Off-topic (but not much):
How liberal Catholics are willing to use anything (including genocide) to build their "new Church": http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a...om/
a050813.html
"including the ACCUSATION of genocide", of course.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but in this passage --
"Yet however subtly one expounds Chalcedon -- at the risk, indeed, of making it a wax nose --, people will object: Is it not enough to say that in Jesus we encounter the living God? The pursuit of the ontological grounds of this encounter seems epistemologically dubious and has divisive and alienating effects. Moreover, others may experience God's self-disclosure just as definitively elsewhere. 'Jesus was and is divine for those who experience in him the manifestation of God ...' writes J.D. Crossan, in Who Killed Jesus (San Francisco, 1996), p. 216."
-- it doesn't seem that Fr. O'Leary is expressing his own views, but acknowledging the objections that others raise.
Jordan Potter writes:
"... it doesn't seem that Fr. O'Leary is expressing his own views, but acknowledging the objections that others raise."
Precisely: he's using a hypothetical objection as a foil to set the stage for his articulation of his own utterly sympatico "hot tub" Christology. The objection is against the supposed futility of even the most subtle exposition of Chalcedon vis-a-vis the objector's preference for a subjective experiential encounter with the "living God" in the figure of Jesus. This makes a point affirmed repeatedly and in different ways by existential theologians like Barth -- that the "Word of God" is not the Bible, but what is "encountered in" the Bible -- or, put another way, the "living Christ" is not literally the Jesus of history found in the Gospels, but "encountered in" the Jesus of history that is found in the Gospels.
Furthermore, when O'Leary's objector says that the "pursuit of the ontological grounds of this encounter seems epistemologically dubious and has divisive and alienating effects," he is making O'Leary's own point in suggesting that the attempt to specify the (objective) ontological or metaphysical grounds of this (subjective) encounter by insisting that it must be tied historically and objectively to the empirical facts about the historical Jesus are (1) "epistemologically dubious" (that is, far from certain, because the Gospel accounts are prejudiced by theological pre-commitments which a "scientific" historical-critical appropriation of the NT text would eschew), and (2) has "divisive and alienating effects" (that is, if the reality underlying this subjective encounter is the objective Jesus of history, that would mean that Jesus' insistance that "no one comes to the Father but by me" (Jn 14:6) is indeed to be held as true, which might alienate Jews, Muslims, Hindus & Buddhists).
It is certainly true that many would object to the uniqueness of the traditional Christian claim in precisely the way O'Leary suggests. Furthermore, it becomes equally clear in the course of his essay (as we shall see) that O'Leary himself fully embraces the views entailed by these objections.
Gee, if Heidegger had completed seminary and was subsequently ordained he would have sounded an awful lot like... go on, guess!
Gotta givim full marks for integrity.
Okay, let me play devil's advocate here.
I just read a passage from the Council of Vienne declaring that anyone who does not acknowledge that the soul is the form of the body is a heretic.
Now, does that mean that we must accept these scholastic categories lock, stock and barrel? Isn't it true that for most of us, the choices will be 1. Accept it formally, but don't think about it; 2. Reject it; 3. Try to "retrieve" it or find a core there that transcends scholastic categories.
When we get into discussions of form and substance and accident, many of us are vaguely uncomfortable with the sense that we may not know what we are talking about. Adherence to doctrine is in danger of becoming merely linguistic, "Yes, I accept (whatever the H--- it means...)"
O'Leary and so many of the modernists seem to err in attitude before any errors in actual theology. They don't seem to me to have any real concern that they may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in their effort to reimagine things so that they may be more graspable by the modern mind.
The "Christ" encountered in the warm, fuzzy "hot tub" categories of existentialist theologians has little more to do with the Jesus Christ of historic Christianity and the Gospel accounts than the "Buddy Christ" (pictured right) of Bishop John Cleese (of Monty Python) in the Kevin Smith film, Dogma.
Actually the Bishop was played by the comic George Carlin. I know, minor point not related to the heart of the essay, but I'm like that.
Jeremy, thanks for the correction -- not John Cleese, but George Carlin. Thank you. Duly noted.
"Okay, let me play devil's advocate here ...."
Mr. Kantor, you raise a good point. I would respond by saying that it all depends on what you mean in your third option by "retrieve." A "retrieval" may mean an organic development of an idea (a la Newman), or an artificial distortion and deformation of it. Two examples:
(1) Lublin Thomism retrieves Thomism, on the one hand, by translating its truths into the language of realist phenomenology and personalism (for its descriptive power and clarity, not in order to displace an "inadequate metaphysics"), as in Wojtyla's work; and by doing so, it gains a surplus of nuance without loss of original Thomistic meaning.
(2) Transcendental Thomism, on the other hand, retrieves Thomism by attempting not only to translate its truths into the conceptual categories of Kant, but by taking over and even trying to improve upon Kant's metaphysical framework, as in Marechal's work; and by doing so, it loses the original metaphysical framework of Thomism while acquiring an eminently dubious substitute. Marechal, in particular, erroneously presupposed that he could eschew traditional metaphysics, in Kantian fashion, and still get at objective reality through a "transcendental" analysis of the conditions of subjective cognition. (For more on this, see "Le Point de Depart de Marechal.")
I agree with you that all too many contemporary attempts at rendering Christianity more accessible to the modern mind (Bultmann, Tillich, Kung, et al.) seem all too blithely unconcerned with the fact that "they may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
Has anyone else noticed this? Martin Heidegger looks amazingly like Mr Whipple in his retirement years. You remember Mr Whipple, the grocery clerk who just couldn't resist the phenomenological kick of squeezing the Charmin? Whipple risked the scorn of customer and colleague in order to reduce the "squeeze event" of those ineffable "pillows of softness" to their utmost experiential end-points.
He braved the dark night of the soul repeatedly, as his plangent, whole-self digital encounters with the Numinous Squeezably Soft Other, often led him to overlook, with tragic consequences, the utilitarian value of the Charmin ding-fur-mich. Catholics everywhere could learn so much from Mr Whipple.
Camus looks a bit like Richard Burton in "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold", but more of that later.
The Lost O'Leary-Pesci Dialogue
P: I'm sick of your @$##^% heter-, hetera-, uhh, whackjob theology, Fadda! I'm gonna blow your head off!
O: Mr Pesci, you are apparently under the mistaken assumption, that by pulling the trigger of that rather sizeable pistol of yours, you will take an action whose result will be the propelling of a bullet into my cranium, thus, as they say, "bumping me off." Is this a fair statement of the case?
P: Well, yeh.
O: May I assure you, sir, that your effort is futile.
P: Huh?
O: Allow me to demonstrate. Before your lethal projectile can enter my skull, it must first travel half the distance from your gun to my skull. Is this not so?
P: Well, yeh.
O: But before it can travel half the distance, it must travel half of THAT distance, correct?
P: Uhhhh . . .
O: And half, and half, and half, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum, correct?
P: Wha?
