p. 91) and describing her as a teacher of life (cf. AAS 17 [1925], pp. 211-214). When the Basilica of Lisieux was consecrated in 1954, Pius XII said, among other things, that Th�r�se penetrated to the very heart of the Gospel with her doctrine (cf. AAS 46 [1954], pp. 404-408). Cardinal Angelo Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII, visited Lisieux several times, especially when he was Nuncio in Paris. On various occasions during his pontificate he showed his devotion to the Saint and explained the relationship between the doctrine of the Saint of Avila and her daughter, Th�r�se of Lisieux (Discorsi, Messaggi, Colloqui, vol. II [1959-1960], pp. 771-772). Many times during the celebration of the Second Vatican Council, the Fathers recalled her example and doctrine. On the centenary of her birth, Paul VI addressed a Letter on 2 January 1973 to the Bishop of Bayeux and Lisieux, in which he extolled Th�r�se's example in the search for God, offered her as a teacher of prayer and theological virtue of hope, and a model of communion with the Church, calling the attention of teachers, educators, pastors and theologians themselves to the study of her doctrine (cf. AAS 65 [1973], pp. 12-15). I myself on various occasions have had the joy of recalling the person and doctrine of the Saint, especially during my unforgettable visit to Lisieux on 2 June 1980, when I wished to remind everyone: "One can say with conviction about Th�r�se of Lisieux that the Spirit of God allowed her heart to reveal directly to the people of our time the fundamental mystery, the reality of the Gospel.... Her 'little way' is the way of 'holy childhood'. There is something unique in this way, the genius of St Th�r�se of Lisieux. At the same time there is the confirmation and renewal of the most basic and most universal truth. What truth of the Gospel message is really more basic and more universal than this: God is our Father and we are his children?" (Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, vol. III/1 [1980], p. 1659).

These simple references to an uninterrupted series of testimonies from the Popes of this century on the holiness and doctrine of St Th�r�se of the Child Jesus and to the universal dissemination of her message clearly express to what extent the Church, in her pastors and her faithful, has accepted the spiritual doctrine of this young Saint.

A sign of the ecclesial reception of the Saint's teaching is the appeal to her doctrine in many documents of the Church's ordinary Magisterium, especially when speaking of the contemplative and missionary vocation, of trust in the just and merciful God, of Christian joy and of the call to holiness. Evidence of this fact is the presence of her doctrine in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 127, 826, 956, 1011, 2011, 2558). She who so loved to learn the truths of the faith in the catechism deserved to be included among the authoritative witnesses of Catholic doctrine.

Th�r�se possesses an exceptional universality. Her person, the Gospel message of the "little way" of trust and spiritual childhood have received and continue to receive a remarkable welcome, which has transcended every border.

The influence of her message extends first of all to men and women whose holiness and heroic virtues the Church herself has recognized, to the Church's pastors, to experts in theology and spirituality, to priests and seminarians, to men and women religious, to ecclesial movements and new communities, to men and women of every condition and every continent. To everyone Th�r�se gives her personal confirmation that the Christian mystery, whose witness and apostle she became by making herself in prayer "the apostle of the apostles", as she boldly calls herself (Ms A, 56r), must be taken literally, with the greatest possible realism, because it has a value for every time and place. The power of her message lies in its concrete explanation of how all Jesus' promises are fulfilled in the believer who knows how confidently to welcome in his own life the saving presence of the Redeemer.

I'm sorry to quote at such length, but I think it is time to put this whole question to rest. There can be no question that John Paul II and one assumes much of the Church from the time of the Saint's beatification has regarded here doctrine as sound and universal and her doctrine is nothing other than that handed down from the Bible and from the riches of her mother and father in faith, St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross.

Regarding St. John of the Cross, another opinion supporting my own from Doctors of the Church.

John's words are for all creatures and especially members of the Church. They do not have to live in monasteries or secluded settings or be contemplative. For John, God wants to transform each and everyone regardless of their lifestyle. All have to give the payback. We are "bandits". Intentionally or unintentionally we keep or are stingy with God who wants our loving thoughts, feelings, aspirations and desperations. John understood that to give up these for God results in a giving back to Him. John always reminds us that love is only repaid by love alone. We are spiritual thieves. We have imprisoned the Word made Flesh in God's many sanctuaries. God is more entrapped by His love for us than by our "stealing" him away from the celestial court. The kingdom of the heavenly court dwells in our midst, mystically and physically. Faith and love grasp this truth.

There is a mystic in each of us. It's God dwelling in us in a marvelous and invisible manner. God is absolute Mystery. God told Moses "I am who I am" One can not say more about God's presence than what God told Moses. The mystical apostle, St John, described God's nature: God is love. The mystical doctor's message is where there is no love, put love and you will find love. He was absolutely convinced that nothing is obtained from God except through love.

(I apologize that I was unable to find the document of Pius XI declaring him a Doctor of the Universal Church.

In my opinion, the fact that St. John of the Cross was a Carmelite in no way narrows the scope of his advise merely to those who are Carmelite. He is a teacher of the Universal Church--not without flaw or error, but certainly on a par with other Doctors of the Church. Just as St. Francis, St. Francis de Sales, St. Thomas Aquinas, and all of the great saints are not teachers of one small sector of the Church alone, neither is St. John of the Cross. One need not be Carmelite to heed his advice. Moreover, John of the Cross can be viewed simply as a synthesist of Doctrine up to his time. Finally, John spent more time as a director than as a teacher. Much of his teaching is really about teaching one to understand where one is on the spiritual path. He did very little direct teaching about a "method" or a "mode" of praying--he simply marked the path and told us how to recognize signs that tell us we need to progress and move on.

So I don't think the blog is in any danger. I stand on firm ground when I categorically state that St. John's teaching, like St. Therese's and St. Teresa's and St. Catherine of Siena is meant for all. If one chooses not to follow it, that is one's own business, but to suggest that because one does not choose to follow it, it necessarily follows that the teaching is not for all is, in my opinion and the opinion of a great many others whose thought means a great deal more than my own, erroneous. St. John advises all of us, Carmelites and Catholics of no order. What he has to say is not for a select few, the "chosen" or the called. Nor is meant only for the Carmelite order. This, in point of fact, is part of what is meant when one is declared a Doctor of the Universal Church. To object that his saying is difficult and therefore not required of us can be legitimately compared (in a far lesser degree) to stating that Jesus' teaching is hard and therefore not required of us. Truly St. John's teaching is not a requirement of salvation (whereas Jesus� is); however, the difficulty it presents in no way abrogates its efficacy in achieving a life of holiness.

Are there other ways to do the same thing? Perhaps, but they all come to the same thing: "Sell all you have, give it to the poor, and then come follow me." "You cannot serve God and Mammon" (or God and Venus, or God and Ceres, or God and Nature, or God and . . .) it is God alone. This is the core of the doctrine of St. John of the Cross and his call to contemplation and union is meant for all, either now, or in the life to come. There is no getting around it. The vocation of Christian life is perfection in charity that can only come about through stripping oneself (through grace and the Holy Spirit) from all attachments to things less than God. Hard, but true, and stated time and again in the teaching of the Church from the lips of Jesus to the present day.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:02 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

April 2, 2004

"Not Creating It to Be a Waste. . ."

For thus says the Lord,
the creator of the heavens,
who is God,
the designer and maker of the earth
who established it,
not creating it to be a waste,
but designing it to be lived in. (Isaiah 45: 18)

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. (Isaiah 45: 18-19)

I thought a pause in our headlong rush through St. Teresa Benedicta and St. John of the Cross was called for. A momentary pause, or to quote the poet:

A Moment's Halt--a momentary taste
Of Being from the Well amid the Waste--
And Lo!--the phantom Caravan has reach'd
The Nothing it set out from--Oh, make haste!

The purpose of the pause is to clarify what St. John of the Cross teaches and what he does not. This was inspired by an e-mail exchange with a friend in which the friend brought up some points I thought he might have inferred from reading these posts. It turns out rather that he got them from a mission given by Opus Dei priests in his community. Here is his summary of impressions:

For example, the priest last night kept talking about finding ways to make ourselves more uncomfortable, to constantly deny ourselves even basic needs, such as a glass of water when we're thirsty (the priest even make a crack about people who constantly carry around what he called "baby bottles", to ensure that they're never without water), in order to please God. This is why I made the comment I did about fasting until my prayers are answered: if we're called upon to actively cause ourselves pain, then there can be no end to it until we die. Escriva sounds to me like a modern day flagellant. The priest even mentioned that he would try not to see the beautiful, which you counseled against, by averting his eyes when riding through a countryside.

[here follows an excerpt of my reply]
I find the view you describe repugnant, Jansenistic, and very nearly manichean. It suggests a hatred of physicality that is unhealthy. . .I'd like to talk about what St. Teresa Benedicta and St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila were NOT talking about, and what you describe is precisely it. I think if you view it in the way St. John of the Cross does you find a much more faithful way of approaching creation. We do need to mortify the senses by choosing the less appealing rather than the more appealing, but we needn't shut our eyes to the glory through which God speaks to us. That strikes me as just short of sinful--a denial of the [essential] goodness in creation.

As much as I respect the works of Josemaria Escriva and other followers of the Opus Dei prefecture, I've always been a bit cautious regarding their personal approaches to the world. If this priest represents mainline Opus Dei teaching, then indeed caution is called for. I rather hope he expresses extremes of the view. The reason for this is that it strikes me that such suggestions and actions come very close to blasphemy.

The Lord made the world and made it good. He made it to be a world to be lived in. And throughout all creation is the imprint of the Maker. His signature can be found everywhere in nature--in running streams, in sweet grapes, in the scent of orange blossoms or the sea, in the touch of spring-warm breeze, in sunsets, in the sound of the wind in the trees, etc. The Franciscans were well aware that the glories of the Creator were signs of Him and means of access.

To go out of one's way to deny oneself basic needs, to make oneself miserable in the world redounds to whose glory? It is one thing to undertake basic mortifications (the fast prescribed by the church, or such small fasts as we are called to make in the world) but to deliberately shut your eyes so that you cannot see the glories of creations. While this is a severe mortification, if also approaches Manicheeism. It seems to suggest that there is something wrong with participation in the world. And what I quotes from Isaiah above indicates clearly what the Lord thinks about the world--He made it to be lived in, not fled from. We are not called to make ourselves miserable or full of pain. The world will do enough of that for us, and when it happens, we are called to joyfully accept it. However, why go looking for trouble--living presents enough pain and suffering as it is?

No, it strikes me as foolish not to acknowledge what is around you. I don't think the good Lord calls us to make ourselves hurt every day as some sort of memorial to him. In fact, elsewhere in Isaiah don't we hear about the kind of fast the Lord wants?

5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?
6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rearward.

(Isaiah 58:5-8, KJV--sorry Bible Gateway doesn't offer Douay Rheims)

There, the Lord speaks through His own prophet saying we should feed the hungry. Well, why should we do that if the Lord wants us all to suffer for Him? Wouldn't it be far wiser to leave them to be hungry because they are already suffering? So too with the yoke of oppression--why throw it off? Just let those who are under oppression throw it off. In fact, if we take the doctrine above to an extreme, we could say that it is our duty to oppress so that there can be greater suffering for all.

Nonsense. This seems, as I said, at best suspect, and at worst something that should be suppressed. I have no interest in administering "the discipline." I have no desire to return to the glory days of mortifications unto sickness.

Nor do the Carmelite Saints. St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thérèse, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross do not teach this and roundly teach against it. Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity said that if we suffer and can find some alleviation from it, then it is right to do so; but if the suffering is irremediable, we should accept it gladly and unite it for the betterment of all to the sufferings of Jesus on the Cross.

Carmelite teaching is not that the things of the world are bad, but, in fact that they are so good we tend to want them too much. We need to mortify the senses. And by that I believe St. John to mean that we must not seek out sensation, not that we are to blind and deafen ourselves, but that we are to accept the things of the world without taking delight in them. That is to say, we don't seek to linger in the sensation, but we let them pass on by and we continue our pursuit of the path of God. We don't deliberately not look, but we also don't seek to look. This is a world apart from deliberately not looking at God's glorious creation. It may seem subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world.

To be fair to Opus Dei, I've never seen any hint in the writings that we are called to make ourselves miserable. St. Josemaria is said to have administered the discipline frequently, but I don't know if that is the rumor of detractors or what it really means. Nor does it mean we are necessarily to follow his example. Saints can be unhinged and still be Saints--St. Dymphna comes to mind, as do certain actions of St. Rose of Lima (quicklime on the face and broken glass to mar her beauty and prevent vanity). And I do believe that the deliberate infliction of inordinate pain is a sign of illness, not of health in mind and body. A fast, a small mortification, fine; but to daily seek to live a life of misery and pain--that is a definition of mental illness and you can find it clearly delineated in the diagnostic manual.

We need to remember St. Teresa of Avila danced with her nuns at recreation and played tambourine. St. John of the Cross is said to have dearly loved the scenic vistas of Medina del Campo and the Spanish Countryside. Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity was a master pianist, awarded a number of awards at her school. St. Thérèse's sister was an accomplished photographer. John Henry Newman an accomplished poet. These are all joys and creations of the world, and so long as we do not make them the end-all be-all of existence, participation in them and delight in them is a good thing. We learn again about God.

So, lest there were any apprehension about what one is called to in the Carmelite way, I thought I would make this clear distinction. It is one thing to "see without seeing" it is another to deny yourself water because you can suffer more. As Christine said elsewhere, the call to suffering is a gift of the Lord that not all receive and I don't think it should be considered a universal salutary practice. The acceptance of such suffering as comes (and cannot be avoided) with equanimity and with joy, on the other hand, is a practice that leads to wholeness.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:12 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 30, 2004

On Television

Forget for a moment that the post refers you back here, Mr. Appleby has hit the nail on the head, as did Neil Postman some years ago, and he starts with this delightful quotation:

"Television enables you to be entertained in your home by people you wouldn't have in your home.�David Frost"

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:45 AM | TrackBack

For those distraught over Mr. MacFarlane's Actions

Here is something you can do about it. Consider the opportunity prayerfully, and please keep Mr. MacFarlane and his wife Bai in your prayers. There is a great spiritual battle in this seemingly small event and it can only be fought with the help of grace, prayers, and the holy angels that God will send.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:38 AM | TrackBack

March 25, 2004

St. Teresa Benedicta on the Role of Artists

from The Science of the Cross: Introduction
St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein)

But--in contrast to a holy realism--the artist's receptivity to impressions is one that the world views in the light of a particular domain of values too readily at the expense of other values. This results in a particular sort of responsive behaviors. It is characteristic of the artist to transform into image anything that causes an interior stirring and demands to be expressed exteriorly. Image here is not to be restricted to the visual arts; it must be understood to refer to any artistic expression including the poetic and musical. It is simultaneously image (Bild) in which something is presented and structure (Gebilde) as something formed into a complete and all-encompassing world of its own. Every genuine work of art is in addition a symbol (Sinnbild) whether or not this is its creator's intention, be he naturalist or symbolist.

It is a symbol: that is, it comes from that infinite fullness of meaning (Sinn) into which every bit of human knowledge is projected to grasp something positive and speak of it. It does so in such a manner, in fact, that it mysteriously suggests the whole fullness of meaning, which for all human knowledge is inexhaustible. Understood this way, all genuine art is revelation and all artistic creation is sacred service.

Despite this, it is clear that there is a danger in an artitistic inclination, and not only when the artist lacks an understanding of the sacredness of his task. The danger lies in the possibility that in constructing the image, the artist proceeds as though there were no further responsibility than producing it. What is meant here can be demonstrated most clearly by the example of images of the cross. There will sacrcely be a believieng artist who has not felt compelled to portray Christ on the cross or carrying the cross.

But the Crucified One demands from the artist more than a mere portrayal of the image. He demands that the artist, just as every other pesron, follow him: that he both make himself and allow himself to be made into an image of the one who carries the cross and is crucified.

(Note to T.S.--this definitely adds to Mr. Gibson's accomplishment in that the media excoriation is a definitive image of the One scourged. I too have little use for the detractors from the film who see only what they wish to see.)

The other aspect of responsibility for the art is too readily dismissed by modernists and postmodernists. Once the work is created they disavow any reactions or results of the art. We get crucifixes in urine and dung-smeared Madonnas and outrage when such works of "art" are criticized or publically declaimed. We get eminem saying that his lyrics encouraging hatred of women and of homosexuals aren't there to inspire hatred (then, what, pray tell, are they there for, because they certainly don't edify or entertain); we get filmakers who produce films that "tell the truth" (or so much of it as they are capable of seeing) who say they are not responsible for offending, hurting, or inspiring acts of terrorism and hatred. Nonsense. The artist's responsiblity does not stop at the production of the work. This is part of my problem with Stockhausen's comments after 9/11. The artist is also responsible for some interpretations of the work. Stravinsky was not responsible for the battles that broke out over The Rite of Spring but he was responsible for the music that resulted from his work. An artist cannot bear the burden of responsibility for every crackpot interpretation of his work, but as Mr. Gibson once again amply demonstrates, he must in some way answer for it--publicly or before God. Personally, I'd rather face the public than offend my God.

St. Teresa Benedicta goes on to point out another crucial responsibility of the sacred artist and that is to live out the life he is called to. Just as every one of us is called to imitate Christ in His mysteries, so too the artist is called to so. And perhaps an artist is called to do so more publicly because their work is in the realm of the public. That is, when we as individuals think matters less in some very real ways, than what those who have access to the media think and do. Thus, we have a personal, community, and familial responsibility to imitate Christ, but the more public the figure, the greater the burden of responsibility for the proper representation of Christlikeness. This is why so many are hurt and disappointed when Christian artists do patently non-Christian things. We have an example before us presently that needs our constant prayer that the party involved realize the implications of his action and learn to do the right thing rather than buying into the lies of the culture of death.

So the artist's work is a sacred undertaking because it draws our attention to Meaning and the One who is inexhaustible. And also the artist's responsibility is commensurately greater as his work is more popular.

All of this from an introduction to a book about St. John of the Cross and his doctrine. One can readily see why St. Teresa Benedicta is so much lauded and admired for her intelligence and her thought. And The Science of the Cross is her EASY book.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:11 AM | TrackBack

February 4, 2004

The Pacifist Speaks

Short of removal of a regime, what does one do about things like this:

North Korean Concentration Camps

I am an ardent pacifist (by a very liberal definition of the word); however, how can this be countenanced? How do we redress the wrong already done? And how will we know if it continues or if it is done? In other words, when does our concern for others trump other considerations? When are human rights important enough?

I'm not suggesting that war is the answering, but I do think we should do better on coming up with the answers in a more expeditious fashion.

Link via Goodform. Thanks Tom.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:31 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Husserl a Herod?

T.S. O'Rama has posted a reather interesting list from Jonas Goldberg of 20th century Herods. And while I have very little problem with most of the people of the list, I must take exception to the phenomenologists (and thus to some extent the "personalists" who derive from them) and the "Husserlites."

As a Carmelite, it should be very obvious why I should do so, but perhaps not so clear to those unfamiliar witht he background of St. Teresa Bendicta of the Cross, a phenomenologist and perhaps the chief Husserlite who became a Carmelite Nun largely because of her work in philosophy and phenomenology (let's not forget perhaps a touch of Grace--or more than a touch).

So pace Mr. Goldberg. While I concur wholeheartedly with several entries on your list, unlike postmodernism, phenomenology has given rise to some good things--John Paul II, St. Teresa Benedicta, Theology of the Body, etc.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:29 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 2, 2004

Gun Control, Catholics, and Conscience

I have noted that some, perhaps a great many, Catholic bloggers support unreservedly an open interpretation of the second amendment right to bear arms. I am in substantial disagreement with these bloggers on their interpretation of that amendment. But that isn't really the point of what I have to say here.

This is one of those areas in which Catholics may freely discourse and agree or disagree on the matter. My opinion on the matter is formed by voluminous reading and personal proclivity. The opinions of others may be formed both culturally and by different readings and proclivities. In neither case does the Church have much of substance to say on the issue of gun control. And so long as one bears in mind any such guidance, conscience is king in this matter as in many others.

We can civilly disagree on welfare and how it is to be distributed, on economic systems, on political duty, even on some matters of how the Church is presently configured (a married priesthood, for example--which, by the way, doesn't really bother me one way or another--I'm fine with the present discipline. So long as it were changed in some reasonable way, I would be fine with another discipline.)

There is a wide range of issues on which Catholics in good conscience are free to disagree. Life is not one of them. And that is why I am glad that there is so much discussion continuing on the matter. It is why I am delighted that JCecil3, a self-proclaimed Progressive Catholic, has categorically stated his opposition not just to abortion but to the presence of the abortion plank in the democratic platform. All of these things are good--the sign of thriving conscience and conviction and lively engagement with our present political system. Long may it reign.

So my thanks to the great many Catholics out there making cogent, reasoned arguments against the abortion plank of the democratic party. Perhaps it will help raise awareness in some arenas. And for those who unreservedly support democratic candidates, please be a little more reserved. Support who conscience tells you to support, but reprimand, scold, and otherwise discipline the unruly minds that lead the party down the path to hell. You can support the good unreservedly, but not to speak out against this greatest of crimes against humanity does no service to your party nor to your country nor to God Himself. The blood of these children is upon those of us who do not seek to stop the shedding of it. And unlike the Precious Blood this blood will not redeem and raise up.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:37 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 30, 2004

On Triumphalism

My thanks to T. S. O'Rama who has pointed out a lack of clarity in some comments that I left chez Alicia. It seems that I somehow managed to give the impression that "Steven Riddle seems to see triumphalism as saying what you are thinking."

What I intended to say, and apparently did not make clear, is not that triumphalism is "saying what you are thinking." Rather the worst aspects of the thing meant by the derogatory connotation of "triumphalism" is the kind of in-your-face, I-told-you-so, rhetoric that often accompanies it. There are perfectly civil and courteous means of expressing any thought you have.

The specific example I used was some of the rhetoric seen in various places accompanying the November Debacle in the Episcopalian Church. I quite wrongly charged Fr. Jim with something that "smacked of triumphalism." But I had grown overly senstive to the blasé and callous statements that amounted to "What can you expect from a bunch of heretics?"

I liken it to being on the other side of the rhetoric as when during the height of the sexual abuse scandal we were often hearing, "What can you expect from a religion of woman-hating, self-loathing, non-marrying, clergy." It does not feel good to be on that side of triumphalism.

Moreover, I need to make clear, this only is associated with the derogatory connotation of the word. It has nothing to do with the denotation of the word at all.

So my bottom line is that the worst aspects of triumphalism lay not in the doctrine or theory but in its discourteous practice and the lack of charity that often accompanies its demonstration. There is a qualitative difference between saying "Serves you right for that mess during the reign of Henry the Eighth." And, "The separation from the Church over disagreement on one point of doctrine necessarily paved the way for future disagreements of which this is the latest demonstration." Even then, unless requested, such an explanation should not be offered until after such time as you have tried to help console the person who is reeling from a substantial blow to their worldview. St. Josemaria Escriva reminds us that one of the seventeen evidences of a lack of humility is:"to give your opinion when it has not been requested or when charity does not demand it."

You can say what is on your mind, but you can say it in a way that demonstrates what you mean without detracting from the dignity of the person or their belief (however incorrect it may be) and in a way that can be more healing and charitable than a simple record of the error.

Hope that clears up my intent. I did not mean to say you shouldn't speak what you think (although there are times when this is true as well) but that such speech should take place with consideration and courtesy. I think I'm sensitve over this issue because more than anything else, I want people to express what they're thinking in a way that invites conversation and even vigorous debate but which encourages charity and respect. I want to hear what people are thinking--but I want to hear the substance of it, not the surface of it--reasoning not sloganeering.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 12:32 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Pro-Choice v. Pro-Abortion

I read somewhere recently a statement that implied that no one was pro-abortion. (Was it at Jeanne's?) And initially that made a certain amount of sense to me. I could buy the fact that very few people actually thought of abortion as a "best practices" procedure.

However, I am not so certain when I examine the issue closely. When anyone speaks on the issue (and of course all we really get is sound bites) the only thing I tend to hear is a recommitment to "protect a woman's right to choose" (repugnant enough as it stands). However, where are the politicians who are explaining how we will help that woman have a child and still maintain a reasonable quality of life. Statistics show us that single mothers sit as a majority at the very base of our economic scale. True, not all single mothers are impoverished and we don't understand the full complexities of what causes these conditions of poverty. However, the statistics would seem to suggest that young single women who have children are likely to fare poorly.

Is it any wonder that a scared teenager might seek an abortion (perhaps with the collusion of boyfriend and even parents)? How then does a supposedly "pro-choice" politician make the choice for keeping the child viable? How does such a politician suggest we remove the poverty stamp from such an arrangement? I have heard nothing.

Hearing nothing causes me to think that pro-choice is pro-one-choice, not really about providing opportunities to make the right decision. If that is the case, a politician has no right to claim that they are "pro-choice." They are pro-abortion. And of course we have all recognized that.

But there are still those who say that the label unjustly stigmatizes people who in conscience are against abortion but who are stalwart defenders of the right to choose.

Well, then, my reply would be--truly defend the right to choose. Tell us how you would support women who make the right choice. Tell us how you would help the poor and downtrodden. Tell us how you would make life better for these oppressed. For until such a politician does so, he or she is not pro-choice, and certainly not pro-woman. They are pro-abortion.

On the other hand, I hear too much about removing the (non-existant) right to abortion from the pro-life side and not enough about what should be done to help. I don't think we mean to be so callous, but it sometimes appears that we are so focused on bringing a child into the world that everything else blurs out--permanently. Once the child is born, how will it be cared for? Who will care for the mother of the child? How will the family be nurtured and made strong? We need to remember than in most cases the person having the child has already demonstrated that they are not strong on making good choices. How do we help them understand and learn to make better choices for themselves and for their families?

Frankly, I'm sick to death of hearing about pro-death politicians and pro-death legislation, with all the frothing and fomenting that goes with it. We are all pro-death until we devise schema that allow unfortunate individuals pushed to the edge a chance to truly choose life. Merely outlawing abortion is insufficient. I need to hear along with this passion for saving the unborn a passion for saving their mothers, their families, and their lives down the road. I know it's there. I just don't hear enough about it.

It is exceedingly worthwhile to work for the elimination of abortion. But while we do so we do well to remember that we need to have facilities, institutions, and programs in place that will aid struggling young mothers and their children. This is true even when the mother decides to give her child up for adoption. Often a pregnancy in a young life has disrupted education, family life, and stability for the young mother. What will we do for these young people? Are we prepared at this point to receive and accommodate the enormous needs that must be met if we could stop the abortion machine?

Let us truly be prolife then, moving forward with a two pronged foray. Do not let our rhetoric be solely, "Stop abortion now," but let it also convey a notion of loving, caring for, and nurturing young mothers and children. Let us be seen as not merely opposing, but building something positive for the future.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 28, 2004

Can a Catholic in Good Conscience Support a Democrat?

I write this with some trepidation knowing the streams of vitriol it can unleash. But I also know that the advantage of swimming about in a backwater is that I can say pretty much any outrageous thing I care to and very, very few will notice or make comment. And that is good because it gives me breathing space to consider very difficult matters.

Personally I have not read the blogs that may assert the contrary notion (to the above title), but I have it on good authority that they are out there.

Speaking for myself the answer is a resounding, "No!" In other words, my conscience would not allow me to do so. However, I am not every other person. I have my own unique conscience and God-given experiences, my own understandings, and my own interpretations of the world. These are not universals, nor are they completely accessible to anyone else. And it is ultimately presumptious of me to determine what another's conscience necessarily dictates.

But let's qualify that immediately by saying from my point of view a Catholic in good conscience can't really support a Republican either. And again, I may only speak for my own conscience. Knowing that the candidate is likely to be none other than our present leader, I find untenable most arguments that would make it possible to vote for him. I believe that we were lied to regarding information used to justify the war in Iraq and I truly believe that there was more than a little profit motive involved in the invasion. (I also believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein is an undoubtedly good thing--but we all know that we may not use illicit means to effect a good--John at Disputations made that resoundingly clear to me on at least on occasion, and it is a critically important concept to keep in place. We may not sin that good should come from it)

I know I wade into dangerous waters when I say these things, but while the democrats fail in supporting abortion, the republicans tend to fail on much of the social agenda. They may oppose abortions, but I haven't heard much about their plans for aiding and assisting the poor women and scared young women who feel driven to abortion. I know it is not up to the government to support every single person or idea, but I am more than a little disturbed by the fact that so much attention is focused on preserving the life of the child (which is critically, fundamentally important) and so little focused on preserving the quality of life of the mother, and thus the family that would be formed as a result of giving birth. If this young mother has been driven from her house as a result of this pregnancy, if she drops out of school, or falls by the wayside because of these unfortunate circumstances there are not a tremendous number of support organizations to help her. There are large numbers of "pregnancy crisis and counseling centers," and a great many try to provide the kinds of services described, but more is needed and more focus of the life of the mother on child after birth is needed. Here in Orlando there is a wonderful organization that runs a small house for about fourteen high-school aged young mothers. This organization cares for the children while the mother is at school. They provide counseling and training and parenting and housekeeping courses after the school. They attempt to school the woman in having sufficient self-respect and self-esteem to avoid this situation in the future (assuming that the young woman made a choice that resulted in this child) and generally provide guidance and counseling.

I guess I'm saying I'd like to see more talk about what one does to support people who opt not to have an abortion. How can we help them feel life is not at an end?

I've strayed from my intent. I see as problematic issues on either side of the coin. Democrats in general support abortion and oppose capital punishment. They tend to be more environment friendly and less business friendly.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to oppose abortion and support capital punishment. And some may argue, with some legitimacy, that capital punishment is different both in kind and degree. That is it is only levied upon those who truly deserve it after an intricate process of determination of this merit. However, capital punishment differentially affects the poor, who cannot afford the Johnny Cochrances and others to defend them. Moreover, the Holy Father has stated that while there may be circumstances under which capital punishment may be legitimate they are as rare and as circumscribed as those conditions that must be met for a just war.

I find republican social policy generally laced with repugnant assumptions--not generally spoken aloud, but tacit. It strikes me as overly Calvinist in the assumption that the poor are poor because they deserve to be.

All of this said, none of it is true for every republican or every democrat. I find currents in both parties unpalatable.

But can a Catholic in good conscience support a Democrat? I think so. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, nothing any politician is likely to do will get past what the Supreme Court has so firmly set in place and so violently protected at every turn. Witness the immediate injunction against the ban on partial birth abortions--surely an example of no-brainer legislation and restriction if every there was such. The state of belief of a politician in this matter is between the candidate and God. While the vote may cause the person to be excommunicated or not a Catholic in good standing, there is no law that says that a Catholic must vote for a Catholic. And one must judge a vote by the fullness of the intent of that vote. If the purpose in choosing a democrat is to protect the right to abortion then the choice would be illicit. If on the other hand one truly believes that a democrat would better serve the dispossessed and oppressed then all weights must be thrown into the balance. Our bishops have wisely refrained in the past from overt support of one candidate or another not out of cowardice but out of the very concrete realization that there are far too many factors to weigh and one of those must include the conscience of the person who would vote. It would certainly be no worse to vote for such a person than to vote for a known bigot, liar, or other miscreant. I wonder whether Jesus would have better things to say about those who sacrifice babies to Moloch or the poor to Mammon. Somehow I don't think either one would come out spotless--and these are part of the overall consideration when one sits down to vote. And if one considers the fullness of the issues, on nearly every other plank the democratic platform seems to more closely approach the social teaching of the Catholic Church.

My basic hope and prayer is that those Catholics who feel drawn to the democratic party remain faithful to Church teaching on abortion. I pray that they continue to influence and shape the policy of the party so that it softens from stridently pro-Herodian to listening to what I believe to be the heartbeat of the majority of Americans. The democratic party has to abandon the fringes of the pro-abortion movement and move toward the restriction of abortions after the first trimester. (Roe basically guarantees unrestricted abortion during that first trimester). From that point, we, good Catholics and Christians that we are, can work toward making the world a place of true choices where the prospect of abortion is no longer the shadow of salvation, but truly is an unappealing option in the light of the opportunities still in place for young women who are threatened with this terrible crisis.

My point is that careful examination of ANY politician's viewpoints is likely to reveal several points at which the politicians is at odds with received teaching. Abortion is an extremely important--indeed overridingly important issue; however, it seems anti-Catholic to suggest that anyone who can support a democratic candidate cannot be a true Catholic. Certainly anyone who can unreservedly support such a candidate--anyone who does not vocally and frequently make a point of their opposition to these key points of difference, may be looked at askance. But the truth of the matter may be far deeper and individual consciences are formed in different ways. I could not in good conscience vote for a democrat. But I my conscience and heart also weigh on me very heavily when I consider the alternatives. What I need to vote for is a truly Catholic Politician--pro-life, pro-woman, pro-family, pro-poor, pro-God. I honestly don't see such a person in the field of contenders and I do not hold out much hope for the election of such a person. How many people today would vote for a Mother Teresa who was running for office? Then ask the other question--is it even really possible for a person like Mother Teresa to hold such an office? Many great Royal Saints were not particularly well-known for their ability to rule. And there may be a reason for that.

My last word: Rather than looking outward and condemning what we see there, we do better to truly wrestle with our own consciences and with our own choices. We are called not to judge others and not to wish other into a separation from community and not to call upon us another split in the Church. Many Catholics who stand fully pro-life may find it difficult or impossible to support a republican for any number of very valid reasons. That is a matter for prayer, reflection, and meditation for the Catholic involved. However, it is not a matter for coercion or for shunning. We must allow each other the freedom of thought that God has allowed each of us. We must correct overt error such as when a Catholic teaches or thinks that abortion is neutral or even a positive good. But when we stare into the heart of the issues what we will see will be dictated by how we have been formed in God and we should exercise the same care, concern, and charity for one another that God lavishes upon us. My prayer is that all Catholics spend a great deal of time soul-searching and walk into the next election with their eyes wide open knowing exactly for whom and what they are voting and how that vote will need to be moderated by social activism and hard prayer and work.

And now--to usurp a more worthy person's words, "Après ça, le deluge."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:36 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

January 27, 2004

The New Mass Translation

In several place around St. Blogs, most notably here and here (blogspot is boing its usual wonderful thing with regard to direct linking) there has been concern expressed with regard to the new ICEL Mass translations. In one location it goes beyond concern to suggest that a possibility is further schism of the SSPX variety--if for example we were to return to the Latin (Tridentine) Mass.

While I agree with the spirit of some comments (for example return to simple literal translation is indeed simple. To move from :

"The Lord be with you"
"And also with you."

to

"The Lord be with you."
"And with your spirit."

is awkward and doesn't really express the intent of the what is being said. We want the Lord only to be with a person's spirit and not there as a bodily protector in times of trial. We want the Lord to be present to the spirit but not to the mind and body? The spirit is somehow seperate and not part of the full being? The translation implies this.

But let's face it, while awkward and not true to the spirit of what's being said, this isn't the Mount Everest of translation difficulties. I might not favor it, but I would have no trouble saying it after I got used to it again.)

But I am disturbed by some responses that suggest that all faiths are equally valid. While all Christian faiths partake of salvation, they do so through the font of grace and salvation, God's established Church on Earth. So, too, in some mysteriously different way, those of other faiths who enter into the kingdom do so through the aegis of the Catholic Church.

In other words, in the Catholic Church resides the fullness of faith and the fullness of the truth of God that we can experience here on Earth. With the possible exception of the Orthodox Churches (I am not theologically adept enough to address this) that is untrue of any other Church. It is insufficient to say "Well, there's always the [place a denomination here] Church down the street."

John of Disputations made this point several days ago. Too often we are not interested in seeking the truth. We have bought into the post-modernist lie that truth is relative. It is not. The Truth, in the person of Jesus Christ, is absolute. And the Truth was established on Earth as the Church of Jesus Christ, the mystical body of Christ. Just because a few of the neurons in the body go haywire and start producing garbled speech is no reason to consider abandoning the body.

Now, to give all due credit, I don't believe the person who wrote about this suggested that the ICEL retranslation would bring about such a crisis. If I understood correctly, he was suggesting a reversion to the Tridentine Mass might cause such difficulties. Of this I cannot say; however, I can say that no matter what the language or the translation or lack thereof, so long as the core stays the same--the words of institution are valid and are a reasonable translation of those used by Jesus, Himself, everything else is table decoration. I don't much care if it's Latin, Urdu, Swahili, French, Spoken Sanskrit, Etruscan, or what--the real presence of Jesus Christ at the banquet of the Eucharist is the only thing that matters. I can tolerate a great deal of nonsense and things I don't particularly care for to be close to My Lord and My God in the real presence. Outside of the Catholic (and perhaps Orthodox Churches) where else can this be true?

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:51 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 26, 2004

For Those Who Needed Another Reason to NOT Shop at Walmart

You might be interested in this post and its accompanying comments.

Link via Gutless Pacifist.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 9, 2004

Appalling Catholic E-mails

I just received the most ghastly appalling e-mail and my outrage must be vented.

It starts with a prayer card showing St. Thérèse and an animation of a blossoming rose. It is followed with this:

REMEMBER to make a wish before you read the poem. That's all you have to do. There is nothing attached. This is a powerful novena. Just send this to four people and let me know what happens on the fourth day.

Do not break this, please. Prayer is one of the best free gifts we receive. There is no cost but a lot of reward.

(Did you make a wish?) If you don't make a wish, it won't come true.

Last Chance to Make a Wish.

Make a wish and say a prayer? What is this sympathetic magic? I wish for a million dollars. Now I'll say the prayer and it will come to me.

I don't know if this has its origins in Catholic Circles or if it starts Catholic and is picked up by others, but it is an abuse of prayer and religious life akin to those that sparked reformation theology and it is a practice that should be soundly repudiated by every thinking Catholic as soon as they encounter it.

Prayer to and with the Saints is efficacious--it is not wish fulfillment or fantasy land. It also is not sympathetic magic. Ultimately one must be aligned with God's will and completely willing to do whatever God has in mind.

This kind of thing does us no service. And worse, it does God no service. How many who are not believers receive this, try it, and conclude that God is not listening, or worse does not exist?

Sorry I'm so het up about it, but it just acts in opposition to all we stand for and it needs to be acknowledged for what it is--wishful thinking not faith.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:56 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

January 7, 2004

Help Me, I'm Having an Erik Keilholtz Moment

(Erik, please forgive me if I misspelled your name, I couldn't find it on your blog anywhere.)

My post about head-bobbing has gotten a number of comments, and I'm half horrified by the amazing number of different instructions it seems people in various parts of the country are receiving. Effectively this means that if I go to a different parish I have to try to figure out among all the various nonconformists, noncompliants, and just the terminally daydreaming what is the proper liturgical posture before receiving communion. It sounds as though some have profound bows, some have simple bowing of the head, some may have nothing at all. All, I assume, dicatated by the Bishop of the Diocese.

In a place like the nearby Shrine which is a ministry for tourists to the area that means I could see about forty different things going on at communion time. It's already bad enough with the congregation standing about half the time with "Let Us Pray," and sometimes getting up halfway through, and sometimes sitting through the whole thing.

This is exactly why I oppose democratic rule in the Church. Tell me the ONE appropriate thing to do--whatever it may be. Don't give me options, don't make it the bailiwick of the Bishop to decide among four or five possibilities or invent something new. Please. I don't want to be distracted with what I should be doing, I want to be focusing and centered on the Eucharistic sacrifice. I don't want to think about me--I want to be thinking about Jesus. The advantages of a very clear rubric are that I don't need to be thinking about the mechanics, I can be thinking about and receiving the Lord.

When I was young and we were going to receive someone of importance at our school or church, the adults would practice with us for days ahead of time so that when the dignitary came, we could do what we were supposed to without flaw and we could focus more on the dignitary than on ourselves. That's the point, it seems to me of rubrics. Lead me on, deeper into the embrace of the Lord. Don't make me try to figure our if I should genuflect, bow, nod, do the twist, or whatever is the movement of the week. And for heaven's sake, try to help everyone do the same thing. There will always be a few noncompliants--but catechesis from the pulpit helps tremendously.

The first time I heard about standing at "Let Us Pray" was when I was at "Our Lady of the Angels" (Father Jim's church). It was clearly explained from the pulpit--both the proper action and the reasoning behind it. Apparently they had had a series of these talks to help people adjust to the changes in the liturgy. As a result, most of my experiences at Our Lady of the Angel reflect a relative uniformity of practice (Yes--there are always some strays and unexpected events).

Erik--you can see I do have a touch of the Prussian.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Head Bobbing in the Holy Presence

While I attempt to conform to all reasonable requests of the GIRM, there are some aspects that I find just plain annoying. Todd mentions one of these. Below is my response to him (See January 6, 2004: Checking in on IGRM changes):

I find the head nodding rather distracting and insufficiently respectful--typical of a society that has forgotten common and uncommon courtesy. You are in the presence of Him to Whom you owe all that you are, all that you have, all that you will ever be, and so you nod your head and give the big thumbs up and a "Cool, Dude!"

I prefer the Byzantine and Eastern rite profound bow (however, I do not do this in Roman Rite Churches because it is out of place and contra received instruction). Mindfulness, to my perception is mindfulness also of the relative stature of the two participants in this communion. As one protestant is quoted to have commented, "If I believed as you did regarding the Eucharist, I would have to prostrate myself upon the floor in its presence."

A head bobbing to the King of the Universe is somehow lacking.

All of that said, do I do the little head-bobbing thing? Yes. Why? Because that is what obedience is about--not my preferences, not what I find to my taste, not what I think is the right way to go about things. I have lived long enough and have had sufficient experience to realize that I am wrong at least as often as I am right. Moreover, St. Teresa of Avila advises us on the subject of obedience to do all that your spiritual advisor tells you to do and to pray about it. If it is in God's plan for you to do something else, then God will move your advisor to change his command. Until then, it is binding. And so, as a faithful son of my mother the Church, I obey--but I don't particularly like it.

Later: I suppose one of the things I find distasteful regarding this discipline is that it seems once again to detract from a sense of reverent awe and respect. One more time we are making casual what should never be other that awesome and awe-inspiring. Regardless of the time that it takes, if we were doing this properly, it seems, we would all be kneeling at an altar rail. (And this from someone who is not particularly "traditionalist" in any of his views.) I just can't think of any other way to appear before the King of All.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:00 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

December 28, 2003

Parish Decision

Went back to the church in question this weekend. Once again the homily was superb. No adult female altar servers--so I suspect the caution about incense was the main cause for the Midnight Mass adult female, and somehow that endears this group to me.

The hymns were mangled once again, but mangled in such a way that it suggests more than inclusivity is going on. There is a general dumbing down of the lyrics. For example, in "Angels from the Realms of Glory" they substituted "morning star" for "natal star." This just suggests idiotic tampering that I've come to associate with a certain major liturgical press. As a congregation generally buys books once, and not necessarily on the niceties of the lyrics, one is inclined to over look this.

In response to Don below, absolutely no mangling of the readings occurred this morning. The Psalm setting was exactly as it should have been and so too were all the readings. Another point in favor.

Nevertheless, we still have certain outstanding problems. Music provided this morning was duet for New Age keyboard and Saxophone with Cantor (okay, so a diverse group is contributing to the Church's music ministry). And the stained glass is ill-considered. Rather than pedagogical or inspirational, it is merely pretty blue, purple, red with a musical instrument motif--lute, French horn, etc.

I cam live with all of these quibbles. I can thrive in this church with the resolution of two questions, neither of which involves me directly.

(1) The first thing Samuel asked when we entered this Church this morning was "Why is Jesus dancing up there?" However, I did note that there seemed to be more willingness to participate and more general involvement with what is going on--so the issue of decor may be easy to put to rest.

(2) Much more problematic is that I don't see any organized catechesis for children. I know that I can do this by myself, and I will supplement whatever he gets wherever he goes with material at home. However, I do think it is good for him to be with others in learning about the faith--from the very beginnings understanding that worship is both private and public, individual and communal. I hope I am mistaken, but it appeared that there was no real means (CCD or otherwise) of cathechizing children. And if the comment I heard from the pew behind me just prior to consecration is any indication, this is a Church that desperately needs it.

A woman was explaining to her child or grandchild what the priest was holding up (the large host). She started with "That's Jesus." Good enough. Then the child said, "It doesn't look like Jesus." And the woman responded, "Well it's just a symbol of Jesus." Yes it is a symbol, but it is not "just a symbol" and in a moment it would not be a symbol at all--it would become the reality of Jesus.

However, this, I'm sure is the state of many in Church today, so I shouldn't be so harsh. And this woman could not possibly have been catechized at this Church, so it is not the influence of the Church itself.

I'll just need to continue my investigations. I thank everyone who has taken the time to respond and to help my thought process. The reality will boil down to what this church offers in the way of assisting me to help my child understand the faith. Everything else, I can deal with. It conjures up memories and spectres of the bad-old-days of protestant-Catholicism that marked my entry into the Church. But perhaps it is time much of that is laid to rest.

Honestly, I suspect the only local Church that I would be truly happy at would be the Byzantine Rite Church that looks like a Baptist Church that had been taken over by the Byzantines. I haven't tried the Maronite Rite Church yet--and the pastor there is fantastic--a man of tremendous faith and spirituality. But most importantly I need to find a place where Samuel can grow and become the person in Christ he is meant to be.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:43 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

December 26, 2003

Seeking Advice

For Midnight Mass, I attended my Parish Church. I mean my actual parish which I haven't visited since we first landed here in 1997, except for a confirmation sometime back.

The experience wasn't nearly as trying as the first time; however, it had just about everything possible to disorient and irritate.

Let's start with the decor. A typically modern church with the modern "flourishes" or architectural absurdity. The altar area resembles something out of H.P. Lovecraft with convoluted angles that suggest eldritch realms beyond--but nothing of glory.

Now the crucifix--ah, that's an essay in iteself to describe everyhting wrong with it. Picture Eric Idle in a loincloth in "Life of Brian" skipping through the desert. No--here it is--imagine a devout and devoted, but not very good plaster worker who has placed Jesus on the cross in something resembling a "retirer" (or Don, is that "retir&eactue;") pose, only the foot is at the front of the knee rather than the side. Now his arms are positioned out along the bar of the crucifix, palms upward and Jesus is looking upward--giving the overall effect of Him being out for a summer hop, skip, and jump with the notion of checking to see if there's rain in the forecast. Now, after this unfortunate devout plaster worker had finished the entire work, some bumbler went and spilled water over the entire thing causing a certain about of flaccidity and dripping--think Francis Bacon's Famous Triptych (Was it of Innocent X?). Oh, and all of this with a gold lame throw discretely veiling the privates.

Okay, that has always been there, and is an unfortunate reflection of the revolution in litugical art that is truly revolting.

Now to the liturgical absurdities that the present congregation did have some control over--there was present a full-grown woman dressed in altar-server's clothing. Because this woman did nothing but handle the objects involved with incense, I thought perhaps that this was simply a safety precaution on the part of the Church to avoid having relatively young girls and boys dealing with it--overall perhaps overly cautious, but sensible.

But this came after other things had already raised the hackles. The classic Christmas carol lyrics had been all but gutted and revamped so that there would be no mention made whatsoever of "man" or "men." Now, no matter how I feel about inclusive language (and I regard it quite guardedly) I outright despise the alteration of Charles Wesley's lyrics, or those of any number of other people to cater to today's whims in Political Correctness. If you want PC lyrics, write a new carol to reflect your views, don't gut my old and cherished ones--ones to which I have the lyrics memorized and do not wish to follow along in some preprinted inclusivity fest. Similarly, don't alter the psalms and the present translation of the Bible to suit your PC needs. (They did only a little of this, but it was sufficient to be annoying, given the already putrid translations offered us by the USCCB.)

One moment I did like (contra the vast majority of St. Blogs, which I know despises this beyond words) was holding hands during the "Our Father" even to the point of crossing aisles. (Obviously the GIRM hasn't reached this particular Parish. On the other hand, some changes in liturgy and practice occur as a result of grass-roots measures. My indoctrination as a Catholic was done by a very devout group of Claretians that had a mission at my college. My introduction to the liturgy came through the Newman center there. And other than this hand-holding was enitrely Orthodox and orthopraxial, so far as I can remember. Thus I came to love this moment, and it was beautiful.) Unfortunately it was spoiled by the show-tune version of the Our Father that seems all the rage in such parishes. You know the one--where temptation becomes the nearly four syllable--temp-tay-ay-shun.

Okay, so it wasn't a satisfying liturgy. I sat there much of the time fuming. And then it occurred to me, that perhaps I should spend a good deal more time at this place. Perhaps I have been dulled into complacency by attendance at a Church that, while not spectacular, does do everything by the book. (Moreover, the homily was very, very good--emphasizing the need for a constant rebirt of Christ in all of our lives in order to carry Him and His message into the world.) I also thought that there were here many very devout, very loving people, who cherish the liturgy--in other words, people who were doing their best to express to God their love of Him. They weren't doing a job I particularly appreciated--but I didn't hear anyone else complaining on the way out.

Third, it occurred to me that attending this church would be a practice of patience and charity. Attending Mass would have at once a certain penitential and celebratory aspect--this seems quite desirable.

I haven't decided yet, but I've almost convinced myself that I should be at this church, assisting at Mass in such a way that perhaps through time it might change, little by little, to reflect a somewhat more correct practice. Also, it would be good to wean me from attachment to things that may matter greatly, but not so greatly as the presence of Christ Himself. And He was there in the proclaimed word and in the validly consecrated Eucharist (under both species). If anyone was out-of-tune, it was me. But I can't shake the feeling that this was a good place for me to be--that I should cherish the opportunity offered by God in this particular setting.

Any thoughts or reflections that may help me in my decision would be appreciated. I know that it is ultimately up to me and up to the prayer I share with God to discern where I should be. But it is quite difficult. This church has the attraction both of obedience (my parish) and of not fitting me to a "T." Perhaps I need to be more open and more generous in my view of things. Perhaps I also need to learn to sit quietly and endure certain kinds of hardship. I honestly don't know.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 3:46 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

December 1, 2003

On Progressive Catholicism

First, I want to thank M. Jcecil3 for the removal of labels from some people on his site. I think my point may have been misconstrued, so I do want to make it clear--I don't stand opposed to being labeled (that is part and parcel of humility), but I do find the use of labels not terribly helpful, and potentially lacking in charity--but these are subtle issues. I wanted once again to engage in dialogue with M. Jcecil because he is so lively and courteous a correspondent.

First I thought I would address the following list of "controversial" topics that he lists on his site--with each point, I will indicate my own position. This is more a reminder list so that I might be able to address those points on which we disagree.

M. Jcecil's list:

(1) I believe that God can be called Mother as well as Father--For me, not a matter of controversy--it has been done throughout the history of the Church and within the Bible itself--at least tangentially and by implication. Most radically, the hymns of St. Anselm to Christ our Mother.

(2) That inclusive language in reference to the people of God should be used in liturgy--I don't know about this. I suppose if it is a proper and accurate translation fine--however, if it is the hideous jumble that often results from the over-the-top attempts at inclusivity, I'd rather not.

(3) That women could be ordained ministerial priest, and perhaps should be ordained (The Pope has clearly said no to this one)--We will disagree on this.

(4) That married men should be ordained--some are--usually converts from other faiths who have faculties within those faiths. And certainly in Anglican Use and Eastern Churches this is already done. I don't feel particularly attached to this discipline of the Church, but perhaps I have too vague an understanding.

(5) That even with original sin, we image the divine and we are inherently capable of some good--We will disagree on this. I am with the traditional teaching that argues that self is sufficient for sin alone--good may only be accomplished through the power of God.

(6) That the ancient rite of adelphopoiesis could be restored as a union for homosexual Catholics--We will disagree--I hope to spell out my disagreement in more detail.

(7) That divorced and remarried Catholics can participate in the life of the Church--I leave this to the Canon lawyers; however, I think not.

(8) That artificial contraception in marriage is morally equivalent to natural family planning--While I disagree with the notion, I do find it interesting that the morality of either is not commented upon.

(9) That ecumenical dialogue is essential to contemporary Catholicism and we can learn from non-Catholics--Unquestionably.

(10) That social justice is part and parcel of the gospel--Absolutely, depending on whether one intends that to mean also the fullness of the gospel, in which case it is not true.

(11)That salvation is integral for the whole human person (involving liberation)--Uncertain what the codicil (involving liberation) means; however, if it indicates liberation theology, we will most probably disagree.

(12) That there is room for democratic forms of Church governance--There certainly is room for it, and then one ends up with what happens in the Anglican communion. Historically, this is a very unstable way to govern churches--22,000 different denominations of Protestants are a fairly strong argument against this.

(13) That Catholics should be committed to conserving the environment--Certainly, we are stewards of Earth's resources, we must care for them and see to it that they are used wisely, or in some cases not at all.