O: And, since a finite object cannot traverse an infinite distance, it therefore follows that your bullet can never reach my skull, thus, in your parlance, "blowing my head off". Is this not irrefutably the case? Hmm, Mr Pesci? Is it not? Hmmm? Well, Mr Pesci, speak up!!
CREATE YOUR OWN ENDING!!
Ending #1: Joe Pesci tosses his gun into a nearby trash can and stalks away, muttering darkly.
Ending #2: BANG!!!!
"I agree with you that all too many contemporary attempts at rendering Christianity more accessible to the modern mind (Bultmann, Tillich, Kung, et al.) seem all too blithely unconcerned with the fact that 'they may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.'"
In addition, as Ralph has so colorfully illustrated, all they do is make Christianity less accessible to the human mind, by submerging it in jargon and gobbledygook.
Jordan,
Right -- abstraction at the intellectual level leads to frivolousness at the more visceral levels. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, becomes some kind of germanic mindgas-discharge. Worship -- as opposed to mere intellectual assent -- of a germanic mindgas-discharge is, of course, impossible, so something else rushes in to fill the vacuum. Something = anything -- from the syrupy dreck of sentimentalist congregationalism to the abominations of communism and National Socialism.
I am enjoying Dr Blosser's series, and thank him for undertaking it.
And I am enjoying R-D's high Pesci drama and ebullient phenomenological analyses of germanic mindgas discharge.
Ralph, if you haven't already got a trademark on "germanic mindgas discharge," you should go get one. That's just priceless.
Excuse my ignorance -- why Germanic?
Heidigger? Kant? Silly Beaks?
Not to mention Nietzche, Hegel, Kung, Bultmann, Tillich, Rahner, and Barth . . .
" ... why Germanic?"
I suppose because the whole thing went wrong in a big way following the Lutheran revolt. Luther's spiritual stepchildren, with the additional contamination of the Endarkenment, managed to derail their "Reformation Train" within a generation or two.
Mr. Potter has it right, though the list is far more detailed -- and they're all German -- "Lessing, Reimarus, Michaelis, Semler, Kant, Herder, Eichhorn, Hegel, Strauss, F.C. Baur, Weisse, Ewald, Bruno Bauer, Kaehler, Overbeck, Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Schleiermacher, Wellhausen, Harnack, Gunkel, Schweitzer, Barth, Bultmann." It's only in the last fifty years that Irish Catholics began to succumb to the Teutonic disease.
Michael Gillespie in Nihilism Before Nietzsche, traces that effect of the naturalist worldview stemming from the Endarkenment back to the late medieval nominalists. Alasdair MacIntyre's historical surveys, in which his treatment of Kleutgen shows that most contemporaries misplace the divide between medieval and modern much later than warranted, also provides some basis for viewing Luther as a pivotal figure between what Gillespie sees as the "nihilism" of pre-Protestant Catholic nominalism and the "nihilism" of 19th-century writers.
Such "nihilism," of course, is only the most dramatic symptom of the underlying derailment of historic Christian (Catholic) thought that served also as the catalyst for the revolt against the supernatural in historical-critical biblical studies.
Perhaps, then, the pontificate of Benedict XVI should be summarized (with apologies to Fr. Wiltgen) as the Tiber flows into the Rhine?
Another thing that grabs my attention in Dr Blosser's article is the section on existentialism. And what impresses me most is how silly it all is. Look at Camus, cigarette dangling on his lip, coat collar up, stoic-but-suffering expression [perhaps practiced in front of a mirror?] -- a French writer's impression of Bogey. Alienated, Courageous but Deeply Hurt Romantic Hero, release 8,975,413.6. Life as a series of poses.
Well, why not? If the world beyond yourself is cold, dark and meaningless, why not reinvent yourself daily? It's all an act, but who knows, someone might buy it. "I can't live without meaning", he says. "Meaning" seems a rather kind word for it. He should have said, "I can't live without my preciously narcissistic illusions about myself, which I have gone so far as to consolidate into a 'philosophy'". Remove the last clause of that statement, and it might as well be Brad Pitt talking.
This "solitary man" routine was what got Neil Diamond started, which should be enough to make anyone shudder with revulsion. But then again, what could be more appropriate for this dopily secular culture than an off-the-shelf "philosophy" you can hum?
The wonder is that there is a "Christian" version of this fakery. If subjectivity is indeed all they have, what is the point? If God has no reality outside of oneself [I know there are all kinds of claptrap vocabularies for obscuring this point], then God is indeed a figment of one's imagination, and reasonable people ought not to bother with Him at all. Who needs multi-volume sets of systematic theologies to "prove" something that is unprovable, given the bedrock fact that meaning blooms only in a well-manured pot of subjectivity?
As disturbing as this is, it's at least identifiable. The way that conservative Evangelical scholarship has oriented itself around this same concept of exegesis by "fusing of horizons" a la Heidegger is a great deal more insidious. Gadamer is used to justify using a fundamentally atheistic hermeneutic in the study of sacred Scripture, and these are people who are at least nominally "conservative" Christians. There's some feeling that we're "on the same side" but we couldn't be farther apart in actuality.
Jonathan Prejean,
"Conservative Evangelical scholarship" is not an area where I excel. Are you talking about matters like the exaltation of the role of Israel in end times, and other tidbits from sources such as Hal Lindsay's "International Intelligence Briefing"?
I think it is undeniable that we are allies on the level of cultural and social issues, and this is hugely important. After that, however, things become dicey.
Jonathan:
In what sense do you mean that they have a "fundamentally atheistic hermeneutic in the study of sacred Scripture,". Perhaps you mean a fundamentally secularist or a fundamentally political hermeneutic?
Take, for example, the fact that Randall Terry had the chutzpah to go to Denver to tell the bishops that they should deny Holy Communion to pro-abort politicians. He has no interest in the Catholic Church and is, I suspect, using this issue merely as a way to get Republicans elected. Catholic morality is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. [Don't tell Nathan, or I'll have no end of posts claiming that I support him on ....]
No, I mean philosophically and theologically. Calvinism is not far from Islam in a philosophical sense; morality essentially devolves into "because God said so." What I'm saying is that we can win the battle but lose the war if these moral imperatives are not grounded in a sound Catholic concept of human dignity. Without that essential foundation, there is no Godly principle for government, which means the root of the problem hasn't been corrected. My point is that we can't act as if the "what" is all that matters; the "why" is equally important, and glossing over our differences with Evangelicals makes it difficult to perceive that problem. In many ways, conservative Evangelicals are no better philosophically than their liberal brethren; they just happen to agree with us more often on account of our shared cultural heritage.
Jonathan,
I get your point about Calvinism, but I wonder if the very basis of the conservative Christian alliance -- the whole range of life issues -- doesn't presuppose a rather profound concept of human dignity, one Catholics can certainly live with. The pro-lifer's answer to the question of why he considers abortion immoral is not "because God said so" but "because God created life and holds it sacred".