(14) That Catholics can conscientiously object to all war on principle--I think this may be true--I find just war doctrine a case of special pleading that has yet to really convince me. I don't know that just war is possible--although I wonder about conscientious objection to something like WWII. But I can be persuaded.

(15) That Catholics should be opposed to the death penalty in the modern world--I believe the Holy Father basically says as much, despite what justice Scalia may remark on the point. I agree.

Here are fifteen "controversial" issues on which I agree in whole or in part with nine. Now, I may be agreeing to something not proposed, and may not be agreeing on issues of subtlety--but some of these issues are, it seems to me, only controversial in a very small part of the Catholic population as a whole. I doubt seriously whether many well-informed Catholics would suggest that the Earth is ours to pillage and destroy as we will. There might be a few, but vanishingly few.

So it seems on some issues of controversy, I find myself at least sympathetic to the views likely to be espoused by M. Jcecil3. On the issues wherein there is disagreement, I hope to spend some time later.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:59 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

November 20, 2003

Adelphopoiesis--On Agendas and Faulty Scholarship

Among the many riches of Jcecil3's site is a sort of statement of faith designed to show that he is, indeed, a faithful Catholic despite disagreement with some key and controversial church teachings. There are probably a great many things to say with regard to this, but the first and most important is to point out that it is not up to us (meaning those looking in) to decide the nature or breadth of another's faith or in what manner that faith is being lived. It IS up to us to refute error and to correct misdeeds, and to his credit, Mr. Jcecil invites this. But there is a variety of categorization that would suggest that it is up to some of us to decide where Mr. Jcecil is with respect to God--that, of course, is presumption--no one knows.

However, I do find some of the positions delineated by Mr. Jcecil untenable, and I do think it is important to state why. Among these positions "That the ancient rite of adelphopoiesis could be restored as a union for homosexual Catholics." Now, this was counter to my understanding of what the rite was established for, and what it really meant in context. As a result I felt led to do a bit more research and happened upon a very fine paper from The Stephanos Project that addresses, and I believe, successfully refutes this misappropriation of this rite to the blessing of same-sex unions. This entire site has some very interesting work examining many questions from the Orthodox perspective and is recommended reading for those who may already have considered Mr. Jcecil's plea, or those who wish to know more about this largely misinterpreted rite.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Postmodernist Argument

I have of recent date spent a bit of time elsewhere on the web reading the arguments of some well-intended, but grossly misled people. The following excerpt encapsulates my arguments with postmodern discussions of almost anything:

from Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There
Lewis Carroll

Chapter 6: Humpty Dumpty

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

And so it is among the postmodernists. Because it is important that everything return to the dynamic of power, whether it belongs there or not, a subtle warping of the language occurs. This is most particularly noted in the fact that "racism" has ceased to mean any program that posits the superiority or inferiority of a group of people based on race alone and has come to mean (paraphrasing Robert Hughes's colorful terminology), the mindset of "the pale penile hegemony." This is patent nonsense. It is possible for person other than white males to be both racist and sexist. It is not completely a societal power issue. It is or can be a personal power issue. When I was not hired for a position that I was extremely well-qualified because that position "required" a female--sexism was in force. When I make a judgment based solely on race, even if I have no power over the individual and cannot affect anything that happens, I am being racist.

So too with any person of any color who makes a predetermination based solely on race or sex. It is racist or sexist--even if they have no power to affect me directly.

I am disturbed by wishing to see the dynamic entirely in the marxist sense of class struggle. Decisions based on race alone are a sin against charity and an offense to God. To remand such decisions made against white persons to a different class of actions is both irresponsible and perhaps even sinful in itself, because it is a step toward justifying them.

The problem is that when the disagreement is this bone-deep, there is no point in discussing it, because you can't even agree on initial premises. A postmodern thinker would wander through and try to convince me that my definitions are wrong--but I could not accede. I would point out that Robert Mugabe's actions in Zimbabwe are racist, and they would respond that they are postcolonial restorative actions. When you are this far apart merely on definitions, what can you really discuss? You won't even be using the same language (which is another part of the post-modern doctrine.)

So I simply state my grievance here because I have spent many hours considering it and it is time to let it rest so that I might return to a more equilibrated state. Words do not mean what you want them to when you define them. Political reality is not the only reality in which to work--in fact, it isn't even reality--it is Orwellian distortion most of the time. And that, it seems, is one of the primary errors of postmodern vision. For those desiring a more intense, but very humorous look, see James Hynes's The Lecturer's Tale.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:20 AM | TrackBack

November 18, 2003

Gay Marriage and Usurpation of Power

I continue to be annoyed that there is more legislation from the bench than from the legislature. And yet, if the legislature acts to overturn this judicial fiat (as in Terri Schiavo's case) we are somehow tampering with the (almost entirely imaginary*) balance of powers. What "balance" is there to unrestrained judicial fiat? Or, in other words, when do we get our democracy back.

(By the way, I don't know where I stand with respect to the issue at hand in a civil context. I think it's bad law to declare what is morally wrong to be legally right. On the other hand, I don't get as het up about this issue as some.)

*For those unaware--John Marshall invented the "right" of judicial review almost out of whole cloth in the famous Marbury v. Madison case. He decided single-handedly to change what the framers of the Contstitution had set in place (with woeful results down to the present day) and made possible the judicial usurpation of both legislative and executive branches.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:42 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

November 17, 2003

Not For Children. . .

But thank goodness

this

and

this

are coming to more prominent public attention.

I was feeling bad the other day for buying a toy rack that was made in Thailand because there is no question but that terrible exploitation of children and women take place in the country. And then I thought, at least if the children are working here they are not in a worse place. (Yes, I know JB, hardly a salve to conscience--it's becoming impossible to buy ANYTHING any more. But I don't have the skills to make it all for myself.)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 2:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

On the Use of Labels

Jcecil posts an interesting article of "conservative's use of language," by which he seems to aim largely at the very intemperate language Mr. Shea tends to use at his blogspot. (Direct linking not available, look for the article, "The Misuse of Language by Conservatives." The very title begs the question--then language is not misused and manipulated by "liberals"?)

I have a number of problems with the reasoning of some of the portions of these posts, as it seems that the source of the information on Africa is largely the Portland Baseline Essays on Multiculturism with their emphasis on warm "Mama Africa" and icy cold "Eurotrash." Much of what is said is simply not substantiated, nor, is it likely substantiatable. (One could point out innumerable examples of cultures in Africa, such as the Ik where what is said is patently untrue). But let me reserve those comments for another time. Something I did want to bring to notice is this:

from Jcecil3's Progressive Catholic Reflections

Look throughout Catholic blogdom and we see "heretics", "dissidents", "feminazis", "bleeding hearts", "lefties", "commies", "racist", "nazis", "bullies", "fascists", "brownshirts", "fuzzy wuzzies", "cafeteria catholics", etc...etc...all thrown about rather loosely, with little discussion of facts and little in the way of a coherent and logical argument.

I am not denouncing the use of labels in general, such as "liberal" or "conservative". This is not name calling so much as trying to locate an opinion on a spectrum. Nor do I mind an occassional playful verbal jab done in humor (I post many of the Curt Jester's playful spoofs on liberals in my humor section).

I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph, and have substantial disagreement with the second. I do not think labels "locate" something on a spectrum because the labels themselves are largely meaningless out of context. For example, Mr. Jcecil3 himself labels me as "conservative," but nearly everyone else I know thinks that I have rather liberal attitudes on most things. What Mr. Jcecil3 may mean by this is that among adherents to the true teaching of the church, I tend to be on the conservative side of Catholic Issues. As Catholic Teaching at root tends to be on the "liberal" side of politics (a preferential option for the poor, restricted or eliminated Death Penalty, etc.), the labels become hieroglyphics, interpretable in any number of ways. They more often than not serve as a shortcut for dismissing an opinion. Many of my friends label anything they don't care for "fundamentalist." Now that it is well and properly labelled, it can be shoved on the far side of the table and ignored.

So, I suppose I simply nuance Mr. Jcecil's noble sentiment (and I do not mean that sarcastically or sardonically). It is better to eschew a label that has no real content. In fact, it is better to simply deal with the idea at hand and not use a label that contextually may be perjorative of its very nature. Just as Mr. Shea would do better to exercise some restraint in speaking of people whose views differ from his own, we might all do well to consider that we should deal compassionately with a person and ruthlessly with an idea, without labeling the person for holding the idea.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 2:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Ex Cathedra Does Not Mean Ex nihilo

There seems to be an opinion in some circles that an ex cathedra pronouncement of dogma is essentially an innovation in thought, sprung new-formed from the head of whatever Pope happens to make the pronouncement. I look particularly at the oddities that surround both the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. Both of these dogmatic pronouncements had extremely long histories of belief before they were articulated in priniciple by their respective posts.

I am reminded of this because of one of the pictures I saw either at the El Greco exhibit or in an adjacent gallery. The painting was of sixteenth century Spanish vintage and it was titled, "Mary {or perhaps "The Mother of God") of the Immaculate Conception." This was centuries before the pronouncement in 1854(?)

Why then the feeling that something new came to light with this dogmatic definition?

(1) It's a convenient club to further drub the Catholic Church about the head and shoulders.

(2) Protestants do not of their nature care for "tradition." They do not distinguish between "Tradition" and "tradition." Note that the enormously popular book by Rick Warren articulates this once again. A recent article by Christopher Hall in Christianity Today states why Evangelicals can honor the Church Fathers, but pretty much ignore the rest of Catholic Tradition (although his reasoning is somewhat better than Warren's).

So, to those who think that we invent new things to add on to what scripture reveals willy-nilly; please be aware that even very serious dogmatic pronouncements are not innovation, they are articulation--precise definition of what what has long been believed anyhow.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:32 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 7, 2003

Inclusive Language

Please see Mr. Bogner's note on the desirability of inclusive language and democratic election in the Church and comment more intelligibly than I could bring myself to do.

The only question I keep bringing to the fore is "Why are we so afraid of God the Father, of Him who is?" Why do some feel the need to geld God in the name of inclusion. God contains the perfection of all that is male and female, and yet revelation teaches us to call Him Father. It would seem to follow from that, that there is a reason for doing so. The calls to change every "Him" to "God" strike me as very misled altruism--the desire for inclusion at the cost of revelation.

Wittgenstein showed us that to some degree language shapes our perception of reality. Mr. Bogner posits that there should be a dual liturgy--one with inclusive language and one without. That seems to suggest building polarization into the Catholic Church in the very liturgy, which would only lead to the same destination as all polarization--further riving and fragmentation.

Later: A wonderful response from Ms. Peony Moss

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:11 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

November 5, 2003

On The Da Vinci Code

I thought I'd offer a few assists for those battling the literalist reading of The Da Vinci Code (Heaven help us if these people start to read everything is so literal a fashion--I'd hate to see what a nation of literalist O'Connor readers migth do to us all. "Wouldn'a been a bad person if there'da been somebody there to shoot him every minute of his life."

Start with this image of The Last Supper. If the person next to Christ is actually female, what are we to make of the second figure from the left and the fourth and fifth figures from the right. (That fifth one looks as though he has breasts.) Our conclusion should not be that Da Vinci inserted a woman into the last supper, but rather than Da Vinci tended to paint very effeminate men.

That supposed disembodied hand holding the knife--look at it. It is obviously being held by the man comforting (not making a chopping motion) the supposed "Mary Madgalene" figure. I think this man is supposed to be Peter.

Absurdities uncollected elsewhere--one of the rhymes near the end of the book requires a eulogy from a pope in England. One of the near idiot intelligence characters from the book points out that "It didn't say the Pope had to be Catholic" (I paraphrase). Well, they are referring to Alexander Pope's eulogy over Sir Isaac Newton, and for anyone interested, that Pope most certainly is Catholic.

Ms. Meisel has done a far more thorough approach to hacking this apart. But I thought I'd add these couple of points.

When I read the book I was astounded at the sheer plodding nature of these supposedly brilliant minds. These people were so slow on the uptake I wanted to knock them upside the head to get them moving.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. No more and no less real that Stephen King's Castle Rock or Michael Crichton's island of dinosaurs. Because a few cranks in the past have held odd notions about Jesus and religion makes them no more valid than if I were to declare the obvious truths of Stephen King's Cujo. The history of religion is the history of odd notions that are suppressed or die out on their own. Many of them were mutually contradictory. If we were to credit each of these with the validity granted The Da Vinci Code, we would have no time to get on with our lives. These notions are being grasped by the same faction of the Catholic Church that wants desperately to see the ordination of women; by people who do not realize that women do not need empowerment--they have enough of that themselves--but women need the courage to live what God has already given them. As with all people the goal is not to seek to be other than what we are, but to seek to be true to God's vision of us.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:16 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

On Politics in the South-A View from the Core

Mr. Lane Core offers a lengthy excerpt from Zell Miller's new book about Southern Conservative Democrats (I wish we in Florida could find such a thing--but no such luck). I normally don't do politics, and when I stray into them it is a disaster--so far better for me to recommend some interesting reading at a better-informed source.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:18 AM | TrackBack

On Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables

I finished reading The House of the Seven Gables a night or so ago and have allowed myself time to crystallize some thoughts.

Hawthorne never claimed to write novels. He referred to all of his works as romances. This puzzles me, because it is hard to make The Scarlet Letter into a romance unless we view it as an ultimately failed romance. However, he was quite accurate as to the characterization in the sense that the characters in the novels never quite behave as real characters, but take on a fairy-tale like dimension in which they act some role to fulfill a purpose.

So in Seven Gables we have five main characters--Hepzibah, Phoebe, Clifford, Judge Pyncheon, and Holford (or Holworth or something like that--a Daguerreotypist). In addition there is a scattering of other characters--a young boy who patronizes Hepzibah's shop to the point nearly of terrorizing her.

Hepzibah and Clifford live in Seven Gables, a house of ill omen which is said to have brought about the deaths of several residents. Judge Pyncheon has actually inherited the vast majority of the other wealth once associated with the house and is out to get more. Phoebe is some sort of semi-detached cousin who floats in to start up a romance with the Daguerreotypist.

The novel suffers a bit from excesses. There is an entire chapter devoted to exhorting a dead man to rise from his chair and kind of looking at the ghosts that pass parade-like around him. There is a subplot involving mesmerism and of course the obligatory curse from the past that has come to roost on the present family.

What is most remarkable about the novel, despite its divergences from what we commonly consider the novelist endeavor, is how readable and how interesting it really is. I took quite a while to get through it because I read in fits and starts according to mood. This book requires a sustained reading and I am sure the atmosphere would be powerful and interesting. This is what Hawthorne excels at --atmosphere. But also, unexpectedly, he has a penchant for a dry and subtle sort of humor. Take for example this scene from very early on in the book:

IT still lacked half an hour of sunrise, when Miss Hepzibah Pyncheon-we will not say awoke, it being doubtful whether the poor lady had so much as closed her eyes during the brief night of midsummer - but, at all events, arose from her solitary pillow, and began what it would be mockery to term the adornment of her person. Far from us be the indecorum of assisting, even in imagination, at a maiden lady's toilet! Our story must therefore await Miss Hepzibah at the threshold of her chamber; only presuming, meanwhile, to note some of the heavy sighs that labored from her bosom, with little restraint as to their lugubrious depth and volume of sound, inasmuch as they could be audible to nobody save a disembodied listener like ourself. . . .

The maiden lady's devotions are concluded. Will she now issue forth over the threshold of our story? Not yet, by many moments. First, every drawer in the tall, old-fashioned bureau is to be opened, with difficulty, and with a succession of spasmodic jerks then, all must close again, with the same fidgety reluctance. There is a rustling of stiff silks; a tread of backward and forward footsteps to and fro across the chamber. We suspect Miss Hepzibah, moreover, of taking a step upward into a chair, in order to give heedful regard to her appearance on all sides, and at full length, in the oval, dingy-framed toilet-glass, that hangs above her table. Truly! well, indeed! who would have thought it! Is all this precious time to be lavished on the matutinal repair and beautifying of an elderly person, who never goes abroad, whom nobody ever visits, and from whom, when she shall have done her utmost, it were the best charity to turn one's eyes another way?

There is a sly current under this, an amusing undertone that sets certain expectations for the book that certainly are fulfilled.

Everyone should spend some time with the old books. For every modern piece read C.S. Lewis suggested that one of some vintage should be consumed to counterbalance our chronological chauvinism. If you are in the market for such an adventure--you could do much worse than to spend some time in The House of the Seven Gables

Next Report likely to be Death Comes for the Archbishop Willa Cather's masterpiece of the Southwest.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 4, 2003

On the Troubles in the Anglican Communion

An erudite and to-the-point commentary on a subject I feel no competence to comment on from Mr. Morrison. His blog might also be a place to explore for a better understanding of the Church's teaching on homosexuality.

And as much as I admire this well considered and nicely reasoned piece by Fr. Jim, I cannot help but disagree on several major points. I find it difficult to imagine how a man living in obvious sin and holding this up as a model for all to follow will lead souls to Christ. Truly, I hope that it happens, but I don't find it likely. Moreover, I sense a certain air of "I told you so" in the remarks that say we should be unsurprised by these developments. I suppose that the stage had truly been set; however, this is a dangerous departure not simply for the Episcopal Church but for all churches that rely upon the authority of the Bible in any degree. This action simply says that what we find difficult or do not care for wasn't really written with our understanding or for us anyway. Thus, we are free to ignore it. The tendency is already pronounced in our own Church, I fear this will give it greater momentum. But perhaps my difference of opinion is merely of degree, not of kind.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:48 AM | TrackBack

On the Church's Teaching Regarding Homosexuality

Mr. Bogner asks a question below that I fear I do not have the expertise to address properly, but which I feel should be addressed, and so I place it here.

It also reminds me of Catholicism's approach to homosexual clergy - we all know there is a fair number of homosexual priests, but as long as they are celibate then it seems our bishops don't really pay much attention to them. If homosexuality is wrong, then isn't it wrong whether someone is celibate or not? Or is it? I don't have that figured out, not even close to it.

I venture into this area with trepidation, but I am certain that there are many more studied than I am who can correct my understanding of Church teaching. The church teaches that the inclination to homosexuality is intrinsically disordered but not in itself sinful. Just as the inclination to polygamy and promiscuity is gravely disordered, if it is not acted upon, it is not sinful. Homosexuality is not a sin. Being a homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts either physically or, as with heterosexual acts, entertaining thoughts and encouraging them, is sinful. A chaste homosexual is not committing a sin. He is defying no commandment and no law. Just as a person inclined to theft commits no sin so long as he takes nothing belonging to another. To be attracted to something is not in itself sinful--acting on that attraction can be so.

That's how I understand it, and I admit that it is very crude and not terribly nuanced. But the reason bishops care little if a person is a homosexual is that Priests are called to live a chaste life. I introduce this word because often we use celibate, which technically means only unmarried to mean chaste which refers to conduct. It is entirely possible to be celibate and unchaste and uncelibate but chaste. In the Carmelite Order we make promises of "chastity according to station in life." That is a married person is chaste when faithful to his or her spouse. A celibate person is chaste when he or she refrains from indulging the sexual impulse. A chaste, celibate homosexual should present no more problem for a bishop than a chaste, celibate heterosexual. There are theories and expositors to the contrary, but I will not argue that as I am on even shakier ground than this initial discussion. And I do invite those better informed, more aware, or more skillful in conveying proper Church teaching to jump in and help us all understand better exactly what the Church does teach.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:07 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 28, 2003

When to Nuance--Ms. Schaivo's Lesson to Us

Twice in recent days Mark at Minute Particulars has posted on the need for nuance. And I preface this with an apology to him if anything I say seems overly strong or harsh.

An excerpt from a recent post:

There is an understandable backlash at attempts to nuance situations that seem so utterly obvious. And, as I mentioned in the below post on partial-birth abortion, I know this backlash firsthand since I really don't see how anyone could find the doctor's words anything other than repulsive. What could possibly be nuanced here? What requires discussion? But I think such a reaction is simplistic and ultimately morally detrimental. Unless you think someone capable of this is the devil incarnate, there ought to be a way to express our moral concerns carefully and intelligently. Any hope of passing laws that will be upheld requires this; and, more to the point, any hope of converting hearts will fail without it.

And I don't have any real trouble with his point. My difficulty comes with the timing of nuancing. When we nuance someone to death we have created a far greater injustice than we can hope to rectify by our nuancing.

Nuancing has been horrendously abused by many post Vatican II reformers to support whatever the spin of the moment might happen to be. That in no way detracts from its importance; however, it does add a certain aura to the term and to the deed. Too many of us have been burned by "nuances" that have reinterpreted Church tradition and law out of existence. The Anglican Church is currently riven with nuance that basically is gutting Christian theology. Nuance has quite a disreputable patina.

Now, take this term that already has a certain weight and apply it to a situation which in itself is really not a case for a rocket scientist and the appearance you get is someone trying to justify the unjustifiable. Because I feel that I know Mark relatively well from his writing, I feel comfortable with the fact that this is not what he is trying to do. On the other hand, all of these arguments come back to us, and we find people saying, "Well Mr. Schaivo is her husband, and don't we believe in the sacramental nature of marriage." Our nuanced argument has just turned good Catholics who are fighting desperately to save a life into those who would overturn Catholic doctrine and sacraments.

The time to nuance our discussion is when Ms. Schaivo has been delivered from the army of Satan massed against her. We need to carefully consider all of the points that are under discussion, we need to thoroughly understand Church teaching and doctrine. But what we need more than anything else right now is straightforward, clear action, based on the circumstances here and now and not on hypotheticals and nuances that could result in a person's death

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:00 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

October 23, 2003

The Sacrament of Marriage and Ms. Shiavo's Case

Mark at Minute Particulars makes some excellent points about the sacrament of Marriage and its position in being able to make health care decisions about a disabled spouse. And for the most part I agree. But I have to say that I see very little shadow of doubt about the propriety of the action in this case because one must wonder how much of the sacrament is intact. One of the reasons little discussion has been devoted to this fact of the case, I believe, is because one must get very scrupulous and legalistic about definitions and who can decide what. After all--the sacrament does not appear to be lived out in this case, (further statement may constitute gossip and so I refrain). I think in any discussion of who makes what decisions, extenuating circumstances such as this must be considered. I give more weight to the legislative action taken in this case, not because it was necessarily right and proper, but it is up to the state to defend those who cannot speak for themselves. Under these circumstance, where it might be more convenient for the person making the decision to have someone "put out of their misery," I believe additional scrutiny is probably in order.

The sacrament of Marriage should drive who we consider the proper person to make decisions in this matter, but then, so should all the circumstances of the case and not a mere legalism.

"Don't we undermine marriage somewhat if we steamroll over the authority a husband or wife has for an incapacitated spouse?" In answer to this very legitimate question, I think the reply must be based not on speculative theory but what was right in this case or in the case under inspection. If to all exterior appearances the sacrament is being lived out fully, all due consideration must be paid to this; however, I think it is relatively easy to see that there are good reasons to suspect Mr. Shiavo's devotion to Ms. Schiavo and his dedication to her best interest. In such a case, should we close our eyes to extenuating circumstances and stand on a rather legalistic interpretation of what the sacrament is all about? My reading indicates that Mark in no way suggests this and I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that I impute this view to him; however, it is the other side, and a tremendously important side at that, of the discussion. And because it is so seamy and so filled with innuendo and the possibility of uncharitableness, it may not have gotten much play in the course of discussion. However, I don't think we can allow the view taken during the Clinton Administration that what one does in one's private life should not affect the view of public actions. As with all such discussions, this one needs to be considered as a whole--and I suspect that the question of the sacrament is somewhat less problematic in the instance.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 9, 2003

On Pro-Life Endeavors

I found the following strongly worded and provocative entry in a comments box at Disputations--as it was a rejoinder somewhat off the main point, I thought I would drag it out and comment upon it here.

Comment by Mr. Jospeh D'Hippolito at Disputations

Second, regarding your skepticism of voting because of "pro-life" issues: The biggest problem with "pro-life" Christians in general is that they demand (let alone expect) a democratic government expressed through republican institutions to remake society in their moral image. That is beyond the scope of such institutions, which are designed to ensure individual liberty against government intrusion, not to create a society of virtue where none exists. The Founding Fathers always knew that the success of their experiment depended on a virtuous citizenry.

Besides, "pro-life" Christians have deluded themselves into believing that the ultimate answer to abortion lies in public policy, rather than private endeavors. What sort of endeavors? For one thing, sex education based on personal responsibility and Christian values. For another, centers funded by Christians of means where unmarried, pregnant women can have their babies safely, learn maternal skills, perhaps even get a modicum of job training and a GED. For a third, promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Mr. D'Hippolito and I have exchanged views in the past at Disputations. Mr. D'Hipplolito tends to strong language and strongly worded thoughts. That said, I cannot but agree with the essential thrust of what is said here. Well, let's say that with a little demurral. I do believe that as committed Christians we should push to have as much of our worldview as possible represented in the laws that drive our society; however, I do not think that legislation is ultimately the solution to the problem. The solution lies in making abortion not merely a crime but unnecessary and undesirable.

Now, to give groups credit, many pro-lifers do not spend their time pushing for absolutist legislation that has, it seems to me, little chance of success. A great many do run the kinds of help places Mr. D'Hippolito lists above--but more are needed and more volunteers are needed, and more responsibility needs to be taken by parents for the proper education and instruction of children in matters dealing with sex--and yes, schools should be stressing Chrisitan values and personal responsibility.

All that is here seems very sensible to me. I would just add that it does no harm to continue to work for legislation that helps to put limits on abortion as well. I just don't think it is reasonable, practical, or sensible for that to be the main or only thrust of any work toward a solution to the problem and crime of abortion.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 1, 2003

National Coalition of American Nuns

Now there's a phrase to ring terror into every heart. What in the world does a group of nuns have to form a coalition about? This sounds like the AFL-CIO. I was blissfully unaware that such an organization existed and hope to return to that blissful state momentarily. But it did strike a note, a nerve, or some other n-thing. I can't imagine Thérèse (you knew I'd get her here somehow) joining, condoning, or even noticing such an organization. Were there National Coalitions of Nuns in France in the 1890s?

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 25, 2003

You Should Be Reading Him

If you are not read this refugee from the calamity of the Episcopal Church, you should be. There is much food for thought:

from an Essay by David Warren

The nonsense most now believe about such legal abstractions as "equality" perfectly illustrates the case. The fiction, for instance, that "same-sex marriage" could be instituted as an "equality issue", can only be spread among people deprived of the intellectual equipment to resist it. For a person of average intelligence, and an old-fashioned grade school education, the idea could never fly: for the institution of marriage has had, from its beginnings in prehistory, nothing to do with equality of any kind.