Well, Philip, you have done a good job educating your readers on philosophy and theology. Please not that I quote Crossan in DISAGREEMENT with his view. You write: " what he wants is a Christ of Faith who is freed from the constraints of the Jesus of History -- a Christ who lives in our subjective personal experience in a rich and meaningfully-felt way in the collective experience of the community of believers -- not a Christ who is dogmatically linked to the Jesus of history by "fundamentalist literalism" about such things as the Incarnation ("Jesus is God") or the Resurrection ("Jesus was bodily raised in space and time") or His claims about everlasting punishment and about nobody being able to come to the Father "but by me" (Jn 14:6)." This is not a correct account at all! I hold to John 1.14 -- that the historical Jesus is the out-speaking of God's eternal Logos into human history. As to eternal punishment, I do not think the historical Jesus taught it; the Q source does have a language of eschatological judgment, but Matthew etc. draw on intertestamental conceptions of Hell to bolster the message, in perhaps a rather deadening way. The communicatio idiomatum does not entail that the human Jesus in his created humanity has as such the attributes of the creator God. I suspect you are blurring important distinctions in your handling of this quite difficult idea. As to Heidegger, his overcoming of metaphysics is indeed a transcription of Luther and Harnack (whom he studied diligently) to the realm of metaphysics, but he did not tackle theology itself, and said that were he to do so he would not use the word "being" at all in this area.
That last post was me. The objections I quote in my essay are real ones, made by Tony Equale in a booklet and in personal correspondence. I think it is silly to attribute to me views that I explicitly object to. It is just as if one were to attribute to Origen the views of Celsus which Origen reports with such gentlemanly calm and replies to with such a spirit of accommodation. (I refer to the following: (1) "epistemologically dubious" (that is, far from certain, because the Gospel accounts are prejudiced by theological pre-commitments which a "scientific" historical-critical appropriation of the NT text would eschew), and I DO NOT CONSIDER CHALCEDON EPISTEMOLOGICALLY DUBIOUS (2) has "divisive and alienating effects" (that is, if the reality underlying this subjective encounter is the objective Jesus of history, that would mean that Jesus' insistance that "no one comes to the Father but by me" (Jn 14:6) is indeed to be held as true, which might alienate Jews, Muslims, Hindus & Buddhists). I DO NOT THINK DOGMA CAN BE DISMISSED AS DIVISIVE AND ALIENATING.)
Most certainly, Father O'Leary, as you have demonstrated repeatedly, you do think that dogma can be dismissed as divisive and alienating, because you wish to eviscerate the doctrine of any meaning in order to make it "relevant" to the modern world.
"As to eternal punishment, I do not think the historical Jesus taught it; the Q source does have a language of eschatological judgment, but Matthew etc. draw on intertestamental conceptions of Hell to bolster the message, in perhaps a rather deadening way."
The Q source, if it ever existed, was not divinely inspired and is not canonical scripture -- no one can even say what was in the Q source, since no one can say for sure that it existed. The four Gospels, on the other hand, are divinely inspired and inerrant, and faithfully tell us what Jesus taught when He walked this earth before He ascended to heaven. Therefore the historical Jesus taught eternal punishment. Indeed, there isn't a single historical primary source that shows us a Jesus who didn't teach eternal punishment.
As for "intertestamental conceptions," the Law and the Prophets were until John -- there was no "intertestamental" time in Jewish history. That's a Protestant notion, and it's very telling that you made that slip -- it indicates you don't believe the OT deuterocanonicals are a full and proper part of Holy Scripture.
What takes greater faith -- believing in a historical Jesus who is shown in historical documents as teaching eternal punishment, or believing in a historical Jesus who didn't teach eternal punishment even though we haven't a single bit of historical evidence that such a Jesus ever existed.
What do you mean by "greater" faith?
More. Stronger. A larger amount.
It would seem that disbelieving the testimony of Holy Scripture takes more faith than believing, so the way to increase Christian faith is to be unfaithful and to cultivate infidelity.
Not sure I understand your argument.
But I've always been struck by the theme of the prodigal son. The son who did all that was expected of him never got to where the 'failed' son arrived. Henry Nouwen's book is quite interesting in this regard.
The simple truth is that we grow from "darkness" as well as "light".
Is this the kind of thing you're intimating in your comment?
The "good" son in the Parable of the Lost Sons doesn't get to where the failed son arrived because Jesus fashioned the story with an open ending, a large question mark, asking His audience, and us, "What will you 'good sons' do? Will you spurn God's grace out of jealousy for the grace shown to your screw-up brothers?"
But what any of that has to do with my comments about the total lack of historical evidence for the Jesus that Fr. O'Leary says he believes in, you've got me. . . .
I believe there is much more to the parable of the prodical son than a matter of jealousy.
Augustine identifies himself with the prodigal son in the Confessions and builds his entire philosophy/theology from that perspective.
Clearly, the Confessions is about more than jealousy. And so is the prodigal son.
As for history, no one during the discussion has yet to define what they mean by history, or the methodology of history, or the criterion of evidence, and so forth. The whole discussion appears ungrounded. Charges and counter-charges! Just good Irish pub talk, that's all.
Jerry:
??
Chris
Chris,
Too many unaddressed assumptions.
:-7
Jerry
Jerry likes to talk about the prodigal son because he fancies it discredits those who hew too closely to dogma and church teaching, instead of, say, competing for scraps snout for snout at the trough of germanic enlightenment.
Notes from Ralph's Philosophy 101 notebook:
So dis guy Hegel says dat only God is absolute troot, so's everyting else is only relative troot, dat is, part troot and part falsehood. Derefore, dogma, magisterial statements, encyclicals, duh collected wisdom of duh 33 doctors of the church, all dat stuff, is part troo, part false. Which parts are troo? What am I, Hegel? I say chuck it all and drink heavily.
Jesus spoke of eternal damnation? So what, dat makes Him duh expert? If only God is absolute troot, den Jesus duh man wuz just another Joe SixPack, and made all kinda mistakes. Bwoo bwoo bwoo bwoo bwoo, how long till Happy Hour?
"I believe there is much more to the parable of the prodical (sic) son than a matter of jealousy."
Obviously. It's divinely inspired, so there's bound to be far, far more than one lesson to be derived from it.
"Augustine identifies himself with the prodigal son in the Confessions and builds his entire philosophy/theology from that perspective."
In different ways, each of us is a prodigal son, and each of us is a good son. All of us live and are saved only by the Father's grace.
"Clearly, the Confessions is about more than jealousy. And so is the prodigal son."
Who could argue with that?
And what has it got to do with Fr. O'Leary's heretical claim that Jesus never taught eternal punishment?
"As for history, no one during the discussion has yet to define what they mean by history, or the methodology of history, or the criterion of evidence, and so forth."
That's because we're not unschooled children. You want to know what "history" means, get out a dictionary. Why should we do your research for you?
Here, here. The Rooster crows for kisses again! Cheers, Herr Rooster-Rooster! We luv ya.
Skin the prodigal son's brother to the bones and he too would become a Deified Dogmatist -- or a Rolling Stone! As he is, he's just a hefty moralist, sullenly aloof.
Loosen your German entanglements, my friend! Freshen up a bit. Put a little packing on that skelton. A bit of marble and flesh would help. At least rise to the level of moralist.