Let us pray for him as he crosses the Tiber and for all our Episcopalian brothers and sisters who now face the loss of something that has long been precious to them. Perhaps it is awakening from sleep, but it is a most painful awakening--rather like the loss of one's mother.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:20 AM | TrackBack

September 24, 2003

Gross Incivility

I'm often stunned by the gross incivility displayed on both sides of any given debate. This was brought to mind this afternoon by the success of yet another ill-titled, conceivably ill-tempered Al Franken book, pumped up by various media interests to match the insidiously vitriolic and questionable accuracy of Ann Coulter. (She does not miraculously become correct if she happens to express many opinions with which I can agree. I have a bad track record as regards my opinions.) As much as I like to look at Ms. Coulter, I think that being in the same room with her (or with Mr. Franken) would likely be a most unpleasant experience.

Part of this is the human tendency to attribute only the most malign motives to anyone who opposes us. And I think this a mistake. For example, I think it a mistake to attribute malign motives to most people who support a limited right to abortion. They can be wrong and even wrong-headed without any intent to be malign.

It seems to me that the better part of any conversation would be to assume the motive of the conversant is basically driven by good-will. (Mr. da Fiesole has disagreed with me in the past on this, but his reasons did not persuade--it seems the better part of charity to start with the assumption that most people act out of good will or at least with no malignant motive until proven otherwise.) Only in this way may one truly address the issue at hand.

Now this leads to a second assumption, one in which I am more often than not truly disappointed. I assume that two disputants who are talking about a serious issue really seek the truth on the issue. That's not to say that anyone's mind will be changed in a sudden stroke, but rather both are seeking input to modify the worldview accordingly. It may not be input to modify the position they hold, but it may be a deeper understanding of why someone would hold the opposite opinion and what the implications of that may be. In many matters, it is unimportant ("Make it pink, Make it blue.) But in a great many issues to not seek the truth is great folly. However, many people see the ideas they hold as somehow personal possessions, and a challenge to those ideas is a personal affront--an attack on the integrity of the person. I recognize this tendency in myself, and often have to back away to consider what has been said and what it really means to the notions I hold. I take a great deal of time sometimes to assimilate new notions and change my mindset and behavior to accommodate them. It is better to take a short period to cool off and then realize that the idea is not part of the self--to relinquish a bad idea is to strengthen one's Christian armor. Truth is far more important than either my personal opinion or the possibility that I might seem foolish to some. Foolish or not, I need to listen and to try to understand, and to seek God's way--the truth in all things.

And so I know that neither Ms. Coulter (whose previous book I did read, and whose present book I made a stab at but found so full of the pestilence of ill-humor and self-righteousness, not to mention a generous dollop of vitriol, gossip, and acrimony) nor Mr. Franken (ditto, ditto, ditto--and add to it that like many for whom he writes toeing the party line is more important than truth) have much, if anything to say that will enlighten my perpetual darkness.

In fact, why should it surprise anyone that the Right lies or the left lies, or the news is slanted this way or that? It may be dismaying, but as we all learned long ago, every story is told from a point of view--there is no perfect objective point of view in the human realm. That, in part, is what the Fall is about. So why should we be surprised if we find that a reporter has obscured this point or that, or that they have told only half of the story. Anyone willing to believe anything printed in a newspaper or news magazine deserves the world view it is likely to give them.

If we seek the truth, then we should seek it in places where it dwells--in the heart of Jesus Christ, in the center of the Gospel, in the message of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, in the lives of the Saints, in prayer. Seeking the truth beyond these bounds is an endless, fruitless, and ultimately depressing, oppressing, and empty endeavor. Knowledge of truth apart from God is not knowledge at all, but opinion, for in Him resides the fullness of the truth, and all else is inconsequential.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 3:10 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 19, 2003

De Praescriptione Haereticorum

How to argue with heretics and how not to--with reference to my last post and to recent debacle in the Episcopal Church this synopsis of the On the Prescription of Heretics just packed a wallop.

This book is about how Christians think about heresy and respond to the arguments of heretics. Tertullian is concerned at the way Christians are disputing with heretics and pagans, and the effect this is having on believers. He feels that it is never possible to convict a heretic from the scriptures, because they simply deny the authority of whichever bit of scripture they are quoted, and shift their ground every moment. At the same time the spectacle of the dispute seems to put their opinions on the same level as that of the scriptures. In general, how do we recognise and deal with heretics - people who pretend to be Christians but actually accept no authority but their own opinions?

Posted by Steven Riddle at 2:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 18, 2003

An Open Letter to Jeb Bush

Dear Esteemed Governor,

As a citizen of the State of Florida, I am appalled at the way a rampant judiciary has taken it upon itself to sentence a woman unable to speak for herself to an unspeakably horrible death. I will readily admit that I do not know all the facts in the case, but it seems to me that there are people who would be willing custodians of the precious life of Terri Schiavo, and in that event, these people should be allowed the opportunity to care for her. Obviously there are differences of opinion about Ms. Shiavo's chances and if the person presently in custody no longer cares to be burdened with her, so be it. However, given the present state of disagreement, it is not seemly that anyone should preempt any chance Ms. Schiavo may have to continue her rightful life here on Earth.

It is your right and privilege as Governor of the great State of Florida to issue a stay of execution on any prisoner or an person rightly adjudged of the courts of Florida to have merited death. Ms. Schiavo has been found guilty of being a burden and is thus seen as disposable. Please issue a writ to counter this judicial usurpation of the authority of the state. Ms. Schiavo is not a criminal, nor does she deserve death. She deserves custodians who will care for her and see to it that she is nursed back to health.

Please, please, please for the sake of Ms. Schiavo, and indeed for the sake of the state of Florida and these United States, intervene and overturn this writ of execution. Do not allow our courts to put to death one who has committed no crime. Do not let the State of Florida be the place where the next step down the slippery slope of the culture of death is taken.

most respectfully yours. . .

Oh, and please, see this prayer for Ms. Schiavo

And while we are storming heaven, I encourage every Floridian to storm the governor's office and work on him until he rescinds the court order by executive order. We should not let this go unaddressed; Florida should not lead the way into the next revelation of the Culture of Death.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

More On Fire and Brimstone

In another comment to the same post referenced below, Jeff Culbreath notes:

Fire and brimstone sermons are a good thing. We need more of them in the Catholic Church. I would hope that neither you nor Erik object to the hellfire in Puritan homiletics, but that you rather object to the Calvinist notion that God's grace is arbitrary, and that certain unfortunate souls were created by God for hell with no possibility of repentance.

I wrote a hasty reply and wished to give this further consideration.

I don't know that "fire and brimstone sermons are a good thing--" part of the purpose of writing this is to explore that notion a bit more. I don't know that they are a bad thing. I suppose I would say that I think they are perhaps a necessary thing. If not fire and brimstone, at least a better articulation of the doctrine of sin, what happens to sinners, and how to avoid that happening. Now this can take a great many forms, from Edwards, discussed below, to Joyce, mentioned below, to many other sophisticated articulations of the same doctrine. However, it seems to largely have vanished from the Catholic scene. The "Spirit of Vatican II" interpreters seem not to care for the harsher side of Catholic Doctrine and it is often left to the lay people to insist upon God's justice as strongly as God's mercy. This is a pity.

If our pastors felt more call to carefully pronounce anathema on those things the Church condemns, and to do it with great regularity, it might serve as a check not only upon wayward congregants but upon wayward inclinations within the clergy itself. Reminders that salvation is not guaranteed, nor merited, nor earned, nor in any way dependent upon ourselves, but utterly dependent upon God's grace and our acceptance thereof (so to some extent dependent upon us, but even His omnipresent grace makes possible that initial acceptance) are salutary. They encourage the overall health of the body, not by terror, but by precaution.

Frequently we should hear from the pulpit that abortion is wrong and procuring one or assisting in the procuring even to the extent of supporting the legality of the action is wrong and incurs de facto excommunication without any such being pronounced. This truth should not be left to the ranks of apologists and pro-life lay people. We should see the spectacle of Bishops refusing communion to prominent pro-choice politicians on a more regular basis. This should not be a point for marveling, but the expected occurrence.

We would do well to hear about everyday sins--taking things home from the office, exploiting other people, adultery, fornication, and all manner of other sins.

I suppose current theory has it that one can catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar. But the impression I get more often from many Catholic sermons and speakers is a sense of complacency. That everything is copacetic and we live in the best of all possible worlds, ice-skating or rollerblading our way into heaven. We should be aware of that great folk song that advises us:

"Oh I can't get to heaven
(Oh I can't get to heaven)
on roller skates
(on roller skates)
Cause I'll roll right by
(Cause I'll roll right by)
those pearly gates
(those pearly gates)

refrain:

I ain't gonna grieve my Lord no more,
I ain't gonna grieve my Lord no more,
I ain't gonna grieve my Lord on more.

I cannot believe that Paul wrote "I work out my salvation in fear and trembling" for no reason. Thus, while I do believe in the mercy of God and in the ultimate possibility of heaven, I doubt I would come to any harm if someone were to tell me the consequences of sin, or even speak about what is and is not a sin.

I don't know that I'd want to hear this every day--but perhaps Mr. Culbreath is correct. Perhaps a bit of fire and brimstone is a salutary remedy for the complacency and mediocrity with which many go about their Christian lives. Perhaps a bit of reminder of what we have been freed from and what we are called to through the incredible sacrifice of our Lord is a remedy for many of the ills we are presently tracking in the Church.

Perhaps we need to start the next "Great Awakening."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:22 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 16, 2003

A Suggestion for Dealing with Our Priests and Bishops

This struck home as I read it:

from He Leadeth Me
Walter Ciszek, S.J.

People came to you because you were a priest, not because of what you were personally. They didn't always come, either, expecting wise counsel or spiritual wisdom or an answer to every difficulty; they came expecting absolution from their sins, the power of the sacrament. To realize this was a matter of joy and of humility. You realized that they came to you as a aman of God, a representative of God, a man chosen from among men and ordained for men in the things that are of God. . . For my part, I could not help but see in every encounter with every prisoner the will of God for me, now, at this time and in this place, and the hand of providence that had brought me here by strange and torturous paths.

A man of God, a servant of Men, and a server of sacraments. Not necessarily vessels of wisdom and spiritual enlightenment--not repositories of the solutions to all human problems. Human themselves, prone to error and to sin, but God's merciful gift to us. Perhaps we ask too much sometimes--perhaps often. Perhaps it is time to thank God for His provision and to let those who make so many sacrifices for our sakes know that we truly, deeply appreciate it. Perhaps it is time to expect of our Pastors and Priests proper administration of the sacraments and a human, loving heart that needs everything we all need, and has only as much wisdom as God grants and a human being holds.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:29 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 13, 2003

There's a Kind of Hush

There's been a curious sort of silence that has fallen over blogdom. It is hard to coax an answer from a group that must have opinions. But this silent pool is reflective of a larger quiet that gives me pause.

Over the last several days I have gone out to some local places at lunchtime as is my habit. In the course of doing so I have noted the parking lots usually crammed beyond any hope of finding spaces are far more than half empty. I've been able to park "at the door" of such places. The Panera near me, normally a small pandemonium at lunchtime, was so quiet that only the obnoxious order announcer intruded on our conversation.

Again I note it has only been over the past two or three days, and I wondered if it stemmed from some sort of observance on September 11, or if there were some deeper cause at work. Here, in Florida, it could be that I am merely noticing the end of major tourist season. Other parts of the country may be getting back to school, although I would have thought that would have been a week or so ago. (We start in August.)

Whatever the cause it has given an eerie, twilight-zone like aura to the days. Interesting and creepy at the same time.

But in the meantime, surely people other than Alicia have opinions about Category v. Weekly/Monthly. If so, please tell me.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:18 AM | TrackBack

August 26, 2003

Time to Confront Yet Another Personal Flaw

Time to Confront Yet Another Personal Flaw

Coming from a very fundamentalist background, and being quite insecure in some aspects of my Catholic Formation, I tend to shy away from writers whose work suggests some heterodox accretions. I feely acknowledge this weakness, and I am working on trying to reduce its prominence as a guiding principle. What I read as heterodox is not necessarily so; nor is my judgment always on target on these issues.

As a result, for some time I have been wary of Father Ron Rolheiser, OMI. I haven't known quite what to make of him. He originally came recommended by a source I have come to admire and trust--Mr. Nixon of Sursum Corda. I had read previously, and even subsequent to the recommendation, some columns that I found slightly off-putting. For example, it seems that there were several columns in which he referred to God as She. Now, this would seem a trivial enough problem; however, this kind of reference seems to fly in the face of FATHER, Son, and Holy Spirit. Is this language simply a trope--a linguistic trick to shock one out of complacency, or does it reveal a deep and underlying flaw in theology. Much more importantly than that--have others observed similar characteristics in Fr. Rolheiser's writings? Or did I just get a mistaken impression from a couple of columns--perhaps too quickly read?

I ask because another very trusted, very trustworthy sort has brought him to my attention once again. I don't wish to cast doubt upon Fr. Rolheiser's work, but I also don't really wish to spend a lot of time in the sea of new age syncretism with someone who doesn't think language matters. (Despite the wretched appearance of some of these hastily cast-off entries, language really does matter to me.)

I would appreciate any and all contributions to better understanding how to approach (or not to approach) this writer. Thanks.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:37 AM

August 25, 2003

Show Music in Church The

Show Music in Church

The point of this is not to complain about music, but to speculate about what it might ultimately do. Yesterday I returned to the parish I had long attended because I needed to get to an earlier mass than I can normally attend at the local Shrine. My local parish hands out the bulletins at the beginning of Mass, assuring that for most people Mass preparation time is spent reading up on the events of the coming week. This has always been the case--mildly disturbing, but as it tended to keep people quiet, not anything worth making a fuss about in itself.

Later when I glanced through the bulletin, I discovered seminars in centering prayer (about which I am uncertain--I try to weigh all of the authorities on either side. I think that it is something that too easily slips into gimmickry and method--though M. Basil Pennington, a major proponent of Centering Prayer, insists that it is not). Much more bothersome, and becoming nearly epidemic, I read that the Women's Group of the parish was going to spend a morning "walking the labyrinth" at some nearby locality. This I find more profoundly disturbing. Again, it is perhaps without cause. But these kinds of things remind me profoundly of days when I was more associated with Pagan and Wiccan types who performed similar rituals. I know as well that walking and praying can be a very effective combination, so I suppose much of this is a matter of the emphasis of the individual.

But more disturbing and disheartening than all of this was the service itself. While still ostensibly solidly orthodox and faithful, the music consisted of a series of show-tune like melodies that seemed more for the exaltation of the cantor than for the spiritual setting of Mass. Much of the music was simply unsingable--consisting of strings of staggered triplets that spanned far too many octaves for a normal congregation to embrace. More, I noted a common strain in that they seemed to exalt the individual rather than God.

In moments like these, the heartsickness of some who lament the paucity of Latin settings for the Mass is driven home hard. In my mnd, fairly or unfairly, I have associated the music program from this once-magnificent parish with elements such as labyrinth walking and centering prayer. The whole brew seems a little off to me. Discordant elements tend to breed discordant elements.

I know that it need not be this way because the Parish wasn't this way before, nor is the Shrine I attend at all like this. But it seems to me that once this element has crept into a celebration, it tends to poison the entire system. I don't know that labyrinth-walking can be said to be poison, but it at least gives off fumes that strike one as dangerous.

All of this is a way of supporting those who fight hard to maintain their parishes' integrity in the Mass. It is to lend some support to those who would give us masses with Chant rather than the modern song books. It is to say that while complaint is still not the better way, constructive action undertaken to reform is absolutely necessary--and that action might take the form of a letter to the Pastor of the Church.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:52 AM

August 22, 2003

People Who Know Jesus Intimately

People Who Know Jesus Intimately

I never fail to be delighted by people who know Jesus more intimately than would seem possible. Take for example this blurb:

The Book of Enoch was a favorite of Jesus and where he discovered the title "Son of Man" to use in his public work.

What a rare and magnificent privilege to have access to Jesus' library, or if not His library, His personal scriptorium, or at least His intimate thoughts. I did not realize so much about Jesus was so readily known or discernable by so many. I do so love learning about these unnoticed byways on the path of salvation.

Of course it's wildly improbable that Jesus might have picked that phrase us from the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel where it occurs about 50 times, or even Daniel where it actually refers to Him. I know my speculation is way out of bounds. These people undoubtedly have certain knowledge that it was the book of Enoch that was the source.

[This is one way I rate the reliability of a site offering religious works.]

Posted by Steven Riddle at 2:16 PM

The Culture of Complaint

The Culture of Complaint

I was recently listening to someone rant on NPR about the horrors of Disney World and the ultimate cultural destruction it signifies and I grew progressively more annoyed. I live near the place, many people here hate it for a great variety of reasons. There are a great many reasons to despise the Disney congolmerate, not the least of which is the manner in which they treat some of their lesser-paid employees. However, to rail on about the horrors of Disneyworld strikes me as a setting up a straw man for the world's problems.

I lilke Disney World for a couple of reasons. First, as a Florida resident, it attracts enough people here so that I'm not killed by state income tax. When I moved here from Ohio at the same pay, I got an immediate 7% raise because there was no state income tax.

Second, I enjoy it because children do enjoy it, and they enjoy not because it is Disney but because it is fundamentally enjoyable. You walk around a world that is utterly unreal and encounter utterly unreal folks, and you have a pleasant day. (That is except for a minority of sturm und drang New York or Brazilian tourists who drag their little ones through an exhausting day and spend their time red-faced screaming at some over-tired child who only wants to go back to the hotel room and rest and be cool... but then, that's a different rant)

There is much to dislike about Disneyfication of society. However, to dislike Disneyworld itself seems a waste of time. If you so disike it--don't go. Don't take your family, advise your friends to stay away. But don't waste your time and everyone else's ranting and raving about its horrors--myriad though they may be.

I see this as symptomatic of our society. If I don't like this or that thing, I must assure that no one else enjoys the same by pointing out all of its many faults and problems.

Why not just forego the displeasure of the place? Why try to denigrate and destroy what many are obviously enjoying? What harm is there in enjoying it?

Like the great many quizzes that circulate about St. Blogs--some take them, some don't. But what sense would there be inveighing against them and trying to persuade everyone that pressing a few buttons one way or the other is somehow tearing down society.

Again--I don't care for the novels of Michael Crichton--I could write a dissertation on their errors, their problems, and their many flaws--but why? Rather than do so, I neither read them, nor in large groups tend to comment on them. In a one-on-one conversation I might give an opinion, but I have long got over the need to make a point of dispising vocally everything that is popular. Popularity is not a crime.

So, I've gone on at length to say simply what everyone's mother probably told them at one time, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." And this is a good credo for commenting on most things. There are some exceptions--people should be warned about things that are potentially spiritually damaging. They should be warned about things that once seen cannot be unseen. But for the most part, if something is popular and you don't like it, the better part of valor is to share that dislike with close friends who want to hear about it. To shout it from the rooftops seems bad form.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:54 AM

August 15, 2003

A Disagreement with C.S. Lewis

A Disagreement with C.S. Lewis and with Yancey

A shorter quote just sparked a notion--

from Soul Survivor--C. Everett Koop Philip Yancey

C.S. Lewis shocked many people in his day when he came out in favor of making divorce legal, on the grounds that we Christians have no right to impose our morality on society at large. Although he would preach against it, and oppose it on moral grounds, he recognized the distinction between morality and legality.

Of course we will have to exercise the skill of ethical surgeons in deciding which moral prinicples apply to society at large. If we fail to exercise that skill, once again we will risk confusing the two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and that of this world

And yet, it is somehow fine for a Christian to live in a society that consistently seeks to impose its morality upon the Christian framework?

I think there is a grave, typically Christian error here--an error I believe stems from a misunderstanding of Jesus's statement to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. . ." Many seem to read that as saying there are two kingdoms--one of God, one of this world (as articulated above). Such a reading strikes me as utter nonsense. The kingdom of this world is ordained by the will of God one cannot live in it without also living in the Kingdom of God because He is all pervasive. What Jesus says to me in the phrase is not that Christians should buckle under to the Caesars of the world, but that once they are present, all due order should be observed, and Christians should be good citizens of that kingdom. However, when and where possible this world should as much as possible reflect the glory of God. So, do Christian's have "a right to impose their morality on others?" I would argue that every law is an imposition of morality and Christians have as much right as anyone else to impose their morality in a legal, civil, compassionate and humane way.

That said, the Christian morality should not be the morality of individual Christians, but the morality that comes from living in a Christlike way. That is, because we determine homosexuality to be immoral (for example) does not mean that we can pass laws that would not allow a gay man a home to live in or food. Morality must reflect first and foremost God's love and law, not our own wishes tarted up as God's Will.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:32 AM

Those Who Sin Differently Than We Do

Those Who Sin Differently Than We Do

More Yancey--from whom I appear to be learning a lot. This book has been a most worthwhile and eye-opening read. Admittedly Yancey has his own viewpoint, and perhaps his own agenda. Nevertheless, I feel I have much to learn from him.

Today--C. Everett Koop (actually not, but you'll see).

from Soul Survivor--C. Everett Koop Philip Yancey

"I've noticed that Christians tend to get very angry toward others who sin differently than they do," one man said to me, a man who directs an organization ministering to people with AIDS. I've noticed exactly the same pattern. After I wrote in a book about my friendship with Mel White, formerly a ghost writer for famous Christians and now a prominent gay activist, I received a number of letters condemning me for continuing the friendship. "How can you possibly remain friends with such a sinner!" the letter writers demanded. I've thought long and hard about that question, and come up with several answers which I beleive to be biblical. The most succinct answer, though, is another question, "How can Mel White possibly remain friends with a sinner like me?" The only hope for any of us, regardless of our particular sins, lies in a ruthless trust in a God who inexplicably loves sinner, including those who sin differently than we do.

Too often I have discovered myself in the situation described above. I have also noticed it in others. I have friends who have been in a number of different relationships in and out of marriage who rail against homosexuality as a sin. I have good Catholic Friends who scream and rant and rave against abortion doctors and yet have had surgery to assure that they will have no more children.

We do tend to like least those whose sins differ from our own. If we're murderers, we can't stand thieves. The only real solution is to focus on the fact that we are all sinners. Is a homosexual any worse a sinner than myself? I would argue that the sins differ in kind, not in number. And yet consistently we seem to make out that homosexuality is a greater sin than say heterosexual promscuity, or allowing our poor to go without food or medical care.

Another example--abortion is a heinous, horrible sin and crime against God and humanity. So too is abandoning a young mother and her child to the care of some governmental system that may or may not provide her with a sufficient means of support in life. So also is depriving anyone of the basic necessities of life--food, water, shelter, and medical care--and yet we constantly face initiatives that would stigmatize illegal aliens and migrant workers in such a way. We can exploit their labor, but we want nothing to do with their problems.

Perhaps the best solution for this is the solid awareness that we are all sinners. We all, each one of us, every single day of our lives, give God and Heaven some cause for sadness. Yes, there are degrees of sinners and of sin, but do we stand as the Pharisee or as the Publican? Do we say that our sins are not so grave as those of our neighbors and thus inveigh against them with a strength that sometimes suggests madness?

Sin is sin, heterosexual, homosexual, abortionist, self-mutilator. We are all sinners before God, and when we really grasp that, we will have little time to spend accusing others, because we will be accusing ourselves and asking God for His mercy and help that we might stop the insanity of our own self-destruction. Grace alone may step in, pick us up, cleanse us, and set us back on our way. Better that we watch our own stumbling steps, than that we spend all of our time looking up from the muck to rant about how others stumble.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:22 AM

August 8, 2003

Thanks to the PoMo Crowd

Thanks to the PoMo Crowd We Have:

This delightful example of interpretive gibberish extracted from an excellent Wall Street Journal Opinion piece.

To be sure, the new gospel's disciples do not generally jettison Scripture outright. Instead, they radically reinterpret it, using techniques imported from America's postmodern universities. Walter Brueggemann, a theologian quoted in a pro-same-sex-union Episcopal publication, put it like this: Scripture is "the chief authority when imaginatively construed in a certain interpretive trajectory." Approached this way, inconvenient passages can be dismissed as inconsistent with "Jesus' self-giving love."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:13 PM

August 7, 2003

On Dealing with Sinners

On Dealing with Sinners

In a response to a post below, Erik suggests a question which is in urgent need of an answer. To wit, how do we deal with the sin of homosexual behaviors?

To rephrase the question more broadly, "How do we deal with sinners?" And the answer, as you might guess, is obvious--just as we have been doing up until now. We are all sinners and we are all children of God. Our commandment is to love our neighbor. Love does not express itself in endless harangues against how a person lives. Homosexual behavior, while a mortal sin, is no more mortal than say, theft, adultery, gossipmongering, scandal. That is, while we are well aware of the nature of the sin of a person professing homosexual behavior, others sin as well and we do not know it.

Do we ignore the sin? No, but we do not allow the sin to stand in way of the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. We do not let it stand in the way of true equality and justice before the law and before God. We do not countenance the death of sinners, as God does not wish it. In short, we do not let the sin stand in the way of love and justice.

The only way the truth can be received is through a heart filled with love. When we fall short of perfect love of the person as person, our ability to share the good news of salvation is impaired. If we are constantly harping on the sin, we will alienate the individual. Our lives must reflect the love we know, and through that image of the living God, encourage the sinner to seek Him. If we are asked, we must be prepared to state boldly and gently what we know to be the truth, and we must be prepared to live it and defend it.

So, as Erik points out, many of us know caring, talented, loving, generous people whose known sin is homosexual behavior. We are inclined to regard their sin as "not so bad." I see this in part as a work of Grace. We cannot let our feelings about the person disguise the fact that the behavior involved is seriously disordered and gravely sinful. But these feelings allow us to show some facets of God's all-encompassing love. And our calling is to reify that love to the degree possible.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:52 PM

July 31, 2003

More on Private Revelations

More on Private Revelations

I find this strain of Catholicism detailed below disturbing.

The Seven Our Fathers
and Hail Marys

In a private revelation to Saint Bridget, Our Lord revealed a devotion to honour His Holy Wounds and Precious Blood. It was a daily recital of seven Our Fathers and seven Hail Marys for twelve years:

"Know that I will grant the following five graces to those who recite every day for twelve years (or until their death, should they die before):

1. They will avoid Purgatory.

2. They will be numbered amongst the martyrs, as though they had shed their blood for the faith.

3. I will maintain the souls of three of their children (or relatives) in a state of sanctifying grace.

4. The souls of their relatives, up to four generations, will avoid Hell.

5. They will know the date of their death one month in advance."

This revelation was confirmed by Pope Innocent X who added that a soul will be released from Purgatory on Good Fridays through this devotion.

There are so many disturbing things about this that I don't know where to begin. Let's start with, I miss a day in year seven--do I start all over again, is everything undone? Next, it sounds too much like sympathetic magic. Say these words under these conditions for so many days/months/years and these events will transpire. Would anyone know if they did not?

This is the kind of thing that sends our Protestant brethren shrieking out of the room, and I have to say rightfully so. It may be true, but why would the souls of my relatives be kept from Hell? Do I violate their free will by my recitation of these prayers? Let's just say that it makes no sense to me. I think the habit of saying seven Our Fathers and seven Hail Marys may be a very good thing indeed to cultivate, so long as they are said reverently and with attention to what one is doing. So, for those who are following this rubric, I'm not faulting the praying of these prayers, but I just have to wonder about some of these oddities that crop up.

On the same site is the following:

An efficacious means of obtaining favors from Heaven is to assist at Holy Mass and pray the Stations of the Cross for the Holy Souls in Purgatory, by Susan Tassone, daily for 33 consecutive days for the poor souls in honor of Our Lord's 33 years He spent on earth. What a marvelous Summer Devotion for the Holy Souls.

Now, I have nothing against the Stations of the Cross or praying them for thirty-three days. But what about reading scripture for at least one-half hour every day (under the usual conditions) with is the grant of a plenary indulgence. I understand the same holds true for the public recitation of the Rosary (under the usual conditions). There are a great many very efficacious prayers that don't involve some arcane set of repetitions or extravagant promises. I really don't know what to make of this strain of Catholic thinking. I guess it is a place where I have remained mostly resolutely protestant. I believe in purgatory and I believe int he efficacy of those prayers outlines in the Enchiridion of Ingulgences (1967--I think). And I try to observe these practices, most particularly for individuals who I know who have lost family members. I need to make a more universal practice of them as well, but . . .

Oh well, let's just say that this strain of thinking doesn't compute in my very faulty circuits. I'd love to hear from those who either are more attached to these devotions or who have a better understanding that I do of what all of this means.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:39 PM

Private Revelations I found this

Private Revelations

I found this article at the revived TCR very helpful and food for much thought. Many have recently made much of the vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich and having read some of these myself, I don't quite know what to make of them. They strike me in turn as appalling, wonderful, hideous, and dangerous. There is much there to foster faith, but much also that could prove difficult to one whose faith is not mature. So as always, I urge caution when dipping into the works of even the very highest most recommended visionary, but utter abandon in imitating their deep devotion to Christ.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:31 PM

July 30, 2003

The Blog Moves On, but Discussion Continues

The Blog Moves On, but Discussion Continues

The difficulty of a blog is that posts keep moving down the line, but sometimes discussion is not over. Forgiveness and its conditions continues to be a source of reflection and thought--at least in the comments box.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 3:26 PM

Always Desiring to be of Service

Always Desiring to be of Service

to the less irenic among us, Timothy McVeigh:Where is He Now? is guarenteed to produce apoplexy in some. But it is quite thought-provoking, and the site itself seems quite worthwhile.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:31 PM

July 29, 2003

On the Young Earth

On the Young Earth

This started as a response to a comment, but grew too long and too interesting to confine to the comment box. I thank Mr. Culbreath for bringing it up. At the end of a comment below Mr. Culbreath comments, "No one has even said that the Bible tells us the age of the earth. Saying that the biblical record -- that which is recorded as history and was understood as history by Our Lord and the Apostles and the Fathers until the Age of Darwin -- is a reliable guide to the approximate age of the earth is not to concoct scientific theories. It is to give science a necessary starting point, that is all. Sedimentation rates, the fossil record and the rest of it are in fact more comprehensible in a young earth scenario and are not obstacles."

I appreciate your point of view and respectfully demur. Simply the fluid dynamics of what you suggest would entail catastrophic floods--and by this I mean floods that would cover continents every single year to a depth of about 10 meters or more. Unless one posits that the Lord chose to create rocks with fossils in them already--which, while possible, is suggestive in ways that I don't care to contemplate.

Take one example--the Permian sequence of the Glass Mountains of Texas, is on the order of 2 km thick. If we postulate an age of about 6000 years for the Earth (young earth) and say a modest 1,000 years for full incorporation of the sediment into rock, we have 2000 meters of rock deposited in 5,000 years. This yields about .4 meters of sediment per year, or about a foot and a half a year. This Permian sequence resembles modern reef formations. Reefs do not even grow at this rate. Moreover, reefs generally grow in areas with little or no sedimentation--they contain photosynthetic algae that require sunlight to survive. So sedimentation rates along reefs are very low, generally consisting of the disintegration of calciferous algae into constituent components.

The principle of uniformitarianism (by the way developed in large part by Niels Stensen, also known as Steno, Bishop of Münster and presently beatified) suggests that the processes we observe on earth today are a good guide to how these same processes occurred on the Earth in the past--both in terms of rate and activity.

I honestly do not see how a "young Earth" solves any of the difficulties I point out. Further, I do not read the principle of Inerrancy as setting any agenda for science.

I know we disagree on this matter and we will continue to do so. I do not really hope to convince you, and I feel no need to. As you very rightly pointed out in your own location--it isn't a matter of doctrine. If the field you work in does not require resolution of the seeming discrepancies, there is no reason not to hold a young earth theory. Speaking practically, it is may be faith enhancing, but its implications are meaningless of the rest of one's life. That is, other than concurrence with the Bible, it little matters how old the Earth is as one goes about one's daily activities. However, having worked in Palaeontology for quite some time, I know the full nature and extent of the problem and must admit to some aggravation when a person tells me about how much simpler the young Earth theory makes everything.

All of this said, I may misunderstand what you mean by "young Earth." On your blog you state categorically, "Corollary B: The biblical genealogies refer to real people and real events." One must assume that these genealogies also refer to "real durations." (It is a corollary to the inferred working definition of inerrancy.) On that basis one can give a very good approximation of the age of the Earth and the Bishop Ussher chronologies of the seventeenth century did precisely that. Using precisely this data Bishop Ussher estimated the age of the Earth at about 6,000 years. Even multiplying this a thousand times gives rise to the same difficulties outlines above.

I do not believe that the Bible sets an agenda for the faithful scientist. I DO believe the Bible to be absolutely inerrant in all that it teaches. Both of these positions may be held simultaneously with no inherent problem.

I also believe that we both seek the truth in the matter--a truth that will not be revealed in its fullness until we have "Crossed the Bar." I welcome the diversity of opinion under the banner of Charity. Sometimes I have to chill myself from cross-eyed apoplexy before charity can rule. It is an important exercise of a Christian vocation. Thank you for reminding me of that duty.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:14 AM

July 28, 2003

Inerrancy and Accuracy

Inerrancy and Accuracy

The better part of charity forbade me from responding on an individual blog, and particularly from responding before I had gathered the correct information. Having seen evidence for a young Earth cited at one place, I went on to look at other locations that supported a Catholic view of a young Earth. One of the principle supports for the view of a young earth was an understanding of Biblical inerrancy that I believe to be faulty. Just as understanding papal infallibility is facilitated by proper definition, I thought I would throw this open to all and sundry.

The explanation of inerrancy that I have read goes something like this: "The bible contains nothing that was known by the author at his time and in his place to be untrue (there are no deliberate untruths in it). However, there are things that appear to modern eyes and modern study as errors, they cannot be so adjudged because the authors at the time of the composition of the Bible did not have access to this information.

Here is one view of the matter from Fr. Matteo.

The Catholic Dictionary of Theology article on inerrancy says (vol. 3, p. 99): "Leo XIII, by citing the sentence of Augustine that the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach men the inner constitution of matter as it was in no way profitable to salvation, had marked out a line of solution which could be followed in questions of physical science. The inspired writers were not miraculously brought up to date with their science but spoke according to the knowledge available at the time."

In his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, 42, Pius XII wrote: "In many cases in which the sacred authors are accused of some historical inaccuracy or of the inexact recording of some events ... a knowledge and careful appreciation of ancient modes of expression and literary forms and styles will provide a solution to many of the objections made against the truth and historical accuracy of Holy Scripture." In these words the Pope implied the necessity and validity of the work of textual criticism and the observance of literary genera.

In Letter 82:1, Augustine remarks: "If I come upon anything in the Scripture which seems contrary to the truth, I shall not hesitate to consider that it is no more than a faulty reading of the manuscript, or a failure of the translator to hit off what his text declared, or that I have not managed to understand the passage."

Pius XII (D.A.S., 47) is not afraid to suggest that some absurdities may remain forever. And Augustine (Letter 149:34) humorously remarks that God put these obscurities in the Bible to make the work of scholars meritorious!

Was there only one, or were there two cleansings of the Temple? There are weighty arguments on both sides--none of them can be called "crazy"--but a fairly sensible suggestion is made by W. Leonard: "(The cleansing of the Temple) did indeed occur ... where John places it. The reason why the synoptic gospels place it at the end may be that Mark and Luke in general follow the arrangement of Matthew which is logical rather than chronological, and which accordingly groups all incidents connected with Jerusalem under the last Jerusalem visit.

From Father Conway, 1929:

INERRANCY

Do Catholics regard the Bible as absolutely inerrant? Is not the Bible incorrect on scientific matters? Ares there not many errors and contradictions to be found is the text of both the Old and New Testaments?

Yes, it is an article of faith that the Bible is inerrant, i. e. it contains no formal error. As God is the Author of the Bible it must needs be true. "Inspiration," says Pope Leo, "not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, for it is impossible that God, thus Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church" (Encyc. Providentissimus Deus).

1. We cannot restrict inspiration to certain parts only of this Bible, as Cardinal Newman held in his theory about the unimportance of "obiter dicta" (XIX Century, February, 1884).

2. We cannot restrict inspiration to faith and morals alone.

3. We do not look for precise scientific formulas in the Bible for it does not teach science ex professo. Nothing in its page: contradicts the teachings of natural science, because the same God is the author of natural and supernatural truth. But the sacred writers generally speak of scientific matters in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time they wrote.

4. May Catholics hold the theory of "implicit quotations," i. e., may they set aside a certain passage on the supposition that the sacred writer is merely copying what he finds in some historical record, without thereby guaranteeing its veracity? Yes says the Biblical Commission (February 13, 1905), if solid reasons exist for believing that there really is a quotation, and that the sacred writer does not really intend to commit himself to what he quotes.

5. We must remember that the Bible on its material side is a human document handed down to us in a human way. Therefore we naturally expect to find in each succeeding copy or version material variations, additions, omissions and other errors with which critical scholarship has to grapple. St. Augustine mentions this in a letter to St. Jerome: "When in the pages of Sacred Writ I come upon anything that is contrary to the truth, I judge that the text is faulty, that the translator did not strike the right meaning, or simply that I do not understand it" (Letter to St. Jerome, lxxxii., 3).

6. The poetic imagery and symbolism in both the Old and New Testament, in the Prophets, the Psalms, the Apocalypse, is to be understood figuratively. But "this exuberant symbolism must not be conceived as supplanting reality, but as supporting it, as bringing out its full reality, not so much to our prosaic selves, as to the Orientals for whom so much of it was primarily written" (The Bible, Its History, 159).

It seems clear from these quotes that we are not to regard Holy Scripture as an astrophysics textbook, nor are we to look for complete, concise scientific theories of much of anything within it. Nevertheless, the bible is completely free from all error--so then what is one to make of Adam and Eve and the young Earth? It seems as though certain pockets of Catholicism have become contaminated with an unseemly literalism that has never been the fullness of the understanding of the Church. There is a legitimate debate as to what comprises figurative language. And it seems reasonable to talk about the multiple possible interpretations of Genesis. But even at the time of Leo XIII, it seemed fairly evident that the Church was well aware of seeming contradictions between science and faith. And they are only seeming contradictions. When Scripture is interpreted absolutely literally, you are stuck with contradictions that cannot be resolved--even in simple rhetorical matters. Look at the book of proverbs--"These three things are abomibable to God, yeah these four things earn His wrath." Read it literally, and you're stuck with contradiction.

The choice to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis is up to the individual; however, the attempt to construct a science from it is a serious error of judgment. To attempt to build a young-earth science involves so many contradictions in the scientific record that it calls into doubt the credibility of the persons arguments in favor of the Faith that they have which is true. It also raises very troubling questions of rates of sedimentation, the plethora of fossils and why they would be there, etc.

No, one can believe in absolute inerrancy--which until I understood it correctly I rejected--and in modern scientific method. They are not contradictory, nor do they teach the same things. Gould referred to nonoverlapping magisteria--I don't know that I buy his full argument, but I do side with St. Robert Bellarmine, or at least the quote attribute to him, "The Bible does not tell us how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:02 PM

Forgiveness and Repentence

Forgiveness and Repentence

Elsewhere I have been engaged in a discussion regarding the necessity of repentence for forgiveness. My correspondent has insisted that it is a necessary prerequisite of even human forgiveness. I wonder. I will readily acknowledge that repentence is, as it were, a "condition" of Divine forgiveness (though I happen to believe that God will do everything possible to encourage and foster that repentence--so I imagine does my correspondent.) My correspondent very rightly points out that there are those who will choose not to receive this grace. And unless I am a Calvinist I cannot posit irresistable grace (isn't that the I in T.U.L.I.P.?). As a practical point I wonder how many do resist it, but I will leave that for the moment so as to not try the patience of my correspondent.

My question is, "Does human forgiveness require that the recipient express repentence?" Or perhaps, "Under Christian obligation does human forgiveness require repentence?" Now, my correspondent, Mr. D'Hippolito asserts:

Forgiveness is provisional upon repentance. I rest my case upon Luke 17: 3-4: "Be on your guard. If your brother sins, rebuke him and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day and returns to you seven times saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." (emphases mine)

And this is correct. And yet. . . I look to the rest of the "book" written by God--all of the subsequent history of His Saints, and we see there innumberable examples of Saints who have forgiven without the repentence of the sinner. St. Maria Goretti comes to mind, as do most of the Martyrs--St Thomas More, St. Edmund Campion. So it would seem that in practice it is possible to forgive without repentence--and in fact, this forgiveness is a supernatural grace presumably granted so that the offenders will realize their sin and seek unity with God. That is a lesser vessel speaks what God is offering in such a way as the recipient is moved to receive it.

So, perhaps in ordinary human relations the passage from Luke is the "normative" path of forgiveness. It certainly is in most of our ordinary practice. It takes an extraordinary person to overlook even a minor slight if the person giving it has not expressed regret. But the examples of the Saints may be the signs of greater grace working through a lesser vessel.

I am still thinking about these matters. However, there is something within that wrestles against the notion that I may only forgive those who repent. Perhaps it might be better to say that I have no standing to forgive those who have not harmed me directly. I cannot go to someone who murdered thousands and say to them that I forgive them, because while the damage is done to the whole, it is up to God to decide their fate. But, I must have some standing to forgive those who persecute me even if they don't repent. That is, if I am a vessel of the Holy Spirit, and it truly is God's will that none will be lost, then I must allow the spirit to work. If so, I might well forgive someone who has done wrong to me with no expression of contrition on their part.

There is much to consider here. And while I don't dislike "esoteric theology" nearly so much as Mr. d'Hippolito, those who know this place know that I have relatively little patience with abstruse doctrines and minute points of law. I rather like someone's notion--was it T.S. O'Rama who implied that perhaps we need both sides to have within the entire body a balance. That is a side that cries "Justice, justice," reminding us of the victims and those who have been harmed, and a side that cries "Mercy, mercy," reminding us that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Admittedly not is so great a way.) If I am to approach the Lord and my fate is determined by how I have wished others were treated, I know I would prefer mercy to justice. This is how I read Jesus's injunction to "Judge not lest ye be judged." On the other hand, there needs to be a voice that cries out to Heaven for the injustices done to the victims of such men. We need to be reminded that these are not trivialities--that such men may have deprived others of a chance of salvation through their depradation and torture. I respect the voice that refocuses attention. Still, for my own sake, and the sake of those I love, I will pray for Mercy, and trust God to do what is right and proper.

As Mr. D'Hippolito points out quoting a correspondent elsewhere--God does not send us to Hell, we go there ourselves, quite willingly. We embrace Hell with Satan, "Better to Reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." God, in fact, provides sufficient and superabundant grace and Atonement to allow all to make it into heaven. We have no disagreement there whatsoever. And perhaps it is better to start at the point and work backwards to see where our disagreement lies. In such a way, all parties might come to a better image and understanding of God.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:13 AM

July 25, 2003

Intriguing Questions

Intriguing Questions

John da Fiesole always brings up the most intriguing questions. Witness Praying for the Past.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:55 AM

Discussion and Argumentation

Discussion and Argumentation

Sometimes I wonder what people think the purpose of discussion and argumentation is. Some seem to think that the sole purpose is to win someone to a point, or perhaps to make points by showing up someone's errors. If that is the case. such a person will love talking to me because I'm just a walking mass of errors ready to spill out for all to see. My thinking isn't so much sloppy as it isn't particularly linear. I've described it elsewhere as recursive--think the surf at the beach. One wave of thought rolls in, breaks on the shore, recedes. A subsequent wave of thought follows in, sometimes rising further up on the shore, sometimes not making it so far as the first. It isn't neat, but it gets the job done eventually. I think it is why I like blogdom so well--I have a chance to rethink and clarify all sorts of muddy, sediment-filled half-thoughts. And that is how I see argumentation or discussion. I'm not interested in "winning" an argument--there is no purpose to that if by winning I have failed to arrive at the truth.

As I see it, the purpose of any discussion is to come to the truth of the matter. This is why I find it admirable when people in public life can admit that they have changed their minds. (Unfortunately, too often, the change is away from the truth, persuaded by causes other than sheer argumentation.) But it would seem a natural progression that at some point someone's mind might change about matters. Thus when I hear the Strom Thurmond was a segregationist Dixiecrat (or whatever one calls them) and now he is not, I think that someone has considered the issues--possibly politically, but in such a case also possibly morally and arrived at a different conclusion because of the persuasiveness of reasoned argumentation. Sometimes I become too involved in argumentation or discussion and take offense at was not meant to give offense--I'll recover, and I'll probably apologize.

There is no point to continued discussion if, for whatever reason, one is not willing to change one's mind in the face of the evidence. There are a great many reasons why this may be so. Perhaps the value challenged performs a present "protective" service. Perhaps the notion has become a habit of thought and will require a great many years of reflection and slow microscopic change to finally arrive at the truth. Whatever the case, once one has reached a point at which it is clear the discussion has devolved to the sophisticated equivalent of "No it isn't"/"Yes it is"--it is time to desist.

All discussion should be directed to the truth so one shouldn't be shocked to read from me some idiotic opinion or reason-challenging assertion today, to discover that tomorrow it has been modified. It's what I count on the generous members of the blogworld for. In many ways I have been brought much closer to the truth by courageous members of blogdom who risk my wrath to challenge my assertions. Here are some examples of how blogdom has changed my opinions:

*I now have a better comprehension of the place of St. Thomas Aquinas (although I must say it will be a while before I feel any warm fuzzies for him--I'm not so suspicious of him as once I was)

*I have a more profound understanding for St. Francis of Assisi--though I'm still put off by SOME of his followers. (Don't worry--I love St. Thérèse and am put off by the vast majority of her admirers.)

*I have clarified notions about prayer and its purposes--and such notions have much improved my prayer life.

*I have a greater love for the diversity of opinion--even opinions that I consider suspect or countermanded by the magisterium.

*I have learned the value of not judging.

*I have learned that the rumor and scandal too often promulgated by the media and bandied about is not the fullness of the truth. A specific instance is that one brave blogger challenged directly my opinion of a certain Bishop based largely on ignorance and hearsay and informed me that while he may have had some notions contrary to my own, he served well as a pastoral leader.

*I've learned that Orthodoxy isn't necessarily everything I believe. By that I mean that I used to judge people's opinions by the standard of rigid orthodoxy I felt I maintained. Well, my "orthodoxy" was neither complete, nor probably completely orthodox. Talking with Catholic people has shown me the wideness of opinion possible among those who are striving to be faithful to the magisterium.

So, only a few things I have gained from listening to others. I have changed countless opinions, modified countless statements, in some cases completely contradicted myself. Like the sea and the shore my island of opinion and idea is constantly changing and reforming. I hold fast to the central truths of the faith--the skeleton and structure of the entire island--and the rest can wash where it will--it little matters and it provides a refreshing change of vista--a salubrious change of air.

So bring on the discussion, the argumentation, the notions, and the ideas--so long as you seek after the truth and don't merely wish to make points (come on--it's like shooting fish in a barrel) you are welcome. Even if you only wish to make points I may well benefit from the challenge.

Thank you all for all that you have done for me. God bless you.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:58 AM

July 8, 2003

Too Interesting to Ignore

Too Interesting to Ignore

Minute Particulars says in a coherent, succinct way much that I would have liked to say on the abortion debate. How one does something is as important as what one chooses to do. When any means are used, the end, however good is sullied and diminished in the eyes of surrounding observers.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:46 AM

June 23, 2003

From Where Obedience?

The post that follows started as a response to Mr. Dhingra's comment on a post below. It grew too large for the comment box and so it ends up here.

Once again you [Mr. Dhingra] ask some interesting and pertinent questions and this is an area that is new for me. I had not considered the matter. There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

(1) I'm not against those who speak their minds even in opposition to the opinion of the Bishops in prudential matters. I just choose not to be one of them. I think your point about continually asking questions is important, but I do not feel qualified to ask those questions. Anyone who has read the disputed questions here on the site will know why. Reasoned argumentation on theological matters is something I am better at following than I am at producing. I understand the articulation of theories and notions, but I do not have the background to say anything. The same holds for most economic and social theory. I have opinions, but the opinions are rarely formed from sitting down and carefully reasoning through each issue. More often they are the result of anecdotal observations of causes and effects. Therefore, I leave all logical dissent to those better informed and more capable of considering the ramifications.

(2) On a personal note--where did obedience come from? I wish I could say that obedience sprang naturally and is the milieu in which I thrive. Unfortunately, that is not completely so. My obedience comes only after endless wrangling, wrestling, and explanation, hundred and thousands of questions. I do not act in opposition to what is stated, but I do question it to some point. So, too, with the Church. I spent a good many years questioning not merely prudential judgments, but judgments that carry the weight of the magisterium. As a protestant entering from the enlightened world of our present society, the first bit of wisdom I challenged was Humanae Vitae. Along with this I also questioned the Church's teaching on homosexuality, marriage and divorce, etc.

Over time, I found that the Church was right, again and again, on dozens of lesser matters that I questioned. Over and over again, I saw the weight of truth on the side of the Bishops, and most particularly of the current Bishop of Rome. This man I came to see as nearly miraculous in his grasp of the truth and its implications. I won't claim to understand everything the Holy Father has written, nor even to have read it, but everyday personal experience convinced me of its correctness. So much so, that my eyes were opened to the fact that in making judgments about theological matters and even about matters affecting society the bishops drew upon two-thousand years of tradition, reflection, and consideration of social, political, and theological considerations. In that time, the Bishops undoubtedly made a great many errors, even as they may do so today; however, it seemed sheer folly for a single person of limited experience in the world to set his judgment against that of so august a body.

So long experience has shown me how weak my own intellect is when wrestling with these matters, I choose to defer. The Church has long proven prophetic in its utterings, and I have come to trust that voice. Yes, the Pope could have been wrong when he spoke out against the recent conflict in Iraq--I'm still pondering that, but more and more, I become convinced that he was not wrong. Despite the good that was done in delivering the Iraqi people and the world from the hands of a monster, I still wonder about the means and its propriety. (I say that without any hint of a lack of support for the brave men and women who effected the will of this country's President.) But I gradually come to believe that the Holy Father was once again correct in his statement concerning it.

I could dredge up endless examples from experience, but let's leave it at the fact that the Bishops have been correct on many things more often than I have.

(3) Obedience stems from a third source and that is sheer human limitation. I have neither the experience nor the intellect to consider ever single issue on which the Bishops see fit to make some sort of statement. Some issues I feel that I have better capacity to understand and make decisions. More often that simply means that I've formulated an opinion and so feel qualified to discourse upon it. For example, when the Pope or the Bishops speak about the death penalty, because I have spent a great deal of time formulating an opinion, I feel that it is a matter on which I can speak with some authority. In fact, my opinion have no authority, nothing to back them up, and no real logic to hold them together. I naturally embrace the Church's teaching on this issue because it agrees in large part with my own opinion, so there is no struggle. But the Church, by issuing a teaching, has given a coherent presentation to my rambling thoughts on the matter. I "feel" that the Death Penalty is wrong, and the Church articulates why that might be.

In some cases, I disagree, or more likely, I know nothing of the matter whatsoever. I recently read a rash of criticisms of some bishop's letter or another that talked about Jewish/Christian relations and "ecumenism." I have no real idea what the Bishops said or why they were so roundly criticized for the statement. But this is a case where I have no expertise in Church tradition or law to say whether they were correct or not, and that whatever the statement, it has no real bearing on my life or conduct. Whatever they may have said (or may not have said) regarding the salvation of the Jews, seems to me a matter between the individual Jewish person and God. My duty in the meantime is to love all, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, whatever ilk or stripe, as I love myself. To hold them in respect and to exercise whenever possible the spiritual and corporal works of mercy toward them. How God effects their salvation is a matter for theologians to tussle over and which has no relevance to how I am to conduct myself.

(4) Obedience is also an exercise both in humility and detachment. When I spend my time second-guessing Church leader, formulating opinions in opposition to suggested guidelines, and questioning how we might best implement this or that prudential judgment, I wind up tied in knots emotionally and intellectually--unable to speak to God in any way that would be meaningful and resentful of Church authority and magisterium. I become self-absorbed and self-interested. So, very obviously, the questioning of prudential judgments is often an occasion of pride. My whole life is better when I accept the judgment and attempt to act on it (if it is something that I can act upon). Or, often, it is simply better when I don't worry about the prudential judgments of others at all--when I choose not to formulate an opinion, but act on the general principles we are all to be living. No matter what the Vatican chooses to do about Bishops like Bishop O'Brien, I will not change the fact by vociferously dissenting, nor will I help Bishop O'Brien by becoming wrapped up and tossed about by the issue. Rather, I lend my help through constant prayer for the wisdom of those taking action, and for the soul of Bishop O'Brien that he might find himself "right with God." Rather than worrying whether this or that action is the right and proper thing to do--a point I leave to those better qualified to judge, I can always pray for the Bishops and for those affected by the ruling as I continue to feed those who are hungry and visit those in prison. . .