Or -- (Caution is advised here. Sit down and read the rest carefully) -- you too could go all the way and become a prodigal son! Just grab your bottle of J.T.S. Brown and keep an eye open for Fats!!! He'll get you there.
"You want to know what "history" means, get out a dictionary."
That's about as silly a comment as it gets!
And if you want to know what theology is, get out a dictionary.
And if you want to know what science is, get out a dictionary.
And if you want to know what marriage is, get out a dictionary.
And if you want to know what salvation is, get out the dictionary.
Everyone should have that kind of dictionary!
Having trouble with reading comprehension today, Jerry? How did my "means" become your "is"?
It's sad that someone as educated as yourself is having trouble with the meaning and referents of the words "historical" and "Jesus"? What do they teach kids in school these days, I wonder?
I think in technical jargon, what Jerry is providing us is called "obfuscatory gobbledygook."
Jordan simply doesn't understand the issue. How else to explain his comment. "Technical" and "jargon" probably says it all.
As for "obfuscatory goobledygook" -- well, everything is received according to the mode of the receiver. And so, he has offered an insight into the mode of the receiver.
Be careful, Jordan. The principle of causality is tricky. It's analogous to pointing an accusatory finger at someone -- one finger points to the accused, the thumb points to God, and three fingers point to the accuser!
Jerry,
No more for the road, for you, my friend.
Shucks! Guess I'll have to sip by myself and quietly recall the songs I know only the lonely know.
Jordans asks: "What do they teach kids in school these days, I wonder?"
I'm with Homer Simpson on this one:
“And how is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?”
Count 'em, folks -- that's eight posts from Jerry (nine if that anonymous post was his) in which he chooses not to deal with my observation that there isn't a shred of historical documentation for a Jesus Christ who did not each eternal punishment. Instead, he tries to change the subject to "just what do you mean 'history' anyway?" and "Jordan Potter is a benighted mental lightweight."
No, Jerry simply doesn't understand the issue. How else to explain his comments? "Methodology of history," "criterion of evidence," and "causality" probably say it all.
Jerry is right that everything is received according to the mode of the receiver. And so, he has offered an insight into the mode of the receiver.
Be careful, Jerry. The principle of causality is tricky. It's analogous to pointing an accusatory finger at someone -- one finger points to the accused, the thumb points to God, and three fingers point to the accuser!
Or, to translate the above into non-technical jargon, Jerry's a pot whose been calling this kettle black.
I find it odd that a potluck view of historical evidence -- or whatever you mean by historical evidence -- plays such a decisive role in your view of theology.
Of course, it's obvious to you -- not me -- where O'Leary went wrong. He denied the historical evidence. But I ask: what do you mean by historical evidence?
You seem to think that history is just history. It's not. Even children's history books embody a philosophical view of reality and an understanding of the nature of man and history. Thucydides' History is not history in today's sense. It is more like moral philosophy than history. Augustine's Confessions is not biography in today's sense. He describes his life with a view to presenting a theological/philosophical view of man.
The question about the nature of history is an important beginning to critical understanding. Yet, you dismiss my question. In so doing, you reveal your purpose to be other than truth.
Romano Guardini in his book Die Sinne und die religiose Erkenntnis says that the capacity for spiritual knowledge has largely been lost today. Seeing has become reduced to observing and verifying. [Sounds like history, doesn't it!]
He says: For "primitive people ... all empirical affirmations are integrated with religious affirmations." "Only later is the ominous reversal achieved whereby cultural acts such as knowing, acting, and creating detach themselves from this conext and the religious act becomes an act in itself ... What formerly had been the first datum now becomes a conclusion."
What does a true perception of reality entail -- even a historical reality? Guardini responds by saying that the eye does not see merely a chaos of secondary sense qualities but forms which express themselves in a manner that can be perceived.
He goes on to say: "But form is not only corporeal. It means laws of proportion, a functional context, a developmental form, an essential image, value-figure -- and all of this both spiritually and materially. The purely material thing does not exist; the body is from the outset determined spiritually. And this spiritual element is not subsequently added to the sensory datum, for instance by the work of the intellect; i is grasped by the eye at once, even if indeterminately and imperfectly at first."
The modern day notion of historical evidence is devoid all that is relevant to theology. So when you talk of historical evidence, wouldn't it be prudent to ask what you mean by historical evidence. If you don't know, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But instead, you advise me to read the dictionary. And I did. I took your advice. But it didn't help at all.
I'd be willing to wager that if you took your own advice, you wouldn't conclude otherwise.
What does history mean in a nominalist world?
"What does history mean in a nominalist world?"
I'll tell you if I ever find a nominalist world. 
Seek and ye shall find.
Jerry, if you would stop talking to us like we're imbeciles, you might make more progress with us. You haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about or who you're talking to. And all this so you can try to distract folks from noticing that Fr. O'Leary has denied the Catholic faith on a crucial point of doctrine. Although the Church teaches that those who die in mortal sin go away to eternal punishment, Fr. O'Leary's "historical Jesus" never taught such a doctrine -- this despite the fact that there's not a single historical source that mentions such a Jesus, but several historical sources that show us a Jesus teaching exactly what the Church teaches.
Your angle of attack is akin to Pilate's question, "What is truth"? "What is history?" you say. Now, if you don't know what history is, I'm not going to let you divert this discussion onto a tangential and irrelevant discussion of the philosophies of history. I had plenty of those discussions back in my college days, and I'll dig up my class notes and mail them to you if you're really interested in learning about such things. However, I rather suspect you aren't confused in the least about what I, and for that matter the Church, mean by "history." If I thought you were sincerely confused and were an uneducated man, I might take the time to explain things for you, even if it did drag us away from the point of this discussion. But I know you're highly educated, and I think it's your desire to get us off the subject. Your assertion that my purpose in upholding Church teaching about Jesus and eternal punishment is other than truth -- which assertion implies that you don't believe Church teaching abot Jesus and eternal punishment to be true -- is a dead giveaway. I hope your feelings aren't hurt if I don't join you in your mental fun and games.
Several years ago I read a book by a professor whose thought I prized back then: "Beyond the Tragic Vision", by Morse Peckham. Peckham was an English professor who made it his lifelong quest to come up with a definition of romanticism that made sense. Near the end of his career, his leading essay in another book, "Romanticism and Ideology", announced his success. The essay was drenched in a thick semiological gravy that did an effective job of disguising the fact that, existential poseurism aside, there wasn't much meat on the plate. The man had pretty much reasoned himself into an airless void.
"Beyond the Tragic Vision" pretty much telegraphed his journey to the end of meaning in its opening chapter's deconstruction of the notion of history. I'm relying on memory here, so I'm probably not doing Prof Peckham (whose books of essays, despite their bleak destination, provided many insights along the way, rendered with precision and humor) justice, but as I recall, the chapter could be caricatured along these lines: What is history? The testimony of the past rendered by scholars of the subject. But what is history to them? Judgements based on key documents originating in the past. Who determines which documents are "key"? Scholars. Do they agree? No. So who's right? Depends.
I think you get the idea where this is headed. Peckham concluded that the idea of history was little more than a fable of behavioral control. As a matter of fact, Peckham concluded that virtually everything cultural, certainly everything lingual, were strategems of behavioral control. It's all about power, you see.
When Jerry starts asking his what is, what do you mean by questions, I have to wonder if he is en route on the same sort of quest as ol' Morse.
Ralph, from your description of Peckham, it appears he began with some kind of empiricist view of history, explored its assumptions, and ended up with relevatism. Which is to say, he ended up where he began.
To paraphrase TS Eliot, one always ends up where one begins.
Jordan,
Other than being an invective, I don't know what else to make of your post. It's contains little meat and far too many processed carbohydrates. I'll accept it in the spirit of reconciliation.
I remain interested in your original post that "those who die in mortal sin go away in eternal damnation." The Guardini quote above offers the basis for a broader context of interpretation for your statement as does von Balthazar's book "Dare We Hope." The formula you set up between sin and damnation speaks to a possibility that may occur, but not necessarily a reality that has been realized. The Church dares to hope all men will be saved. Should we dare less?
The tonality and coloration of this "dare to Hope" rings quite differently than your stark depiction. It seems to me Hope must radiate throughout Church Teachings, as must the order of Faith and Charity. To reduce Doctrine to morality is contrary to the spirit of Catholicism, whose most perfect embodiment lies in the order of Charity.
I'm not getting into the pointless debate about whether or not any human being has gone to hell. Most Catholics throughout the ages haven't entertained any doubts that men have been damned, and the New Testament doesn't offer much hope, if any, that all men will be saved, but gives us statements that sound an awful lot like there really will be goats along with sheep on Judgment Day. But one can try to make a case that there may be enough wiggle room in Church teaching that no human, not even Judas, has ever or will ever go to hell. It will remain pure speculation, unless the Church is ever moved by the Holy Spirit to define that, yes, there are human souls in hell -- and since it's speculation, there's no point in arguing about it.
In any case, Fr. O'Leary said Jesus never taught eternal punishment, which is another, albeit somewhat related, issue than the question of whether or not any humans have been or will be damned. The Church says Jesus taught eternal punishment. Fr. O'Leary disagrees with the Church, and with Holy Scripture, and with the Apostolic Tradition and the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
Do you agree with the Church's doctrine that Jesus taught that those who die in mortal sin go away to eternal punishment?
I believe that to be the case.
Yet, I wouldn't want to hear that Doctrine coming from the mouth of Cotton Mather for the simple reason that something would be missing. He would have used that Doctrine for purposes outside the order of Charity.
To hear the Doctrine you speak from St. Francis, or Thomas, or JPII is another matter altogether. In those instances, Doctrine would not be reductionist in intent. It would maintain the proportionality of the whole.
By the way, sometimes the blog makes things sound other than they were intended. There must be an art here somewhere.
One point that might be worth considering is that, if it were true that nobody was headed down the up staircase, then everything from scripture and church dogma, to the testimony of Jesus Himself, would be wrong.
Not to worry, though, Joe and Jerry would be RIGHT!
I agree. We do not know whether or not individuals have gone to Hell. We'll never know this side of there.
But, I believe the theme of Dare We Hope is not pointless in this sense. It matters greatly how the Church reaches out to its flock. If the Church were filled with Cotton Mathers type egos, it wouldn't help move along the New Evangelism at a faster pace. It would probably do the opposite.
Tone and color are important in pastoral care, as is context and a deep working appreciation of analogy.
This is not to say Truth must be distorted. But it is to say that the whole truth must be told. The danger is that Truth will be distorted by being made subordinate to utilitarian objectives. And that can never be condoned. The Truth is not the same as the purpose of the person telling the Truth. When they become intertwined, danger lurks.
I'm glad we all agree that mortal sinners will go to hell, even if Jerry insists that we say it in the absolute nicest way possible.
Jerry, at least you're not insisting on the Seinfeld qualifier, "not that there's anything wrong with that".
Okay, then Jerry disagrees with Fr. O'Leary on this point. That is good to know.
"Not to worry, though, Joe and Jerry would be RIGHT!"
Good post-modern poetry, Ralph! But a non sequitur in classical terms. Your inference flows from a hyperactive, i.e., hot, emotive apparatus, not any refined, i.e., cool, reasoning faculty. Reason, as you are aware, is of Logic, the science of correct thinking. Practical Judgment is also of Logic, although more covertly. Thus its influence is often invisible or even absent in the popular exercise of moral judgment.
in that regard, have you noticed that the separation between Truth and the Good has become a divorce? Don't bother to even ask about Beauty (Order of Charity). The behavioral studies speak for themselves. At long last, it would appear even the Transcendentals have become a statistic in the divorce charts! The consequences of Voluntarism and Nominalism are in high step.
All of which reminds me of another point. Can you imagine? I ran across someone the other day who couldn't find a nominalist world!!!
Oh by the way, it just now occurred to me: If you're concerned about J and J stay away from Rappers. You'll become an overstressed Dude.
"Jerry, at least you're not insisting on the Seinfeld qualifier, "not that there's anything wrong with that"."
Ralph, what's wrong with that?
Jerry:
I put it to you that if we can reasonably hope that all men are saved, then the purpose of the Church has been rendered meaningless. The Church exists to BRING the good news (the Gospel) to all men, but Christ teaches that some WILL (not might, by the way) reject the truth. Those who refuse "are already condemned", as we read in Holy Writ. I don't know the number in Hell, and won't presume to guess. BUT, all those in Hell have a rejection of God in common. Since you make so much of charity, perchance could you answer this question: who is being more charitable, the pedophile who offers a ride home to an unsuspecting little boy or the parent who scolds a child for breaking an important rule? Those rules exist for a purpose, finally, which is the salvation of souls. The salvation of souls is NOT accomplished by leaving people in ignorance of the evils they commit. Otherwise you must accept that the terrorists who remade Manhattan must be in heaven, since according to their own lights they were doing a good deed.
This is too funny ... I've been away from technology for a while and just finished reading an old thread where the oh-so-humourously named "ralph roister-doister" was bitching away about how Fr O'Leary had been dominating the forum ... and then lo! what should I find but Mr. R-D and all his fellow right-wingnuts perpetuating the memory of Fr.Joe in a series of articles and discussions which Fr. Joe himself has correctly described as libellous ... I only wish I had the patience required to withstand such character assassination, but as I do not, I shall content myself with blowing an anonymous raspberry at all the self-righteous extremists who in bearing false witness against a good and holy man risk condemning themselves to the fiery pit.
*S*
*S*
"Lovehandles" --
But, aren't we all going to Heaven anyway?
"Chris" --
No.
"Otherwise you must accept that the terrorists who remade Manhattan must be in heaven, since according to their own lights they were doing a good deed"
would it be heresy to replace "Manhattan" with "Iraq"?
lh,
Let me know when American Christians start flying airplanes into office buildings in Islamic cities, while expecting to be gifted with Heaven for doing so.