I guess part of what I'm saying is that just as i wouldn't go around challenging every prudential judgment I hear from the gallery, neither am I inclined to do so with respect to the Church. Moreover, I am inclined, when the issue comes up to ask first, "What does the Church say?" If the matter is not definitive, my second recourse is almost always, "What do the Bishops (the Pope) say?" I find that it spares me a great deal of conflict in my already conflicted world. Moreover, it also wraps me in a mantle of protection when accosted by supporters of this apparition of Mary or that revelation of some seer. My first question can always be, "What does the Holy Mother Church say of the matter?" If she has not deigned to speak, I'm not inclined to pay attention.

All of that said, I'm not inclined to say that all should follow this path. I think I say all of this merely to be truthful to my readership, so that they (and incidentally I) will have a better understanding of my failings. When it comes right down to it, I'm more inclined to trust the Church than to voice my own opinion--my track record is far worse than that of the Bishops in Conference.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:23 AM

June 22, 2003

On the Pope, Prudential Judgments, and Responsibility/Irresponsibility

There are a great many people who have opinions on how best to solve whatever the current crisis may be. (Very honestly, I know too little about whatever crisis people are talking about to make any informed comment whatsoever.) Many would probably like to be advisors to the Vatican, and I applaud them for their willingness to advance and defend opinions I can only just begin to understand.

However, one of the great Spiritual Mothers of the Carmelites, St. Teresa of Avila, has some better advice for me, which I have found enormously helpful in these crises--obedience. Obedience is one of the very hardest things in the world--particularly when our judgments on matters that are open to dispute differ. And yet, it is at this time that obedience may be at its most important.

God, for whatever reasons He may have, has placed over us a hierarchy of people who have authority in spiritual matters. In all matters touching on faith, these people are our leaders. Now, this is not to say that if someone suddenly did something in direct defiance of Scripture, Tradition, or sanity, that I would blindly follow their lead. I am not becoming a Pelagian or a Nestorian (I sometimes think the poor bishop was terribly maligned, but I leave that to others) any time soon. However, if the Pope determines that a given Bishop will stay in office, then I assume he has done so for very good reason and that Bishop will remain. Would I like a Charles Chaput in every Bishopric? No question. Will the Pope give me one? Probably not, for more reasons that I will not go into (considering I am already following La Madre in the tacking-on of endless digression).

But Teresa of Avila was adamant in her insistence on obedience. She said that you explicitly and implicitly follow the law of those who are over you spiritually and you pray continually to God about the matter. If it is in His Will to change the heart of your director (or priest, or Bishop, etc.) He will do so. If for some reason it is not, it is better to serve obediently.

Now I'm certain La Madre would not countenance anything that went explicitly against all of Church History and teaching--if, say a Bishop came out and said that all pro-life teaching was null and void. But when it came to matters of individual judgment, she encouraged us in spiritual matters to abandon our own and cling to that of our superiors.

Why might this be? I think it is part and parcel of humility. That is, we abandon ourselves and prefer the judgment of those God has set over us. (Or in the cases of the two diocese that I have recently lived in, the lack of any stated judgments.) Thus, when I became a Carmelite, I promised obedience to the Carmelite Superiors in the Province and in the Order. When they produce a document or revise the rule, my life and my choices are guided by that. I may not like some of the statements or provisions they have made (in point of fact, that is not the case, I delight in the recently promulgated revision to the rule), but I have promised obedience, and that promise is a promise not just to the superiors of the Order, but to God Himself.

What is the point of all of this? I suppose it is to confess what will probably be viewed as irresponsibility on my part. But in the matter of prudential judgments I prefer the judgments of my superiors, in the Order and in the Church. If the Pope says it is wrong, then it is wrong. If the Bishops say one thing or another, that really matters and affects me where I live, then I should prefer their judgment to my own--even in matters that are open to discussion. So on matters of controversy, I try as much as possible to follow our magnificent Pope. I trust his prudential judgments as worthier than my own for several reasons--(1)surely some of that guidance of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church rubs off on other matters of opinion (perhaps not, but a man of deep prayer seems reliable in more than the statements recognized as infallible), (2) deference to age, experience, and intellect--this good man has all three, hands down, over me, (3) track record.

So, when the Pope makes a decision, I do not consider that I have the wherewithal to second guess him. Ditto for most of what the Bishops have to say. When one makes a blatantly idiotic remark on a subject outside his purview, we're talking another matter. But in all matter affecting the Church, the better part seems to be simple obedience and constant prayer for God's guidance of the hierarchy. I'll leave the espousal of differing opinions to others. I'll also say, that in matters where there is some doubt it is important for people who are qualified in the matter to express their opinions. However, until such opinions trickle up to the hierarchy and effect a change, I will decide obedience to the opinion given and not trouble myself with things that doubtlessly beyond me. (Anyone who has followed this blog for any length of time knows how unreliable my own judgments and thought can be on disputed issues.)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:20 AM

June 16, 2003

A Father's Day Observation

One sometimes puzzles over why there seems to be less of a masculine presence in the Church today. Yesterday, I had something of a glimpse of the reason.

Every year on Mother's day, the church I attend goes out of its way to have literally thousands of roses all over the altar area. This year there was something on the order of twelve-thousand roses decorating the Church. On mother's day a long blessing and much of the homily was dedicated to the role of mothers in our lives. Don't get me wrong--so long as the liturgy is not warped and the theme can be worked into a reasonable homily, I don't have any real problem with this--it is right a proper to give all due respect and dignity to mothers. However, when we got to Father's day, on the Feast of the Holy Trinity--certainly a day in which one could easily talk about the image of Father that men are all called to emulate--not a word. Not so much as a recognition that it was Father's day. Certainly no blessing, no special recognition , no flowers. (Not that I'd care for roses anyway--Dendrobium orchids seems appropriate--in fact, orchids of any sort, given the etymology of the name). I find this dismaying--dismaying and yet entirely predictable. When we view the Holy Family, although we pay a moment of lip-service to Blessed St. Joseph, the model of all fathers, we quickly pass over him to Jesus and His Mother.. All well and good--but utterly damaging in service to the family. A Marian emphasis is wonderful, uplifting thing--but a Church that does not recognize fathers for their contribution to the family is not a church that invites men in. This is only one of many ways that the Church, perhaps in an attempt to undo a perceived wrong in a completely male hierarchy, actually overlooks men and chooses not to invite them equally if they are not part of the clergy.

I'd like to think that what I observed was an anomaly, but I have noted it in nearly every parish I've been to. Mother's Day is made much of, Father's day, if it is mentioned at all, is usually some sort of joke. This may reflect societal influence, but the point of the Church in culture is not to reflect society but to direct it. If you want to invite men into the Church, then the day that celebrates the vocation of the vast majority of men should have the same or similar degree of celebration as that which celebrates the greatness of Motherhood. At a minimum, it seems appropriate to read a special blessing for fathers or to say a single prayer for strengthening fathers in their vocations. So long as the Church continues to slight this important vocation, we will have failed families--divorce, child abuse, and adultery. All vocations take great strength and perserverence. To expect once a year a blessing to help strengthen that vocation does not seem to be asking overmuch.

(Oh, and then I should probably say something about the way the Church treats those who are childless through no fault of their own--or in many cases even worse, those who are single either temporarily or by vows, and yet not part of the Religious. These are imperfections of the practice, not of the institution, and they can and should be addressed and remedied.)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:02 AM

April 25, 2003

Okay, I'm Still Not There

As you will see in the comment box below, I still haven't refined what I really want to say to the point where I can express the intent, which I truly believe is not at odds with what John da Fiesole would say.

But why, you ask, am I concerned at all about the issue? Am I anti-intellectual? Do I want to see a return to the bad old days of confining Galileo for his views about heliocentrism (a myth, by the way)?

Not at all. I am concerned because personal experience has acquainted me with a great many people who began with all good will to study and who studied with all due humility, or so it would seem, and who came to the conclusion that all they had learned in the faith was false--that in fact, the only truths were mechanistic, logical positivist, demonstrable truths. I am concerned, perhaps beyond my need to be, for the safety of souls.

I think much may depend upon what you study and why. For example, the study of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas for the purpose of understanding one of the major influences of Catholic thought and philosophy for a great length of time, conducted in all due humility with respect to the magisterium, seems quite beneficial. If one stands ready to be corrected and to submit one's work to the teaching authority of the Church, then one stands in good stead.

What, then, might constitute "bad study." I don't know that there is any (apart from things forbidden us, such as occult ways). But there may be bad pursuit of study, or a fundamental lack of knowledge of one's self that would tend to lead one off track. Or there is the insidious possibility of being slowly pulled off-track by various influences. Most theologians who are now in disrepute started out as fairly orthodox. Few of them just went of the rails from the start. Many theologians whose works may be too easily misinterpreted by lay people--Häring, for example--were surely thoroughly Orthodox at the start.

I'm going to think and pray more about this to try to say clearly what I wish to articulate. But I think at the core, it amounts to a much, much greater emphasis on humility. "Above all else to thine own self be true. . ." if we interpret that line in conjunction with Socrates's injunction to "Know thyself." In other words--know who you are in Christ, respect the limitations of your intellect and personality. And that restated is the fundamental truth--exercise humility in all your actions.

This does not mean that you cannot take joy in your discoveries. I'm afraid I tweaked a very precious, very good Carmelite in the course of these comments, and she should not have been tweaked. There is great, deep, wonderful satisfaction in discovering the things of God, and there is a natural impulse to want to share these discoveries. We must watch ourselves, and as Carmelites particularly, we must be willing to allow these consolations to pass from us and back to God. But surely no harm comes from innocent delight and pleasure in the knowledge of God.

So it's back to the drawing board, and perhaps working with my good blogfriends, I will finally be able to say precisely what I am aiming at. Thanks to all for your patience and kindness in following this track.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:10 AM

April 24, 2003

Clarifying Knowing About God

Clarifying Knowing About God

What are the aspects of knowing about God?

There is the good, right, and proper knowing about God, which John da Fiesole sees as a legitimate end in itself--and I cannot entirely disagree, if, as he posits, it is conducted under humility. And there is a "knowing about God" that serves the human purpose that all knowing can serve, namely, "Look at me! Look at me! Look how very, very clever I am!" It is this latter, this pursuit of knowledge of an object, not for the object but for our own self-aggrandizement that I am critiquing when I refer to a certain type of "knowing about God."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:51 PM

An Old Debate Revisited

Warning: Maximus Quibblius follows. Please do not infer from this anything other than the deepest respect for the person whose work is so examined. I do this for a point I keep trying to make, somewhat unsuccessfully and that is--the validity of an argument depends for its success upon acceptance of the terms, definitions, and postulates upon which the argument is founded. And that acceptance is a good deal more slippery and less clear than might at first be thought.

From another blog I love (do you get the impression I am fickle--well I am--why do you think the blogroll is so long. There isn't anything on it that I don't love for some reason), Minute Particulars we get the usual incisive, quite intelligent commentary. In this case a remarkable meditation on action, object, and moral theology or philosophy. Explained with aplomb and lucidity, with one small faux pas that I must quibble over:

I raise this because I'm beginning to suspect that some folks have become inured to claims that human beings are substantially unique among all beings of the Universe. For Catholics, this inattentiveness would surely be a grave failure to contemplate and cherish the Incarnation and its inexhaustible implications for human beings, human nature, the human person, and the startling fact that every human being was willed freely and deliberately into existence by the Creator:

It is the first sentence that gives pause, and again, it is a matter of language. Which beings are not "substantially" unique as a class? One of the ways you determine the class and order of a group is to sequence the cytochrome C from the mitochondrial DNA (assuming the beings you are studying have organelles--but let us leave that aside for the moment). That difference in chemistry is indeed a substance-ial difference by any meaning of that term. Then we have the problem of what "substantially unique" might mean. Does it mean the substance of the creature (however one defines the term: mechanistically or philosophically) is unique, or does the term in fact mean that it is "nearly unique." If the latter, what then is nearly one-of-a-kind--there are merely two, three, or four of that kind? I must accept that I probably don't quite understand the term substantially unique because it may refer to a philosophical entity and set of propositions with which I am not sufficiently acquainted.

Now, what I have articulated above is a quibble that I wouldn't really bother with normally because it is perfectly clear from context the manner in which Mr. Mark (whose last name slips my mind at the moment, so please pardon the infelicity) places it. However, that argument will have implications for my overall quibble.

My real objection is of another sort. Who is to say that the incarnation did not have some substantial effect on other beings we know not of? We do not know all of the beings in the universe--we don't know even all of those on Earth--although we are sufficiently well acquainted to see that humans have no close correlatives here. We certainly don't know all of those in the Solar System--though here again, we are sufficiently aware to suggest the truth of our Blogmaster's proposition. However, we do not know that elsewhere in the Universe God did not see fit to create another similar form of life. Biblical revelation is silent on the matter, as is (at least presently) the universe.

So my quibble is that we can only speak substantially of what we know with some degree of intimacy and as the state of the entire universe is largely an unknown the first proposition can have only the contextual meaning and the effectiveness of the argument is thereby inhibited. Unless we define substantially in the first sense outlined above, we cannot know for certain if there is a substantial difference. If we do speak of substantial difference in the terms I outlined above, then the argument sinks of its own weight as there is no creature that is not substantially different from any other.

The solution is simple and consists of two parts: (a) Steven should stop quibbling; and (b) we need to limit the proposition above to what we know can be proven and is true. Therefore we can say, of all of the creature we know of in the universe, Human beings are substantially unique as a class.

Now all of this is what comes of being too much a reader of science fiction in my youth, and too hopeful that someday we'll encounter others "out there" who will help us to better understand our place in creation.

And the point of all of this is not that the argument is malformed, but that reason can and will produce constructs in which small errors gradually propagate to abrogate the entirety of the argument. The problem is the ability of any individual to recognize the inherent small errors in the articulation of the argument. We all say things the way we say them. For the person speaking, what is said is perfectly clear, but the person hearing may have no real understanding of what is said--or may have an understanding that is completely different from that of the speaker.

Now, our PoMo friends leap upon this incongruity and suggest that it is impossible to communicate--that meaning is substantially within the person making the expression and it is essentially incommunicable to others as they are quite differently constructed. I would take exception to this as well because refinement of the argument can produce an articulation that, unless we are being unbearably obtuse, most, if not all can agree upon the meaning of. Now, that does not mean that they will agree with the proposition, but they can at least agree that it has some meaning outside of their solipsistic ally constructed realities.

This is often how I feel in the sea of theological arguments. A says Rahner is heretical in his teaching on the Eucharist. I read Rahner and from what I can make out there is nothing particularly heterodox. I'm not sure I understand the need for the new articulation--but that is another matter entirely. B says Balthasar is heterodox in his articulation of the population of Hell. C says that Garrigou-Lagrange is ultramontane and irrelevant to any real philosophical/theological debate of the day. And so it goes. What does one who is substantially ignorant of all the niceties do? Research is nearly impossible because you must pick a place to stand, and the choice of that place will inevitably affect the outcome of your research. As an example, John da Fiesole (whose opinion on these matters I respect greatly) does not care for some aspects of the theology of Balthasar. Mr. da Fiesole may be accurate in his assessment. But might it not also be that Mr. da Fiesole is analyzing Fr. Balthasar's work as a Thomist facing a theologian who is not working from a strictly thomistic base? Might the lack of agreement be the result of different ways of argumentation and what constitutes "proof?" I can't say because I have insufficient grasp of either Aquinas or Balthasar to say one is right and the other wrong; however, my inclination would be to agree with a person whose judgment in these matters I trusted. On the other hand, Mr. Serafin, whom I respect and admire greatly, thinks a great deal of Balthasar's theology. Admitting my ignorance, I am now in a quandary--which opinion should I follow if I lack the time, ability, and discernment to properly articulate my own?

So I'm back to my question--how does the average layperson discover were the truth is in this thicket? And I must conclude that unless one is seriously dedicated to the pursuit either professionally, or as a serious part of one's vocation, it is a thicket better avoided. We walk in dangerous territory when we walk unprepared, and I can be swayed by Aquinas, Balthasar, Küng, or Cullen if I don't know where I'm going. I have read all of these, and I find that the reasoning of each is persuasive. I can rely upon the magisterium of the church to point me in the right direction (I can safely disregard select teachings of the latter two theologians--though one does risk tossing the baby out with the bathwater). However, the church rarely makes a statement about the correctness or lack thereof of a theologian whose work is not substantially flawed or in error. For example, I have read nothing from the Vatican with respect to Rahner, Balthasar, de Lubac, or any number of others who are, in various arenas attacked--justly or unjustly. And the sad part of this is that I cannot say whether the commentators are correct or incorrect in their assumptions.

Where am I going with this? I suppose I simply wish to say that one needs to be most selective and extremely careful when studying any aspect of theology--a caution to which I am sure no one would object. Obviously such study should be done after and as part of prayer, with guidance from the Holy Spirit. And finally, the results of one's researches should be laid open to the criticism of all and sundry and submitted to the authority of the Holy Mother Church (as is true of all of the great works of the Saints) and redacted and corrected according to authoritative teaching.

As all of that is far too exhausting to contemplate, I think I will read with great enthusiasm the wonderful defenses and analyses others propose. I will ask my ignorant questions and make my stupid statements to try to correct my own misapprehensions. And I'll stick with someone who I can understand and who speaks to me--St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux. My brain is not a razor, and I put myself in danger when I try to use it as one. So expect the same speculations, ruminations, and sometimes simply idiotic meanderings that you have always seen here. But time and time again, I will return to this roost--the skeptic of theological speculation--occasionally poking a finger at it, but trying to avoid the tar-baby syndrome.

[Mr. Mark's (is it Sullivan?) complete argument which, despite the impression you might get from the nonsense above, is well worthy of your consideration, may be found (eventually) here. I say eventually because it is the first post on the blog right now, and until another crops up, the direct link does not work.]

Later: Correction incorporated to attempt to more truly represent Mr. da Fiesole's position--which, by the way, I do not fault.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:15 AM

April 22, 2003

At Disputations

I've meant to say a few words regarding some of the on-going commentary at Disputations. Of recent date, John da Fiesole has been posting some interesting ruminations and aggravations at, toward, and about the theology of Hans Urs van Balthasar. Now, I am not a Balthasarian champion, neither am I a detractor. I do not think him a destructive modernist who, with fire in his eyes set about the deconstruction of all that we hold near and dear. On the other hand, I also do not hail him as Prince of Theologians.

Frankly, much of what he writes bores me to tears. I tried earnestly and with great vigor to plow my way through his treatise on Prayer--to no avail. This is not a failing on his part, but on my own. The digests I have read regarding his thoughts on the population of hell (among other things) have been intriguing and utterly fascinating--but I have against Balthasar the fact that the native language was German and nearly everything German in translation is leaden and dull. Even Thomas Mann is a labor in English. I can't imagine that if the wooden prose that represents itself as the translation of Thomas Mann actually reflected his felicity in German that anyone would ever have read a word. I have noted this same problem with the vast majority of works in translation from German.

But the case of Balthasar once again raises a point I often make and often get derided for from the Thomists and proto-Thomists out there. Thought and speculation about God is wonderful and good so long as it leads the thinker and those who can follow him or her toward God. But thought about God is not an end in itself. We will not be quizzed about whether the Father and the Son were or were not separated or united in the final moments on the cross. I suppose it is an interesting matter for theological speculation--but I honestly can't see how it would make an iota of difference in my life if I knew and truly understood the answer. And it does make a great deal of difference (or could if I would let it) to my present life because it is utterly frustrating, aggravating, and irritating not to know the answer and be able to apply it to something.

So, Balthasar, Rahner, Küng, Häring, you name whom you choose--even the remarkable St. Edith Stein in much of her work (The Problem of Empathy, for example), do not do much to enhance my love of God. And yet, I rejoice that they have written, as their work undoubtedly must move people of a certain bent closer to the Lord. Anything that does that is a good work--not to be denigrated or derided. But I would venture to guess that despite the pleadings of the few about the importance of such things, for the vast majority of us, the simple complexity of the words of our Savior and of the authoratative exposition of His teaching through the magisterium suffice. If we do not understand ever nuance of how we got to where we are, it is hardly a salvation matter. And if we do not care to do so, it is not a comment upon those who pursue such things with great vigor.

"In my Father's house there are many mansions." And I suspect that each of those mansions has as many libraries, courtyards, salons, ballrooms, and parlors. If some find themselves in at the desk one library, while others are on the window seat with a book of poetry--still there is room for us all.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:35 AM

March 25, 2003

The Proper End of Knowledge

The Proper End of Knowledge

The as-always perceptive and incisive John da Fiesole (direct link not working, scroll down and look for "Entr'acte") is studying and asking questions about "necessary universalism." More interesting than the particular question is some of the issues raised when the method of study is questioned.

I wanted to address some of these issues at greater length than a comment box permits, so I drew out a comment on which I will digress for a bit.

And why was Scripture given to us, if not for us to engage in "the monumental task of completely exploring scripture for the truth"? What, the truth in this matter of universal salvation? Yes -- albeit not directly -- since this matter is intimately bound up in the questions of Who God is and who we are, the answers to which are the purpose of Revelation.

This is a most excellent question and seems to point to a key difference in the charism of the Carmelite and Dominican Orders, or perhaps to key personality differences in an approach to God. My answer to the question of "why was Scripture give to us, if not for us to engage in 'the monumental task of completely exploring scripture for the truth'?" is very simple. It was given to us to teach us to love. For many long ages a great majority of people could not read the Scriptures. What they knew of them came in the Liturgy of the Word and perhaps at various Catecheses; however, they did not sit and study scripture to discern great truths. They listened to scripture as a lover listens to a letter from the beloved. Incarnate Love came, not to lead us into the paths of speculation and theory, but to teach us to love. Anything that does not lead directly or indirectly to this goal is a waste of our energy and resources, and very possible quite dangerous. Thomas a Kempis points out several times the dangers of seeking to know for the purposes of knowing.

So my answer is that we were given Scripture so that we would know God, not know about Him, nor know about various doctrines and dogmas related to Him, but so that we would know Him as Father and as Lover of humankind. That said, pursuit of the highest truth in doctrine and dogma is one of the paths whereby we come to know and understand Him. However, it is not the only path, nor is it necessarily the highest road. It fell to Bernadette, a unlettered, nearly ignorant French peasant girl to confirm the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but this did not come from tremendous study and insight, but through obedience and love. St. Thomas Aquinas wrested great truths from the storehouse of divine Scripture, but in the end, he recognized that his efforts were as nothing. (Obviously they are not, but they are to one who is rapt in the motion of Divine Love.)

The key word, as you suggest, is "beginning." The process of understanding is unending, at least in this life (and possibly in the life to come); there is a rhythm to it, as our temporal intellects look first there, then there, then back here, all the time (ideally) growing in the wisdom and knowledge of the Holy Spirit.

"The process of understanding is unending,"--good so far as it goes. But understanding is not the highest goal--love is. Perhaps understanding leads to love--but again there are other routes. As St. John of the Cross points out--"To understand everything, desire to understand nothing." The via negativa the provides a poignant counterthrust to our attempts to grapple with God intellectually. We must grapple with God at the level of the heart, and for many that intellectual grappling is a fortification that keeps God away from the territory He must claim if we are to be transformed.

It is these gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the personal encounter with the Word of God that is possible when we read (or pray) Scripture, that puts a limit on your point that "no matter what you arrive at by reason, reason can readily contradict." I'm not particularly interested in arriving anywhere just by reason, but by reason enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Yes, even such reasoning can be readily contradicted by human reasoning -- and it's not always easy to tell which is which -- but that's no reason to give up on it.

These are indeed great gifts of the Holy Spirit. But I go back to La Madre and say with her--we are not called to know much but to love much. And I find it ironic that I can write those words. A few years ago I was at a meeting of the formation directors of the local Carmelite chapters and I was provoked to something akin to wrath by someone else saying almost precisely the same thing to me. I was incensed at the perceived "anti-intellectualism" that was rearing its ugly head. So perhaps my presence in the order is gradually reforming my heart to realize that it isn't anti-intellectualism, but a very careful placement of the intellect as a support function, not as the primary function in our approach to God. Will is first, and love is an act of will and more. Love may be fed by knowledge and wisdom, but we look to Solomon's case and we see that it may also be destroyed by much knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom tend to puff us up with pride. The Figure hung upon the crucifix, arms wide open, beckoning and summoning, call us to the true Wisdom which is love of the Lord.

We could say it was providential that some things were not revealed to St. Thomas until after he had written so many of his strawlike words.

I must quickly retreat and apologize if I have given the impression that I have anything other than respect (with a good deal of puzzlement) for the words of St. Thomas Aquinas. I do not consider his words straw--it was his own statement. And I am beginning to form a picture of what he meant by it. Obviously, that picture will become a good deal clearer when I stand face-to-face with God; however, my use of his words should not be taken to mean that I consider his work futile or useless. Obviously, it could not have been because it led him to such tremendous love of God. However, that same path could just as easily lead one to the perdition of self and self-importance.

My conclusion--searching the Scriptures for doctrines, ideas, notions, and proofs can be a wonderful way to come to know God more intimately and more completely. Surely many have followed this path to divine union. On the other hand, it can be a superb path to tangling merely with the self and protecting one's intimate being from true connection with God. Meditating on the word, listening carefully to what Jesus says to each of us today, and applying that with the appropriate corrective of Spiritual Guidance and Church teaching (the result of countless years of effort searching the scripture to the greater glory of God) is also a viable and noble path toward union--laced with its own dangers of pride, self-righteousness, superciliousness, and any number of other difficulties.

But when asked, "Why were the Scriptures given us?" my answer is now and shall continue to be--"To teach us to Love God as He loves us."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:16 AM

February 24, 2003

Annoyed Is Not Quite the Right Word

I just saw a posting over the copier at work that reflects a sentiment with which I agree. Something from Abraham Lincoln who points out that "There is no honorable way to kill, and there is no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war, except its ending." Now, I concur with the sentiment, and particularly from a man who nevertheless led a nation through a national nightmare. However, no matter how much I may agree, I must conclude, as obviously Lincoln did, that sometimes war may be necessary to prevent an even greater evil and to right incredible wrongs.