Just another overfed liberal twit.
Ah, so Lovehandles is back. Please, everyone, try not to feed the troll.
john hearn,
I thought you anti-liberal guys were still Catholic, not American Christians. I personally think that being a Catholic from the universal apostolic Church should mean far more to you than being an "American Christian", but if your President needs you, so be it.
Actually John Hearn is quite emblematic of one type of Catholic traditionalist. He is probably a convert with very little sense of the lived reality of the old Catholicism, and also very much at ease participating in the parochial culture war presently going on in America. Well, john, your President said "you are either with us or against us", and you heard the call of your wartime leader.
I salute you for your bravery, and would, if such a thought were not so forward, to humbly beg to kiss your ring.
However, there is also another subsection of "traditionalist" Catholics on this blog are becoming more "radical" in their aspirations ... in an earlier thread I noted Chris proposing a "loyal Catholic" party no less!
This sort of symbolic splitting from the State is nothing new : it is also what happened after the French Revolution in many European countries. All sorts of dubious extremist Catholic groups arose in France, for example, secretly plotting the restoration of the Catholic monarch, the true Holy Roman Emperor. Of course ordinary Catholics were persecuted for their supposed association with these extremist groups, but their legacy lives on even today in neo-facist organisations like the Front National, which has a strong (if rather politically laughable) component of "traditionalist" Catholics.
Having said that, such Catholic rebelliousness did find a true and honourable expression in some of the Scottish Jacobites, but even they were as guilty as their protestant brethren for the inter-clan disputes which claimed so many lives in the Highlands.
Moral of the tale? If i was john hearn I would be casing this joint for all anti- Bush hairy arsed Jacobites.
Vote Father Joe!
Lovehandles --
As a loyal Catholic who is not happy with many of Mr. Bush's decisions, I can assure you that when Jordan refers to Christians flying airplanes into buildings he doesn't want to attach himself to the group he describes.
Why do you (inaccurately) insist on calling me a traditionalist Catholic? All I proposed is that we recognize that some people call themselves Catholic who refuse to accept any number of Catholic teachings. Since Republicans are taking the loyal Catholic vote for granted, it is time that we showed that they may not do so.
If you think I'm a traditionalist Catholic, evidently you don't know what one is.
Your history examples are a fascinating bunch. Indeed there were attempts to restore the Catholic monarchy to historically Catholic France. What boggles my mind is why you think it's perfectly ok to execute a king, condemning him by a scant 50% + 6 votes, for doing nothing more than what the Assembly allowed him to do. Do any ends justify killing an innocent man?
It was John, not me, who correctly pointed out that American Christians don't usually slam airplanes into skyscrapers.
Chris, "What boggles my mind is why you think it's perfectly ok to execute a king ... "
Talk about putting words into someone's mouth ... but just to clear things up, no, I dont think the ends justifed the means in the case of the French Revolution. By the same token, I dont think the death of thousands of innocents in Iraq is really justified by the dubious "end" of letting "freedom reign".
Lovehandles:
The restoration of the Catholic monarch would have (and still will be) a good thing, whether that restoration is plotted secretly or not.
" As to eternal punishment, I do not think the historical Jesus taught it; the Q source does have a language of eschatological judgment, but Matthew etc. draw on intertestamental conceptions of Hell to bolster the message, in perhaps a rather deadening way. "
Let me amend the above a little. I doubt that hell in the sense of a literal eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels was prominent in the teaching of Jesus. When we trace it back to the earliest historical indications we find a language of eschatological judgment which would easily have been vamped up into the Matthean vision of Hell. Jesus may have presupposed the notions of Hell current in the religious literature of that time, just as he presumably presupposed the notions of angels, devils etc. But the brunt of his message is the kingdom of God, a rather richer concept than Matthean heaven-and-hell or what Catholic theology has made thereof. Rahner's definition of Hell as "the possibility of final loss" is perhaps as far as the historical Jesus himself would have gone, if interpreted with due regard to the frameworks of thought of the time.
You talk as if Jesus is not now the Head of the Church. He is the Head, we are the Body; He is the Bridegroom, we are the Bride, subject to her husband. Did He not say He would be with us until the end of the world? If the Church is what the Scriptures say she is, if the Church is what she claims to be, how can Catholic doctrine be something with which Jesus disagrees? How can the Church believe anything at all without the mind of Christ, and how can she have the mind of Christ if she is not in union with her Head, Jesus?
Chris, you say that,
"The restoration of the Catholic monarch would have (and still will be) a good thing"
I dont think imposing Catholic monarchs upon multi-faith democracies would be very feasible.
I'm also afraid that the best you could hope for these days would be John Kerry.
If the best I can hope for is John Kerry, then even St. Jude can't help me. [I don't intend this to be a flippant comment].
Why are you under the illusion that democracy is consistent with the Church?
If we Catholics get off our butts and evangelise, maybe in a few centuries we won't have to endure the evil of multi-faith societies anymore.
Jordan:
Indeed!
... the evil of multifaith societies...
A HORRIBLE EXPRESSION.
... how can Catholic doctrine be something with which Jesus disagrees? How can the Church believe anything at all without the mind of Christ
I would answer this by distinguishing the mind of Christ from the historically conditioned expressions of the Gospel in any given cultural context. There are many differences between the various historical versions of the Gospel. Matthew has Jesus say that not a jot or tittle of the Law will pass away while Paul releases Christians from the Law. The historical Jesus did not speak the language of Matthew or John but spoke the Gospel in the context of the hour of his appearing.
jordan potter says that all the actually existing accounts of Jesus show him teaching Hell. I wonder if even this is correct. Offhand I cannot recall any reference to Hell in the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the Gospels.
I'm not sure where to begin helping "anonymous", given how obviously lost he is. He who can not find Christ teaching about Hell isn't looking. So, let me start somewhere else. You picked up on the expression
... the evil of multifaith societies...
and said of it, in block capitals,
A HORRIBLE EXPRESSION.
Why is this expression so horrific to you? Anyone who accepts "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" accepts the sensible, logical idea of societies without "minority" faiths" because all would be Catholic. Even the Protestant Revolters insisted on unified societies. Humor me, please, and take this as a serious inquiry. Why does the idea so repulse you?
Oh, I see. You said "In The Gospel of Mark". I'll go look for specific references.
Here we go.
Chapter 9, v. 41 ff [DR]
And whosoever shall scanalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire. ....
[the remainder of the passage speaks of a hell of fire repeatedly].
Those of you with ICEL translations will see this passage rendered
"it is better for you to come to fullness with a glass half-full than with a full glass to see the enforcement of Church law." -- thus no mention of Hell.
"Why does the idea so repulse you?"
My guess -- because he for some reason isn't all that troubled when he encounters or considers those who are deprived of the saving truth of the Gospel and are thereby in danger of never making it back to their Father's House -- and/or because he thinks the only way to achieve a single-faith society is through violent coercion.
"I would answer this by distinguishing the mind of Christ from the historically conditioned expressions of the Gospel in any given cultural context."
In other words, some or most or all of what we read in the Gospels is not true, does not represent, and never did represent, the mind of Christ -- the Church is a purveyor of hellish doctrines.
"There are many differences between the various historical versions of the Gospel."
But no differences that would allow one to conclude that Jesus didn't teach eternal punishment.
"Matthew has Jesus say"
And St. Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit, who cannot err -- so the Holy Spirit has St. Matthew have Jesus the Incarnate Logos say . . . .
"that not a jot or tittle of the Law will pass away while Paul releases Christians from the Law."
Yes, and Jesus said that right before giving a series of examples in which the Law's teaching is expanded and superseded by His own teaching. In other words, Jesus and His Apostle St. Paul do not contradict each other.
"The historical Jesus did not speak the language of Matthew or John but spoke the Gospel in the context of the hour of his appearing."
St. Matthew and St. John spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, and apparently Greek. Jesus is God -- I don't see any problem with the Logos being able to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as indeed we see Him speaking all three in the Gospels.
"the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the Gospels."
Or rather, the Gospel whom many claim to be the earliest.
re. "multi-faith socieities" (what an evil idea!)
Chris states,
"Anyone who accepts "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" accepts the sensible, logical idea of societies without "minority" faiths" because all would be Catholic. Even the Protestant Revolters insisted on unified societies. Humor me, please, and take this as a serious inquiry. Why does the idea so repulse you?"
One problem here is that this is exactly the sort of thing that the Taliban would say about Islam. According to Chris we should have no more separation of Church and State, but rather a "loyal Catholic" state which by definition (according to earlier posts of his) is incompatible with democracy.
It all reminds me of Mr. Ralph Roister-Doister rather blasphemously comparing his own infantile self-righteousness to the anger of Jesus in the Temple. Personally I think its an American thing ... a kind of bolstering of the collective in the face of imagined threats.
Truth is, however, that someone could go to a fundamentalist Muslim site and hear exactly the same arguments as in here...
Lovehandles:
I don't think you read me correctly. The Taliban are evil, not because of the fact that they believe that everyone should believe the same thing, but because of the content of their beliefs. Protestant Revolters in Europe at the time of the Revolt insisted on having a state with their newfangled religion. The problem wasn't this idea, but the content of the religion itself. Similarly, the Catholic Church, recognizing the unity of truth, avers that the Confessional State is a good thing -- but even more than that, recognizes that we should all hold the same Truth. The content of the message which the Catholic Church, in contrast to that of the Taliban and the Protestant Revolters and the Democratic and Republican parties in the US, is true, whole and entire.
I submit that good Catholics are also monarchists.
Chris,
Or as a good Muslim fundamentalist might put it,
"The content of the message of the Koran, in contrast to that of Christians, is true, whole and entire"
No dialogue with fundamentalists is possible on this subject, so I'll leave you to your aggressive self-righteousness.
Chris,
"I submit that good Catholics are also monarchists."
I fear you may not be in full communion with the Church on this matter.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed up by your favourite Panzer-Cardinal, recently stated in a "Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life" that,
"The Church recognizes that ( ... ) democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices"
Another example : in late 1999, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, whilst visiting Cuba clearly stated that,
"Democracy is the system that is most ideal" to fulfill the objectives of society.
oh dear ...
Chris,
I also wonder what your views are on the late French Archbishop Lefebvre?
He was a monarchist too.
"Or as a good Muslim fundamentalist might put it,
'The content of the message of the Koran, in contrast to that of Christians, is true, whole and entire'"
Why add "fundamentalist" to the statement? You can take the word out and it would be an entirely true statement. By the same token, it is entirely true to state, "As a good Christian (or a good Catholic) might put it, 'The content of the message of the Bible, in contrast to that of Muslims, is true, whole and entire.'" What sort of Catholic doesn't believe the Catholic faith, whole and entire?
"The Church recognizes that ( ... ) democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices"
Yes, that does appear to be a true statement, from what I can tell. It's almost a tautology -- what is "democracy" if not the direct participation of citizens in political choices? It seems to me that one could remove "best" or even "the best expression of" from that statement and be done with it. One could also read the statement as implying that less-than-the-best expressions of direct participation of citizens in political choices aren't really by the Church as "democracy." In any case, there are other acceptable expressions of politics than just those that involve direct participation of citizens.
"Another example : in late 1999, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, whilst visiting Cuba clearly stated that, 'Democracy is the system that is most ideal' to fulfill the objectives of society."
Abp. Tauran statement, while reflecting the current praxis of the Vatican in dealing with the very-far-from-ideal conditions of this modern, un-Christian age, is not magisterial.
Could you stop switching targets?!
Let me try again to address your first concern, that of confessional states. Only in the modern world is a division within the state considered a good thing. My point about Protestant Revolters and the Taliban is that, for all their errors, EVEN they recognize that truth is one. There aren't many ways to salvation, there isn't more than one Savior, there isn't more than one Church etc. This is part of an idea that ancient Greeks could recognize, long before the advent of Taliban and Protestantism. Something can not be both true and false at the same time.
Since a-theism (the positive belief in the non-existence of God) is illogical, especially for those who practice what we call "science", one can not logically hold that the "absence of religion" is protected under the notion of "freedom OF religion", but only under "freedom FROM religion".
Now, as to your comments about the content since I made the one-faith state, indeed a Muslim might claim this, and he wouldn't have to be what you call a "fundamentalist" to do so. He would merely have to accept that his religion is true.
The problem is, of course, that the Koran ISN'T true; neither is the Gospel of Protestantism. Speaking as a convert from Protestantism, I wanted it to be true. I clung tenaciously to the idea that there were three "branches" of the western Church, but I was clinging to a mirage, a falsehood. Far from being self-righteousness, my acknowledgment of the truth of the Catholic faith is an acceptance that the TRUTH demands to be recognized. Am I self-righteous if I say that Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans? Of course not. My saying it makes it neither true nor untrue. My participation in that fact is irrelevant. It simply is true. Similarly, my acceptance of the Catholic Faith doesn't make me self-righteous, nor does my attempt to defend Her. Is it possible for apologists to be high-handed? Of course, but that does not alter even one iota of the truth of the Catholic Faith.
As to "democracy" and the Holy Office,I will try to reread the documents you present here. Comments by individual cardinals do not constitute official teachings of the Church, nor does it make any sense to say that Democracy is a positive good, at least as far as I can see. Here's why: Democracy assumes that whatsoever the majority decides to be true, is true. If the majority of Americans decided that France was a pariah state and should be obliterated tomorrow, this fact would not make France a pariah state. If everyone in America decided that the war in Iraq was a just war, the fact that Americans all believed such a thing wouldn't make the war any more just. Neither would their belief make it unjust. Democratic majorities, remember, decided that slavery was proper and healthy, that George Bush was president (in '04) that Gore was president (in '00) and other oddities.
Archbishop Lefebvre is de
Ooops. I didn't make the one-faith state. The sentence escaped from me. Let me try again.
Now, as to your comments about the content introduced after I made the claim about a one-faith state,......