But what I more disturbed at, is the necessity of others to foist upon me their viewpoints. Why is this posted? Why is it allowed to be? Whether I'm inclined to the sentiment or not, it strikes me as at best discourteous and detrimental to the conduct of a business to allow the posting of such divisive sentiments. What if I were not sympathetic to the meaning of this quotation now being used as a screed?

I recall Josemaria Escriva's list of the seventeen evidences of a lack of humility--number 4--"to give your opinion when it has not been requested or when charity does not demand it." (Admittedly most of us bloggers trip over that one on a daily basis). But whatever I may believe, it is certainly not appropriate for me to make of it a "command performance."

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:58 AM

January 30, 2003

On the Jesuits

My, my, the Jesuits are getting a drubbing here and here. And I will explicitly state that this is not to take either of these two authors to task.

It is true that some Jesuits go awry. But what about the Jesuits who run Ignatius Press, Fr. Fessio, my own, very dear, very Holy Fr. O'Holohan, and countless others who have been loyal and faithful to the magisterium? All orders have their renegades and their diffiuculties: witness Joan Chittister, Richard Rohr, and there are several in my own order that I will not name as it smacks of a certain disobedience. Someone has recently said that to find truth faith one must forget the old orders and look to the new. I don't think so. However, I do say that the superiors in Orders that have straying members should be called to account and perhaps removed from the seat of authority if they do not redress some of the nonsense.

It isn't Jesuits, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, or any other group--it is simply wayward people--people who need to be reminded about why they joined Holy Orders and what the purpose and meaning of vocation, humility, and obedience are.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:39 AM

January 25, 2003

Request for Information--Fr. Jozo Zovko

Request for Information--Fr. Jozo Zovko

I just received a bulletin from a group near me that makes a number of claims for which I need either verification or refutation and authoratative sources. Could anyone who knows of these matters please help?

Has Fr. Zovko been stripped of his faculties as Priest?

What is the actual standing of the apparitions at Mudjugorje? They say that the Holy See has not approved them (I believe this to be true) and that 41 of the 42 Bishops of Yugoslavia do not believe or support the apparitions. Is this so?

The reason I ask is that I know of a great many friends and acquaintances who annually attend a Mudjugorje conference here in town. I have been tossed back and forth on this issue over and over, and it would be most helpful to at least thoroughly understand the status as it is today so that I can advise or if necessary warn people about it.

Thanks.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:35 PM | Comments (2)

January 3, 2003

On Karl Rahner

Back when I was asking for recommendations for reading, I mentioned Early Karl Rahner and was asked why. When I responded I was told that I was completely wrong about Fr. Rahner, wrong about Fr. DeMello, and an ignorant newbie whose benighted continuation of this calumny was a sign of all that was wrong with newcomers to the Church. I overstate the case, but not the tone of the reply. In a partial reply, I posted a link to the "notification" concern Anthony DeMello, which may have been retracted at this point, but I saw no evidence of it. Now I approach the question of Fr. Rahner. From Our Lady's Warriors (I don't vouch for the accuracy of the source) this statement concerning Rahner's teaching:

From Our Lady's Warriors Website On Karl Rahner Karl Rahner--Proposes a "transfinalization" or "transignification" which claims the "meaning" of the bread changes after Consecration - a symbol - rather than the Bread really and truly changing into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This heresy is specifically condemned in the Pope Paul VI Eucharistic Encyclical Mysterium Fidei.

Now, the analysis above may be a misreading of what Fr. Rahner wrote. However, it may also be true--if true, it would suggest that Fr. Rahner did stumble into error later in life. If not, the charge should be answered and laid to rest. I do not like to report unsubstantiated rumor as fact, and it took me a while to find where I had read this and what the particular difficulty was.

Now, I would say that this means that Fr. Rahner stumbled into a serious theological error (if indeed it is so stated in his works) and I have no idea whether he responded with due humility or outright defiance. Fr. François Fenelon also stumbled into error, but submitted his works to the correction of the Church. Much has to do with the attitude of the one in error. Theologians--all theologians make mistakes--they do not speak with magisterial authority. Theology, in some ways, is an experimental science. The experiments take the form of thoughts and propositions that must be tested against church understandings. The humble theologian recognizes the potential for error or misstatement in his work and submits it to the teaching authority of the church.

I have found sufficient additional, reliable questionings of Fr. Rahner's later work to give me pause before plunging into it. Admittedly, I have also found innumberable Feeneyite slurs and "traditionalist" (in the SSPX sense) aspersions, to give me reason to doubt the accusations made against him. What is the agenda; what is the authority. Nevertheless, when this type of controversy swirls around a figure, it seems most wise to stand back from the area of controvery and not to indulge oneself with the thought that "I can find the truth in this matter." I do not know if I can, in fact I doubt my ability to do so. Therefore, my caution remains firmly in place. Even more firmly when I see the good editors of America, that bastion of Catholic Orthodoxy, running to Fr. Rahner's defense with Fr. Häring and Fr. (?) Schillebeckx in tow.

I do not like controversy, no more do I like off-hand ad hominem remarks that impugn the integrity of a great many people in one fell swoop. One may say what they wish about me, and they may well be right--but when uttering remarks about a large group of people, one should be very, very cautious. Such judgements do not weigh lightly.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:48 PM

December 30, 2002

More on Spiritual Reading

More on Spiritual Reading

I really like much that is said at The 7 Habitus, for example:

In any case, at various times, I have tried to read both Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, without much success. I have to admit I can�t make heads or tails out of St. John and reading St. Teresa brings it�s own problems for me. First, there is the guilt that I feel for being such a spiritual slug in the face of such holiness. Then, there is the heightened tendency to selfish introspection (�Let�s see, am I in the first mansion or can I claim to have progressed to the second mansion?� And �Will I ever be able to make it to the third mansion?�) that is not at all healthy. I view this inability to read these two great saints as a grave personal shortcoming, but there it is.

It so amply demonstrates my point re: St. Thomas Aquinas. I, for one, do not see this a grave shortcoming--I see it as a manifestation of God's grace. Jesus told us "My Father's house has many mentions." God doesn't want to put us all into a cookie press and squeeze out identical cookies--rather, we are gingerbread people, each exactly equal in His eyes, but carefully, deliberately decorated with grace--some of us like chocolate, others (yes, I gasped when I discovered this reality) do not.

I do believe that St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila present insuperable difficulties to a great many people, even to Carmelites. That is why my Carmelite group is reading St. John of the Cross together. Forty minds puzzling away with guidance and help are far more likely to come to some comprehension of the work than a single mind on its own. But, being confused and led astray by entry into these wilds is not a personal shortcoming--it is rather a sign of God's particular will for us. For example, I have a personal distaste for many of the legends that surround St. Francis of Assisi. I can't tell where the truth is in that bramble, and so, rather than denigrate the Saint and many of his followers, I conclude that I have absolutely no inclination toward Franciscan Spirituality--it is confusing to me. This isn't a shortcoming, but a clear signpost that God has granted that says simply--don't go here--it is not, for whatever reason, for you.

That is why I don't see that my impression of St. Thomas Aquinas is particularly deleterious. There are those who are called to him, and others who are warned away.

And here is another important point, which if I read correctly, confirms and supports all that is said above:

So there are saints that we might have great difficulty reading or might never be able to read and appreciate, depending on our spirituality. But you see, we don�t have to read St. Teresa, we don�t have to read St. Thomas, and we don�t have to read St. Francis to be good and faithful Catholics and Christians. We can understand that they all have something to teach us about the truth of our faith, and they have given the Church the great legacy of their individual wisdom, but not all of us will be able to read all of them with the same benefit. Each of us is different and drawn to God in a certain way and it is important for each of us to try to discover that way and do our best to grow within it.

Absolutely true! In fact, for some of us, as I said, we may be warned away from some of these. And it may be that with time we grow into approaching them. For the longest time, the prose of St. Louis De Montfort, the seeming excesses he describes, and just his mode of expression was so utterly aliment to me that I couldn't read more than a sentence or two without revulsion--yes, very strong reaction, but remember I had a long road to walk from being a Baptist to acknowledging any sort of Marian Devotion. However, with time, God led me to a place where I not only see the value of St. Louis, but I recommend him highly to those trying to learn more about devotion to Mary.

So--spiritual reading, as with all things in the spiritual life, is a matter of careful discernment. One does not plunge willy-nilly into anything and everything. In fact, often reading can be used as a substitute for the more important matter of prayer. We become attached (to use St. John's terminology) to spiritual reading, and thus what can be a very good thing becomes a barrier in the way of God's grace for us. Anything to which we become attached--blogdom, books, a certain kind and place of devotion, a certain church--literally anything that we are not willing to let go with joy, becomes a roadblock on the way to God. These seemingly minor things serve as well as great sins to keep us from approaching God. After all God is the All in All, to want anything less is to completely miss the point. Spiritual Reading should not become a way to sidestep correct prayer and contemplation of God. Spiritual Reading should always lead us TO Christ, not just BY Him.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:25 AM

December 28, 2002

On the Intellect

Mr. Moffat commented below, and his astute observations are such that I felt needed to address them lest there be a primary miscomprehension of what I have been trying to say.

Mr. Moffat's Comment I too suffer from what you call "the temptation to pride" in intellectual matters, but I wonder if denying a gift given to us by God, or trying to suppress such a gift, is not in itself a form of pride? I do struggle with that question, this is not an accusation, just something I ponder regularly.

This is a wonderful comment because if there is anything Catholicism doesn't need more of it is anti-intellectualism. If my posts re:Thomas Aquinas are read as some sort of crypto-support for the anti-intellectual crowd, then my words need clarifying. We are to use the gifts God gives us, and use them in humility and in His service. We should not attempt to "suppress" the gifts, just as Mr. Moffat states. Such gifts are positive goods.

However, sometimes we take a gift and development to the detriment of other aspects of ourselves, aspects that God has also gifted. Sometimes we allow the intellect to dominate the spirit and the emotions. Sometimes we develop one at the cost of another. We should not therefore eschew the intellect, but we would do well to direct our attention to other gifts--diamonds we have too long left in the rough. That would be my explanation for joining the Carmelites. I have long felt that God gifted me with a great brain--no greater than that of the vast majority of people out there, but He also gave me the impulse to focus on the intellect. I spent so much time in my head that perhaps I neglected my heart. I struggle now daily to have the heart of Jesus for His entire creation. I struggle to grow spiritually. My comments re: Aquinas are simply to say that that path holds many dangers for me.

I do not think that St. John of the Cross is any less "intellectual." Many of the things he has to say are very deep theology and very difficult to understand in sheer thought. But St. John of the Cross feeds my heart and encourages me to Love rather than to think.

Aquinas and Augustine defined two ends of a spectrum--"First I know, then I love," "First I love, then I know." I have tried knowing first, and it has been partially successful--I will only grow if I try loving.

But that doesn't mean that suddenly I should become an empty-headed follower of everything, that I should abandon all critical faculties in favor of visions, locutions, and other consolations. In fact, the intellect becomes even more important as one of the guardians of the spirit--advising and recommending what to read, what to do, how to react, where to seek Him.

We must use all of the gifts with which God has so generously graced us, and we must use them in a careful discerning manner. They are all lenses to focus the light of God. We need to adjust them to make the light clearer and more universal, not use them to burn and destroy.

Mr. Moffat, thank you so much for the comment. One of the strains of Catholicism that I find most trying is that which says we should abandon all of what God has given us and "love" in the sense of emotion more often than in the sense of an act of will accompanied by a positive action. I hope this has helped to clarify how I think of these matters.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:57 PM

December 12, 2002

Spinning a Metaphor--Potential Energy

T.S. O'Rama in a most excellent post on his site, gives me an opportunity to spin a metaphor than may or may not work. We'll see.

A Baptist pastor continually preaches the following thing on the radio (I don't have a specifically Catholic radio station in tuning distance so I listen to the local Christian one):

"Christians have to spend more time remembering their position in Christ, not their condition."

In other words, focus on who you are - God's - and not your condition, which is often disconcertingly poor. It is interesting to this cradle Catholic that even Protestants have problems with legalism and "position vs. condition".

Now I want to show how incorrect the Baptist Pastor is in this saying. An object has energy by virtue either of movement of the body (kinetic energy), movement of its constiuent particles (thermal energy) or by its position and/or condition potential energy. It is this last that I want to use as a metaphor for the Christian life.

Too often we have great stored energy in Christian life. We make no harsh commitments, we don't drive ourselves too hard, and we don't really challenge ourselves in the things that matter. As Dubay and others have pointed out, the harsh reality is that We are not saints because we have not yet chosen to be. By that, all the writers mean that we have not made up our minds to let God's will be our will and to live our lives in that reality.

That is where potential is. We are all potential Saints. Thus we must move from potential to actual. And our potential is precisely in both our position in Christ and our condition in obeying God's word and will. If we are remiss in the latter, our position in Christ imparts some energy toward our sainthood--but we are like a loosely bound spring sitting on the ground. When we spring up, our motion is done, feeble and not enough to move us very far. However, if we change our condition, we may also change our position in Christ. Right now we wait on the ground near his feet. But as we obey we become like springs more tightly wound and compressed, and God lifts us up. From a height, when the tightly bound spring is released, the energy is much greater, the potential becomes powerful kinetic energy and we are suddenly transformed in Christ and become signs for all people. We are Saints.

Sainthood is possible for each one of us. Not only is it possible, it is necessary. Too often we excuse ourselves saying, we are not like St Therese, or St Teresa. But the reality is, God already made a St. Therese, he doesn't need another. He already has a St. Teresa, a St. John of the Cross, a St. Philip Neri, a St. Swithun--He has no need of more. But what He does need and what He wants is a Saint Steven Riddle, a Saint _______________ (put your name in the blank). We have no excuses for not responding to God's need. We are simply lazy people. We think that Heaven will come to us if we wait long enough.

Now, please bear in mind, though this was spawned by some thoughts at Mr. O'Rama's site, this is in no way a particular indictment of him. It is an indictment of every one of us (myself included) who has not yet made up their minds to be Saints and to tread whatever path God has laid out for us in that direction. I long for Sainthood, but I want it to be easy. It's time to change my position or my condition, because I'll need all the extra energy I can get from that stored potential to overcome the inertia that I allow to keep me in my deadly, ungodly path.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:03 PM

December 1, 2002

A Dialogue/Commentary on Slavery

Please forgive me for simply repeating the contents of one of my comment boxes here; however, I feel the words important enough to rest at the upper level of an archive and not to rely simply upon the vagaries of commenting systems to survive or die. Many commenters have made very cogent remarks regarding a post below, and I would like them to be prominent and useful for the future.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Steven,

Thank you for sharing your insights. Slavery is a tough one; it existed when Jesus was alive (as human) and He didn't do anything about it.

Pax,

Katherine
*****
Dear Katherine,

True enough, but neither did Jesus say a word about procured abortion, which, while not as prevalent as it is today, was still common enough practice to be denounced in the Didache.

His silence does not indicate approval, merely that there was limited time in His mission to say all that was essential to carry the world forward in pursuit of God.

In addition, the Old Testament Levitical regulations certainly indicated that no person should be kept in permanent bondage (one of the purposes of a Jubilee year).

Thus I see a two-fold approach--we look to the wisdom of the old Levitical law and we use that, in part as a basis for moving forward in pursuit of God.

Surely if we follow Jesus we cannot allow that He would have whole-heartedly approved of slavery. He might have noted that the slave was in a better position to access God than the person who "owned" him. (Perhaps this is one of the reasons why, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. . .")

In sum, I think the issue may be easier than we make it out. We are not supposed to "make our treasure here on Earth" but to "store up treasure in heaven." By this reasoning, we certainly should not be in the position of owning people.

Perhaps Jesus did not comment directly, but I believe His instruction and his attitude are quite clear in the words that are left to us.

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to elaborate on this very important thought. We must never allow a similar system to crop up here again, and justice demands that we work to the best of our ability to abolish this practice wherever it may exist in the world today. Call it what you may--reste-avec, slavery, it cannot but be clear that persons must never be regarded as objects to be owned and used at will.

(By the way, I know that you did not imply any of this in your reply--I do not impute these thoughts to you. But I do thank you.)

shalom,

Steven
*****

Steven,

I for one do not think that slavery and freedom can be defined by the presence or absence of chains, fences, concentration camps, and other devices that commonly come to mind when these words are used. Such devices delimit forms of physical slavery, which indeed may never exist again in this country, but that is not the only form of slavery. There is slavery that can be mental, emotional, psychological, and against these forms, which are debilitating to the mind and soul if not the body, I think we are still struggling.

We enact laws to proscribe the outward forms of slavery, but our laws are powerless to affect the workings of the human heart. We can prohibit someone from legally owning another, but we have not the means to prevent someone from seeking to subjugate another's will to their own. And conversely, we cannot force freedom on someone who does not fully desire it.

The mistake I think many people make is to assume that since the signs of slavery are no longer evident, we need be concerned about it no longer. But if by slavery and freedom we mean something more than the physical and the legal, then we need to look a bit deeper into what we are seeking to avoid and what we are seeking to promote. But such an effort is today complicated by the fact that slavery and freedom are emotionally-loaded words, and rational discourse on such subjects is frequently difficult.

Everybody nowadays "knows" that slavery ended a long time ago, and also "knows" that as a consequence everyone is now free. But ask them what they mean by "free" and more likely than not you'll get them upset. This may be because thinking with catchphrases is easier than defining one's terms. But I think it is also due in part to chronological snobbery, the attitude that ours is the first generation in human history that had everything figured out, and the vast bulk of humanity were all unwashed heathen, whom time and death have cast into the outer darkness to wail and gnash their teeth.

This attitude scares me, because it entails scorn and derision for our ancestors and their beliefs and traditions, and raises the distinct possibility that we will most likely be condemned to repeat history, since we lack the humility to learn from it. No, I don't think we'll resurrect the plantations, but there are more invisible and consequently more effective forms of slavery.
Franklin Johnston
*****
I think the important point about the Revolution is that the founding fathers had the right words and the right goal: endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and freedom. What they lacked was the intestinal fortitude and the follow through on the "for all." They did, however, fight with their lives and livlihood for fuller embrace of these principles. Sadly, it took much too long and much too much blood.for the fullness of these words to achieved for people of all races. Yet, these failings to attain a full embrace of this noble goal should not diminish the courage it took to gain what was gained. What truly diminishes us as a nation, is that we, in this time of plenty and wealth unimagined, are consciously choosing to RETREAT from these these noble goals. Our mantra is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- for all races, religions, creeds, sexual orientations as long as you happent to be economically viable and not a resource drain on society or your family and friends. In other words, the unborn, the chronically ill or disabled, and the dying are excluded from these inalienable rights. This truly is sad. It is one thing to have the most noble of goals and fail to attain it; it is another to achieve the most noble of goals and then repudiate it.

Anonymous
*****

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you, well spoken and quite poignant. Agreed and seconded in all points.

Dear Franklin,

[post edited to reflect the fact that in my haste to comment, I simply repeated what Franklin says above, implying that he did not say that Slavery may return and those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.]
However, slavery is NOT gone from the world--and that is a tragedy that must be addressed. In Haiti they have the institution of the Reste-avec (means Stay-with) in French, which is ostensibly a servant, but in all practicality a slave. I do not know that the hacienda system is completely dead everywhere in the world--but to be owned by the company store is slavery. I do not think we should suggest that the scourge is eradicated. Because it does not exist here does not mean that it does not exist.

However, the thrust of what you have to say is extremely important. Such attitudes and trends make possible atrocities beyond our ability to conceive. T. H. White's dictum, which I am fond of quoting notes that 90% of humanity are sheep; 9% are blackguards and knaves; and the 1% fit to lead, know better.

As long as we are sheep to fashion and the world, we are in danger. It is only in becoming the sheep of Christ that we have the power to resist the glamours of the world.

shalom,

Steven
*****

Such thoughts and words should not be allowed to vanish into the dim depths of commenting archives where they may or may not survive. I love good dialogue about important issues, and this issue has stirred a great deal of very good thought. Thank you all for contributing and thank you for helping me to grow in understanding and in my walk with Christ--for it is only in facing the truth squarely that we begin to see His face in the events that surround us each day.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:06 AM

November 7, 2002

The Conscience of America

After our initial surprise/joy fades, we would do well to remember that we are the conscience of America. While we elect our politicians with the hope that they will do at least some part of what they have promised us, politics is the art of compromise without looking like you're compromising. Most politicians don't seem to start with well-formed consciences anyway (I point to Ms. Granholm as an example; she might in all sincerity cling to her barbaric and ruthless beliefs, but surely that should be a signal that something is malformed in the conscience.) Many of our supposedly Catholic politicians and leaders seem to have little or no conscience or deep understanding of what the Church teaches and what it means. I was shocked when even Antonin Scalia--a supposedly well-informed, faithful Catholic announced his particular brand of cafeteria Catholicism (if it doesn't look traditional enough to me, I'll reject it.)

We must serve as the consciences of these men and women. Voting is the beginning of communication, but it becomes more and more imperative to continue to keep those lines of communication open. We must communicate and pray. The window is open for a very brief period. Everyone seems focused on things other than the issues most of us voted on. It is time to temporarily redirect their attentions to these issues and to get at least some minor relief in place for the unborn. We cannot rely upon the politicians to remember everything they have told us--the pressures of political life are such that it is nearly impossible. And so through our prayers and our letters, we need to remind them.

A suggestion--get a Mass Card from your favorite Church, Cathedral, or Society, and send it to your representative and/or Senator with a note that indicates that you are praying for them daily. Let them know that part of the electorate (a larger part than will be represented by Mass Cards) is truly Christian and truly concerned about both what is going on in Washington and the people themselves. Politics must be a lonely, ruthless, unpleasant business. People do not seem to be particularly happy--but then addicts generally are not. Most politicians are addicts to the power they have received. Sending them a note that encourages them and lets them know that we are thinking about them in something other than wholly negative terms will be a boost. More, it will keep the issues we are concerned with in their minds.

I suggest a Mass Card because it is something within our tradition that both supports our institutions and offers real help for those to whom we give them. But if it seems inappropriate--if your representative is Jewish or Christian of some other variety, buy a specifically religious greeting card that without apology invokes the name of God and send it. Send several in the course of the year. Let our representatives know from whence come our marching orders.

Perhaps we have too long been asleep. Perhaps it is time to be less apologetic (in both senses of the word) about our faith and more demonstrative of it. The best argument against an Evangelical or Fundamentalist who is seeking to convert Catholics is a life of exemplary faith. Even the most Evangelical or Fundamentalist among us would be hard-pressed to say something bad about Mother Teresa. We, that is all of us Christians, are the light of the world, and sometimes I think we've grown very used to the bushel basket secular society asks us to remain within. Now it is time to break out and to express ourselves not in political terms, but in overtly religious terms. The most important part of this expression is to let the person with whom we communicate know that they are loved, prayed for, and cared for by the God who loves us all. We must function as the well-formed conscience of the nation--we must not simply sit back and complain or make commentary, we must pray, pray, pray and let those in Washington know we are praying. Such an outpouring of prayer will certainly call down the Holy Spirit to convict a few who need conviction and to give courage to a few who need to move forward with the torch.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:00 AM

October 16, 2002

I Am and Wish Always

I Am and Wish Always to be . . .

I am and wish always to be a true son of the Church. All that I say or do I wish to be in conformity with Her teachings. Where I stray, I pray for the conviction of the Holy Spirit to bring me back. However, in all that I say, do, or otherwise make public, I wish always to express Her mind in the issue and I submit all matters of faith and morals to her judgments and humbly accept correction when and where necessary.

I love the Church. I think with the Church, but I am a broken, distant image of Him whom I would follow, and therefore I fail. I struggle with a great many things that the Church Teaches. But nothing in the centrality of the Creed or in the understanding of the hierarchy or teaching authority of the Church.

I like this expression far more than the one I posted before. I believe it to be truer, closer to the heart of the matter, and more personal. The Church is a Mother for me--I cannot bear to see those who would disgrace Her or tear Her down, be they revolutionaries or reactionaries. But being human, I struggle mightily with some of her teachings, to understand and accept them. These struggles are, however, my own. And to the best of my ability to do so, I would always state first and foremost what the Church teaches--it is sheer arrogance and pride to assume that in my span of years I could have accumulated sufficient knowledge to refute what she may teach. The Church is my teacher, in my immaturity, I struggle with some of what She teaches--but that is more a reflection on me that it is on the doctrines of the Church. And as I struggle, I pray I struggle toward truth and not toward self-will. To even begin to do this, I must defer my doubts to the wisdom of the teaching authority of the Church.

And I feel compelled to post even this much because so many would deny the teachings of the Bishops. It seems that every time they open their mouths someone is telling them to shut up. See one of the comments (you'll know the one) on this post at Disputations if you wonder whereof I speak. So, my apologies for the abortive and ultimately unsatisfactory attempt at definition this morning. This afternoon I say simply, I stand with my Bishops until such time as they teach out-and-out heresy (and I do not believe they [en masse] will ever do so.)

Later--Apologies Rereading this blog at a later time I realized that it could have been read to have accused the blogmaster at Disputations of holding some of the views I repudiate. That was not my intention and I hope the clarification above makes more clear what I was trying to say.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:10 PM

October 4, 2002

How Can Satan Deceive?

T.S. O'Rama never fails to post fascinating and thought provoking things. My mind bubbles with all sorts of thoughts all the time and occasionally one struggles to the high-surface tension top of the liquid and explodes with amazing display, usually over some triviality. Not to break that sequence, I must comment on this comment Mr. O'Rama offers.

Perhaps the answer is this: everything but humility. If the Medjugorje messages said, "humble yourselves before your family & neighbor" instead of the unceasing requests to pray, perhaps that would be off-limits as a demonic strategy.

I think I would say, put no good thing beyond Satan's power. That is, if praying the Rosary will keep you at the same level of prayer and cause you not to advance, that is a victory for him. He would encourage you to be very devout in your prayer of the Rosary. If humility seems good, he can make it a marketable commodity, and suddenly people who were full of humility are measuring themselves against others and against a false standard. Satan can use all morally good and neutral things to ill effect. We can be tempted to spend hours round-the-clock before the Blessed Sacrament, indeed a good thing, to keep us from supporting our families and doing our duties in our married vocations. So Jesus told us not to judge by appearances or by what was said ("wolves in sheep�s clothing.") but "by their fruits you shall know them."

Now this becomes an extremely tricky business. Take the matter of the forthcoming canonization of Josemaria Escriva. I have read elsewhere that he encouraged practices that would certainly seem to overstep the bounds of what modern sensibilities could entertain or accept. But do a majority of cooperators engage in these? (Did he indeed encourage any such thing or are these scurrilous rumors? I do not have enough facts at my disposal to say for certain.) What are the fruits?

That is why I simply await the full investigation of anything--apparitions, sainthood, acceptable practices and prayers. Presumably both greater numbers of people and people with a great deal more experience examine these things before they are approved. I think we fall into a trap making assumptions about what Satan can and cannot do and we do better to err on the side of accepting what is traditionally taught. These new apparitions may not make their meaning known for some time. It took a long while before we knew and understood the full revelation of Fatima. Lourdes was not well accepted immediately in its time, and we may not yet have truly absorbed all that is there for us.

Thus my caution. Satan is a lot smarter than we are, with thousands of years of tempting and experience with human souls at his fingertips, I would venture to guess that there is almost nothing that he cannot corrupt, at least in practice. Obviously he cannot make invalid a properly consecrated Eucharist, but he can lead us to believe the lies many modernists would tell of it.

The best thing to do--set your eyes on Christ and do all that you do not for hope of heaven or fear of hell, but from pure love of God. You might be led astray, but it seems unlikely that He would allow it.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:00 PM

August 17, 2002

Review of Cultural Relativism

The Times (of London) Literary Supplement (don't know how long the link will survive) gives us an impressive review of a book that looks into some of the more appalling crimes of cultural relativism.

Sandall focuses on the worst aspects of cultural relativism, in particular its non-relativist use of sentimentalized assessments of primitive cultures as a stick with which to beat civilization. He begins with a cameo: Lauren Hutton, the actress and ex-model, forcing her two young sons to watch red-robed Masai warriors drinking warm blood from the carcass of a slaughtered cow. Their reaction -- tears in contrast to her own delighted yelps of "wow" -- disappointed her. Perhaps, Sandall wonders, they understood better than she did the necessary violence of the warrior life behind the tourist-anthropology cabaret. As the mother of two boys, one might have expected her to reflect on the appalling initiation ceremonies to which warrior societies sometimes subject young males. In some highland Papua New Guinea societies, boys "were beaten with stinging nettles. . ."[read the remainder of this passage on the site, if interested]

The initiation rituals undergone by Papuan boys are somewhat at odds with the "communal basket-weaving, accompanied by traditional dance and song", that, Sandall argues, dominates the image of indigenous cultures in the minds of "boutique" multiculturalists. Multiculturalist thinking tends to exaggerate the place of art in past communities. Writers enchanted by Aztec art, architecture and poetry often ignore the unspeakable despotism of this warrior and priest-ridden society and their continual wars, waged in pursuit of the 20,000 prisoners needed annually for purposes of human sacrifice. For their neighbours, the arrival of the conquistadors was liberating.

Now, while I cannot but agree with the major assessment, I do have to caution that not all agrarian societies are brutal, awful, or have rituals such as those described. To assume that technological societies are a priori better for being technological is one of my pet peeves. As an example look at the Amish who eschew much of modern technology.

On the flip side, it is equally wrong to assume that an agrarian culture is "close to nature" and more "respectful" or "in-tune" with the environment. In point of fact all cultures have their problems, and on the whole the standard of life within a techonological soceity tends to be better. (I wouldn't argue that this is the way it must be--I suppose I have a romantic notion that would argue we can have the best of both worlds with a bit of work--but that may not be realistic; moreover, it is certainly not the present reality in any culture I'm aware of.)

But more to the point, in the example sited above, the Masai ritual may be unjustly maligned (I haven't seen it). The real problem with the scenario is exposing two young children who have not been exposed to the realities of where their own food comes from to something that is this graphic. I don't know that drinking the blood of a slaughtered cow is necessarily any worse than what happens in modern abattoirs to prepare food for our own tables. The difficulty is some parents appear not to have a clue about what to expose children to.

Okay, all my caveats aside, we must be willing to say straight out that atrocities cannot be justified by cultural differences. Girls who die as a result of "female circumcision," the phenomenon of the "reste-avec" and the child slaves typified by the tragedy of Victoria Climbié and others in Great Britain and elsewhere, and any other atrocity you can think of needs to be identified as an atrocity and not argued into nonexistence by cultural relativism. Likewise, those things that enrich the treasury of humanity through their exemplary exposition of all the good that is possible should be acknowledged as well. For example, communal care of children in many societies, is, in fact, often a good thing.

Not being an ethnologist, I am not in the place to make sweeping comments regarding any societal practices, but I do think we tend either to sweepingly condemn cultures for some of these kinds of things or to discretely sweep real atrocities under the carpet in the name of solidarity.

The best solution to all of these extremes is to love the people who make up a society, to see within them the image of Jesus Christ. If we focus on a person rather than on some of the less savory aspects of the culture from which the person derives, we will be far better off. If we were to be completely objective, there are undoubtedly a great many things about our own culture that would appear both barbaric and appalling. Fortunately, we are called simply to be brothers and sister to one another in Jesus Christ, our Brother, our Head, and our Lord.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:32 AM

August 13, 2002

On the Question of Culture

Normally, I prefer the battle on such issues to rage around me and not to comment, but I do feel that I must address an unfortunate tendency in thought, word, and deed. It seems that one webmaster blogged some remarks that were profoundly offensive to Ono Ekeh ( found via Dylan's Blog, q.v.) as how would they not be to individuals who are seeking common ground and understanding? Admittedly, the excesses of academic multiculturalists lead to a sense of dysphoria among all who do not buy into the world constructed by Foucaultian and Derridan theory (let's not even talk about Paul de Man).

I don't believe that we need to feel good about ourselves by denigrating the accomplishments of others. I don't think that cultural comparisons are particularly relevant or helpful, nor do they lead to the sorts of discussions and solutions we need to find to right historic wrongs.

There are problems in all cultures--there is no perfect culture, just as the only Perfect Human was executed in part because He was Other and made us realize that we were not so good as we thought we were. Comments that seek to elevate our sense of self at the expense of others simply contribute to the forces that pounded a the nails into Jesus' hands and feet. What we need is to address the problem and not return the fire we think we have been peppered with. We need to hear what is being said under the extravagant claims and make room in our cultural understandings for the genuine good present in all cultures. We need not claim it for our own, but neither do we need to say that it has no validity. In the example given, a writer compares a European Clock to an African Mask--perhaps an unfortunate juxtaposition arranged by curators, and extols the clock to the detriment of the mask. But looked at another way, a clock is simply a device invented for the external regulation of human behavior entirely useless to a culture that uses the daylight or the nighttime as need dictates. While technological cultures do provide certain goods that cannot be provided by agrarian societies, we may be blinded to some of the positive things that can come from living close to the Earth and its cycles. We should not conclude that a technological culture is necessarily "better" (after all, technology is a morally neutral faculty) or necessarily "worse." Why can't we simply accept that it is different and not attempt the sweeping generalizations that create an "us and them" attitude. Then we can get down to brass tacks--things nearly all reasonable cultures CAN agree on--slavery is bad, genocide is bad, murder is bad, ignoring God's law and natural law is bad. . . etc.

What we need, to use a very old and worn but tremendously useful phrase, is more light and less heat. What does one propose to gain from forcing a group that already feels disenfranchised into a position in which they must fight or die? It makes no reasonable sense. Simply teach your children to savor the wonderful benefits of the culture they enjoy and the goods of other cultures, to decry the wrongs that they see in any culture, and above all to center their hearts, minds, and souls first and foremost on the loving God who grants all things to all people, black, white, red, yellow. God sees in these colors a wonderful rainbow of images of His Son, we should strive to do the same and teach our children the same. Most important of all "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added unto you." When God is the center all human considerations fly away. The Shema Y'israel, which could be regarded as our chief rule of law says: "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One. Love Him with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself." Loving as yourself means simply seeing the image of Jesus and not judging that as a greater or lesser image.

I've gone on too long, but I think it's clear--Love is the rule and it leaves no place for comparison. Mother Teresa did not stop to compare Hindu and Christian culture before she cared for the ill; St. Charles Lwanga did not stop to consider who was worthy of salvation; St. Martin de Porres did not ask which culture the poor he tended belonged to; they all simply loved the image of Christ they saw in each person, without having to make themselves feel superior, without having to compare one with another. They accepted people as the beautiful, exasperating, exhilirating images of Jesus Christ that they are.

(Rant officially over, we now return you to your regular station)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:06 PM

August 12, 2002

The Prayer of Silence

Different book this time:

Meditations Before Mass Romano Guardini

Stillness is the tranquility of the inner life; the quiet at the depths of its hidden stream. It is a collected, total presence, a being "all there," receptive, alert, ready. There is nothing inert or oppressive about it. . . .

"Congregation," not merely people. Churchgoers arriving, sitting, or kneeling in pews are not necessarily a congregation; they can be simply a roomful of more or less pious individuals. Congregation is formed only when those individuals are present not only corporally but also spiritually, when they have contacted one another in prayer and step together into the spiritual "space" around them; strictly speaking, when they have first widened and heightened that space by prayer. Then true congregation comes into being, which, along with the building that is its architectural expression, forms the vital church in which the sacred act is accomplished. All this takes place only in stillness; out of stillness grows the real sanctuary.

While this is undoubtedly true of mass (and one of the reasons I tend to impatience for people who wander in with a hale-fellow-well-met attitude) it is doubly true of all prayer. Prayer is encased in a house of silence. Outside of silence, prayer becomes just more roaring against the sound of the rushing wind of culture. That is not to say that God does not hear it, because of course He does. However, it is not the kind of praise that rises like an incense to the throne of heaven.

For prayer to be truly pleasing to God it must be of the sort that makes one completely present to God. Such prayer is not acquired in the short run, and ultimately its final stage is not acquired at all. However, one must dispose oneself to receive the gift of infused contemplation. One of the ways of doing so is to practice this "prayer of silence." In addition, the prayer offers the person praying innumerable benefits stemming from a "mental vacation from the world." It "recharges the batteries" and makes one more capable of coping with what occurs in everyday life. It helps one to experience the presence of God in all of life's activities. It helps one to empty oneself to be filled with the Holy Spirit. In short, it opens the doors to greater levels of prayer..

But it isn't easy, and it isn't a short road. It may take years, perhaps decades. But, as with the bloom of the Century Plant, it is both spectacular and worth waiting for. In the prayer of silence, we take the first steps toward becoming like our grand model of prayer, the Holy Mother of God. We learn to "ponder these things in our hearts" and to derive from them great joy and peace. The prayer of silence, it would seem to me, is one of the most effective tools on the road to lifestyle evangelism because it causes a fundamental change in the person who is doing it consistently. From agitated and worried to peaceful and trusting, the prayer of silence changes lives.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:34 AM

August 7, 2002

Another Gem from Blog Land

I never fail to be amused, or at least perplexed (a rather enjoyable state overall) by the remarkable comments at Disputations.

I quote the excerpt below because it is a remarkable summary of much of the way I feel as well.

I don't have any insightful or non-negotiable opinions about liturgy, translations, enneagrams, EWTN, or Cardinal Law. What I will object to strenuously, though, are Catholics who demonstrate no faith in the Catholic faith.

(Add "worthwhile" to "insightful or nonnegotiable" to get a clearer idea of my stand.)

Although, contra John (elsewhere in the same blog), I do identify myself quite clearly as an Orthodox Catholic. (I just am uncertain about orthopraxis--out of ignorance, not defiance.) I insist that I am a true son of the Holy Catholic Church and any opinions I may hold contrary to its teaching are to be considered subject thereto (being a convert from the Baptist faith, I plead mostly ignorance).

That's not to say that I don't struggle with some of these same teachings. But when asked about them, I might advance my opinion, with the clear admonition that it is merely my opinion and not the teaching of the church and that I am presently struggling with and attempting to enter into the church teaching. I am pleased to say that on every point of importance on which I have disagreed with the Church, I have subsequently been proven wrong, by reason and the Holy Spirit. Praise God!

Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:51 AM

August 6, 2002

A Right to be a Priest

Okay, so I'm late in coming to the discussion--no surprise there. However, I would like to say this about an excerpt from the New Gasparian Blog:

Lane Core from the Blog from the Core disputes my contention that no one has a right to be a priest.

He balances that with:

Of course, a right may be forfeited: but saying that is not nearly the same as saying the right doesn't exist.

I must respectfully support the conclusion, in part of Mr. (Fr. ?) Keyes:

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Core, and think we should spend more time reflecting on and celebrating what God has given, what God has done for us, then trying to take sole ownership of it.

But I do so from a slightly different perspective. The priesthood is a vocation. A vocation is a call from God. Therefore, it would be improper to say that anyone had a "right" to the priesthood. Only those called by God have any possibility of a "right" and I think insisting upon a gift would be considered boorish in any circle. No one has a "right" to the priesthood, and it may be that some have improperly considered their vocation. Sometimes proper discernment is not undertaken in the consideration of a task or place in life.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:13 AM

August 5, 2002

Hazel Mote, Anyone?

At least Hazel only promoted the Church of God without Christ--a kind of Southern Unitarian thing, I suppose. But Mark Shea (direct linking not working so go to the 8/5/02, 7:32 post about Spong) has linked to an article by Gene Edward Veith that must chronicle one of the most absurd and idiotic doxologies in the history of humankind:

Bishop Spong proposes "a new Christianity." This new faith, he writes, must be able to "incorporate all of our reality. It must be able to allow God and Satan to come together in each of us.... It must unite Christ with Antichrist, Jesus with Judas, male with female, heterosexual with homosexual." This new Christianity, which amounts to a completely different religion, presumably will still need to employ bishops.

This "new christianity" already has a name--secular humanism.

And for "Bishop" Spong and those who follow him, the following admonition:

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! "(Matthew 18:6-7)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:39 AM

Who Saves the World?

Who Saves the World?

Kairos has a very interesting post, but I find myself somewhat at odds with the language (but probably not with the intent).

The first instance is in this short paragraph:

I know I have said this before, but it bears constant repetition: You cannot fix the world. You can only save it.

First, I must say, there are several ways to read this. If it is intended to say "The world cannot be fixed, it can only be saved," which, I believe is the intent, then I would have to concur, even if it is passive language. However, if the claim is that I as an individual can so some sort of saving, then I must demur and point at the One who saves. The reason I make a point of this is that all too many people today are ready to say that we can save the world. Look at any lobby--pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-gun-control, anti-gun-control, pro-environment, pro-business--you name it, and they all have the panacea that will make for the perfect world. (Well, not really, but many seem to think of their cause in this light.) While many of these causes are profoundly right-headed and certainly likely to shift the world into the right direction, salvation is from God alone. So, I must repeat, while I do not attribute this reading to Kairos, I must take exception to the literal reading of it.

Another place where I was a bit perturbed was in this quotation, "The souls of the corrupt priests and corrupted victims require significant attention. . . " once again, I believe my disagreement is with the phrasing, not the thought. A person who engages in an activity against his or her will is not "corrupted" by that activity. If they are persuaded to engage in it and then continue afterwards, then I would say that corruption had occurred. We might say that they had been "defiled" by it, but even that language disturbs me because it suggests that there is now something about the person that is wrong or distorted. In fact, there is not. Violation is the only word that can be used to describe the effect on the person, and what that "grows into" is really dependent on the person.

The corruption is on the part of the one perpetrating the act, and on that person alone. The only thing the victim suffers is harm--neither corruption nor uncleanness. We know this because Jesus pointed out that it was not what went into a person that produced uncleanness but what came out of them. Once again, I urge caution in the language because we are a society inclined to blame the person harmed. I have heard ludicrous arguments out of courtrooms suggesting that children as young as four years old "enticed" and participated in their own violation. The other extreme this leads to is that deplored by St. Augustine. Speaking in The City of God about some virgins who had committed suicide rather than suffer defilement, Augustine noted that there was nothing saintly about this action, that the preservation of virginity was not first and foremost a cause to be pursued above all others. (Note, this has nothing to do with the circumstances of Maria Goretti, who categorically DID NOT commit suicide--she was murdered). We mustn't conclude that the violation of these children corrupted or harmed them in an irreparable spiritual way. They have no "spot on their souls" for what happened to them.

Once again, it may sound as though I'm taking Kairos to task over this--I wish to dispel that notion. I am simply using some of the things he wrote about as a springboard to addressing some of the thoughts people have about these issues. If one misreads Kairos's intentions, it would be very easy to fall back into a morality that imputes the stain of a crime to the victim, and I am absolutely certain that was not his intention. So, my apologies beforehand to Kairos for a more or less semantic assault. But my thanks also for allowing me to address issues that are left too often unnoticed.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:50 AM

August 2, 2002

Intemperate Words

Intemperate Words
This blurb garnered from Bettnet.com - Musings from Domenico Bettinelli is somewhat harsher than I would care to be. I should note that these words do not appear to be the views of Mr. Bettinelli.

More from the current issue of National Review:

p. 12 Some idiot who thought he was a composer copyrighted a "musical piece" in 1952 called "4:33" that consisted of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence.

While I am no fan of the "music" of John Cage, I would hardly typify the man an "idiot." I disagree with his views on music. I dislike the vast majority of his opus. I detest his effect on much of the music that came after him. But I would see him as a wrong-headed individual who did some interesting experimentation. Most of his "music" was actually a nihilistic statement on the arts, and the arts suffered for it. I would expect, in fact, that his pointed attacks on the arts were the result of a keen, if philosophically misguided, intelligence.

But surely we can avoid the epithets and ad hominem attacks even as we excoriate the supposed art. I know, the point of the article is not art criticism. Nevertheless, intemperate language such as this example leads to people branding conservative views on a variety of issues as "intolerant," "grating," and "inhumane."

It must be possible to object to the art without denigrating the person who made it. After all, like it or not, that person is an image of Christ.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 5:02 PM

Male Genius?

Male Genius?

I loved this post from Video meliora, partially because it gives me legitimate cause to mention Camille Paglia in a Catholic venue. (Unfortunately direct link isn't working, so you'll have to scroll down.)

Point 2: Genius as Masculine IQ tests have shown men to have a more extreme range of intelligence (or lack thereof) than women. The bell curve seems to include lots more points to the right side (i.e. geniuses) and more points to the left (dunces). And although women have not had nearly the opportunities men have in the arts, still the Joyces, Shakespeares, Dantes, Beethovens, Bachs are nearly universally male.

In Sexual Personae Ms. Paglia made a very similar argument, which, unjustly, earned her the ire of most of the feminist world. She referred to it, if I remember correctly as the Apollonian direction of the male. She seemed to imply that women held the real power--power of procreation, which was sufficient. I paraphrase here, but the ultimate conclusion was something like: "If women had been left on their own, they would still be living in grass houses." Now, she goes on to modify her point, but she essentially notes that men seem to be driven (largely as mating display and sexual impulse) to tremendous acts of creativity and destruction. To counter the genius, Ms. Paglia points out that the vast majority of serial killers, and nearly all war and incidents of mass destruction are also the property of males.

While most moments of genius appear to belong to men, feminist critics would (I think mostly rightly) attribute that to the fact that men actually had the leisure to create. (They wouldn't phrase it that way--there would probably be a great deal of bubbling diatribe about the Patriarchal Oppression). But genius is, in part, a function of leisure. To support such a claim, I would mention lady Murasaki's epic "Tale of Genji" is still regarded as one of the great novels of Japan and of Asian in general. It is, in its own way, a construction of genius by a court lady--a woman with time on her hands. Now, this is isolated and anecdotal, but it does suggest that if such leisure and education had been the universal norm in the west, we would probably see more works of genius from women. For a further discussion of this, see Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own and Three Guineas. (For that matter, see Virginia's Woolf's oeuvre, a vastly underrated, but I think highly influential body of work, only recently really brought to light. I see much more of The Waves in such proponents of stream-of-consciousness as William Faulkner than I do Ulysses).

(Let's face it, Ulysses was a one-off even for Joyce. From that point he moved into the realm of ultimate esoterica and inaccessibility--the strangely delightful and playful Finnegan's Wake. Well worth perusal in the presence of an accomplished guide. I believe Burgess produced A Shorter Finnegan's Wake and someone produced a guide called A Skeleton Key to Finnegan's Wake. Then again, you might just content yourself with Philip Jose Farmer's playful riff "Winnegan's Fake." Not particularly up to his progenitor, but amusing nonetheless. Sorry for the digression, but recently have read too many who have not been able to scale the mountain, and while I'm not quite certain if it is truly worth scaling, it has provided an infinity of fun.)

Anyway--fascinating thread of discussion. I love literature, and I love particularly the qualities of literature that reflect the creator in the created. Works well constructed offer Glory to God whether or not their authors so intend.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:43 AM

July 28, 2002

Gary Wills Redux

Gary Wills Redux

I know that I am coming in late on this, but I normally don't like to comment much on controversy--I find it makes me exceedingly irritable and not particularly charitable. However, I happened on this article over at Emily Stimpson's blog and was so profoundly annoyed by some of Mr. Wills's comments that I needed to note at least one glaring stupidity. This quote, ". . . and it's also obvious that loyalty to the papacy has been made the test of what makes you a Catholic," must stand as the archicon of idiocy. Whether or not Mr. Wills cares for the point, loyalty to the Pope and to his teachings is, in fact, part of what distinguishes Catholics from every other faith. I will grant that it is not the entirety of the difference; however, if you have the entire doctrine of the Catholic Church without loyalty to the Pope, you are either Anglican of some variety or some other faith--you simply are not Catholic. The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ upon the Rock (St. Peter) is defined by having a single head who speaks with authority for the whole body. Remove the head, and you don't have a church; you have a headless body. Now, how Wills, a purportedly intelligent man, can come up with such a profound piece of religious blinkered thinking, I don't care to speculate. But I do say, that without loyalty to Rome and to the Pope, you cannot be Catholic.

I will go further to say that surely in the course of your investigations, you may come upon things that don't fit right, that you have doubts about. I think doubts offer an opportunity for growth, if approached properly. Where there is doubt, it is best to approach with the idea of finding the truth, not supporting an agenda. Mr. Wills seems to have cast this aside. As with many supposedly informed and intelligent modernists, he has be blindsided by the world and secular society into believing that his vision of the Church is indeed the church. If you stop to consider (after you get over the aggravation) this is sad situation, one requiring more prayer than fury. People who belong to this distorted church miss the fullness of the faith. They have mixed their faith with water--or unfortunately as with Israel entering the land of Canaan, they have sullied their practice with the idols of the Land of Milk and Honey. They do enormous damage to themselves and to those around them without realizing what they wreak.

I trust God in His providential wisdom and great mercy will deal kindly with those who have so wandered. Jesus promised to leave the 99 and go off in search of the single strayed sheep. For those who have strayed, like Mr. Wills and others, I pray merely that he is one brought back into the fold by the great caring of Incarnate Love. I also pray for myself and others incidentally affected by Mr. Wills that our momentary irritation and annoyance does not stray off into judgment. I'm sure that it shall not, but my assurance comes (paradoxically) from my confidence in prayers being answered.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:59 AM

July 25, 2002

More on Pius XII

More on Pius XII
This article from a reporter in Great Britain looks once again at the Pius XII controversy. Frankly, I don't really know what to make of the whole thing. We are attempted to judge actions of the past with a newly reconstructed (deconstructed) ethos. I would tend to side with those who point out historic anti-Catholic bias; but then, that really is an easy way out. Events, people, and ideas are often so complex and nuanced that there is wide margin for interpretation, particularly depending upon the bias with which you approach the question. I remain hopeful that the true Light of Jesus Christ will shine brightly upon this situation and make clear to all people of reasonable aspect and approach where the truth is.

Brief excerpt from the article:

Indeed, Rabbi Dalin accuses three of Pius�s attackers, two former seminarians and a former priest, of using their accusations to conduct an internal argument within the Catholic Church about the future of the Papacy after John Paul II.

Perhaps the reason why these charges against Pius XII are so infectious is that they are constructed in such a way that they cannot be disproved. They are what Karl Popper called an unfalsifiable proposition: however many public attacks on Nazism Pius XII did make, one can always say he should have made more.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 2:22 PM

July 22, 2002

Violence Morally Neutral?

The gentleman or lady who runs the blog Kairos has given me something to write about in my blog. Kairos asserts without proof (in the article in question) that violence is morally neutral. He then goes on to challenge those who disagree (actually those who "don�t like that I�m not a pacifist,") to "get your own blog and say so." Well, in point of fact, I am neutral on whether Kairos is a pacifist or not. I have read cogent articles and treatises that argue both sides of the issue and I stand firmly on the side of the pacifists, though not so firmly as, say, Stanley Hauerwas, a man for whom I have enormous respect. That said, I do find myself in disagreement with the bald statement that violence has no moral content. However, anything I would have to say in the matter amounts simply to another bald assertion as it sits as a core belief.

I simply had to respond, and say, "New York abstains, courteously." (Though conscience leads me to confess that the statement is for dramatic effect only, I do not have any right to represent the state of New York, being neither natal nor resident.)

Posted by Steven Riddle at 1:24 PM

July 21, 2002

Forming New Churches

This post from Sean Gallagher's Archive brought to mind an amusing anecdote regarding the formation of churches. He quotes a reader as saying, "Very, very few churches are started from disputes." I don't know about the truth of this; however, I do have an illuminating story regarding one new church that did form as a result of a dispute.

Some time ago my grandparents (whom I love very much, and so this should not be read as a criticism of them) belonged to a small church in a midwestern state. This church met mostly in homes and in such public places as they could find accommodations. I don't believe they had an ordained minister, but all the men took turns preparing teachings for the entire group. One Sunday the teaching centered around the Pauline admonition that, "Women should not wear those things that pertaineth to a man," and what the implications of this might be today. Somewhere in the course of discussion, someone asked or brought up the subject of pantyhose, saying that they were very much like pants. This particular point of discussion became very heated and over the next several months was introduced and reintroduced. Apparently some went so far as to denounce any woman showing up to the meeting wearing hose under the supposition that they must be pantyhose. Finally the church split into two groups--those that said that wearing pantyhose was a grievous offense to God, and those that said that God probably didn't give much thought to the matter of pantyhose, having other things on his mind. My grandmother and her sister ended up in opposite camps, with my ever-sensible grandmother being threatened with hellfire for the sheer temerity of wearing pantyhose (pun intended).

This story is true. I don't know all of the details, but I keep it in my treasury of "protestantism gone wild" stories. One thing it demonstrates profoundly and that is the wisdom of the Church's teaching on the interpretation of scripture. I won't say this can't happen here, but if one interprets scripture in accord with Church teaching, it is far more difficult for the Church to split over pantyhose.

Posted by Steven Riddle at 7:40 AM