Jordan,
"Why add "fundamentalist" to the statement? You can take the word out and it would be an entirely true statement."
The point is that you cant hope to have a dialogue or to present the Gospel to anybody by aggressively proclaiming that you are right and everybody else can go to Hell.
"there are other acceptable expressions of politics than just those that involve direct participation of citizens"
Is monarchism an acceptable expression of politics? Not, I would dare to say, if the only people involved in the politicking are the monarch and a select elite around him.
We still have a monarchy in the UK, but thank God they dont have any power over us anymore.
Let democratic freedom, not monarchs, reign!
Chris,
Of course democratic systems are never perfect, thats the nature of the human condition.
People living in democracies have (at least in theory) the option of exercising their God given free will in important matters such as openly celebrating their faith (whatever faith it may be).
Might I add that if we hadnt put the monarchy in their place in the UK, Catholics here would both never have got the vote and would not have been able to practice their religion in peace.
"Is monarchism an acceptable expression of politics?"
It's the expression that the Holy Trinity chose for the Church, so yes, monarchism is unquestionably acceptable. The big question is, are any other expressions acceptable? The answer to that, I would say, is yes. We should strive to convert our neighbors to the faith -- that will eventually bring about cultural and political changes, but it may not necessarily lead to a restoration of Christian monarchies. Switzerland, however, was a Catholic republic, so it's quite possible for non-monarchist polities to exist under the Catholic regime that God intends for the human race.
Jordan,
"the Catholic regime that God intends for the human race"
This is a fascist fantasy.
Being very particular about the terms we use, what is fascist about a monarchy?
Lovehandles, you simply can not expect your arguments, even when there are legitimate points therein, to be taken seriously when you merely sling mud at your interlocutors. A fascist monarchy is a non-sensical expression.
As to your odd take on English history, as a dual national myself, I would have to argue that putting the king in his place had nothing whatsoever to do with granting the Recusant populace the franchise. It was Catholic Henry VIII who broke from Rome, and German Protestant George IV who allowed Catholics to hold office in the 1830s, if memory serves.
Somehow my comment about Archbishop Lefebvre got eliminated. Let me try again. The archbishop is dead. Pray for all the departed. Why did you bring him up, since you have no apparent care whatsoever for actual magisterial teaching?
"'the Catholic regime that God intends for the human race'
"This is a fascist fantasy."
No, it's the promise of God.
I take it you're not a Catholic -- or you're a very confused Catholic.
St. Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "Therefore God also has exalted Him and has bestowed upon Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven, on earth and under the the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:9-11)
Was St. Paul a facist too? 1,900 years before Mussolini! How'd he manage that??
"O Christ Jesus, I acknowledge You King of the Universe. All that has been created has been made for You. Exercise upon me all Your rights. I renew my baptismal promises, renouncing Satan and all his works and pomps. I promise to live a good Christian life and to do all in my power to procure the triumph of the rights of God and Your Church. Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer You my poor actions in order to obtain that all hearts may acknowledge Your sacred Royalty, and that thus the reign of Your peace may be established throughout the universe. Amen."
I was just reading tomorrow's lections. The psalm tomorrow is Psalm 97, where in verse 6 we read:
"With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a joyful noise before the LORD, the King."
Amazing. Fascism hundreds of years before Christ!
Chris,
If you think that historically monarchists have not also been fascists, I would simply refer you to the particluar brand of fascism of the well-known French reactionary-monarchist group the Action Francaise.
The key AF monarchist leaders Charles Maurras and Georges Valois (who later left the AF to create the aptly named "Faisceau") are regarded by all serious historians of fascism as seminal in developing fascist thought.
Of course one shouldnt draw the conclusion from this that all monarchies are fascistic in nature, simply that being a monarchist has not historically ruled out being a fascist.
As for the monarchy and Catholic Emancipation, I think you will find that George III had been fully against Emancipation, a fact which forced Pitt the Younger to resign. Furthermore far from "German Protestant George IV ALLOWing Catholics to hold office in the 1830s" it was actually the Duke of Wellington (under pressure from Daniel O'Connell) who finally carried the 1829 Catholic Relief Act, so democracy, not monarchy, won the day for Catholics over here.
Finally, re. Archbishop Lefebvre, the man may be dead, but The Society of St Pius X which he founded is not. In fact Ratzinger had a meeting with the SSPX just this Monday, which caused a certain amount of dismay in "liberal" quarters.
Jordan,
Switzerland was never a "Catholic Republic", rather it was (and still is) a federation of cantons, some of which historically contained a majority of Catholics.
For future reference I dont think you should hold Swiss Catholicism up as an example for young traditionalists to follow. They are amongst the most "liberal" Catholics in Europe.
When John Paul 2 (may God bless him!) went there in 2004 he praised the country as a "crossroads of languages and cultures ( ... ) a people who maintain ancient traditions and who are open to modernity."
"Federation of cantons" is a kind of republic, silly. And it certainly was a Catholic nation before Protestantism infected the country due to Zwingli, Calvin, et al. But I already knew that Swiss Catholics tend to be among the most unfaithful and confused. That's not relevant to my point, however, which is that non-monarchic polities are not forbidden in Catholic social doctrine.
"Finally, re. Archbishop Lefebvre, the man may be dead, but The Society of St Pius X which he founded is not. In fact Ratzinger had a meeting with the SSPX just this Monday, which caused a certain amount of dismay in 'liberal' quarters."
I read about that too. Hopefully the Church will be able to work out a way of reconciling these pseudotraditionalist schismatics, but it won't be easy. The Church can't rescind the excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre, because, first, under canon law what he did was a schismatic act, and second, he's dead and his case has been remanded to a Higher Court. If the SSPX bishops return to full communion, their excommunications will be lifted, but the SSPX wants the Church to say their excommunications were never valid, which is just not going to happen.
As for their demand for a universal indult for the pre-Vatican II Mass, that is something the Church *could* grant, but it's so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.
So, at this time, I don't hold out much hope for an end to the SSPX schism.
BTW, I note the reference to "Ratzinger" rather than "Benedict XVI" or "the Holy Father." A significant shibboleth, I suspect.
Jordan,
The new Pope has yet to prove himself to those in the "real world". The jury is still out.
I must say, however, that there are some promising signs, such as Benedict's addressing of Muslims as "my Muslim friends" ... thats all you need really, to start a dialogue ...
If Ratzinger can convince both me and you, then the Church is in good hands ... dont you think?
The court of judgment that matters, of course, is the court of heaven, not the court of public opinion, or the "real world" if you will. So far he seems to be managing well enough. All I can do if pray God's blessing on his reign, and so I do.
Why is this expression so horrific to you? Anyone who accepts "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" accepts the sensible, logical idea of societies without "minority" faiths" because all would be Catholic. Even the Protestant Revolters insisted on unified societies. Humor me, please, and take this as a serious inquiry. Why does the idea so repulse you?
CHRIS GARTON ZAVESKY
FOR THE DIAMETICALLY OPPOSITE VIEW SEE JOHN PAUL II ON HIS LAST TRIP TO ISRAEL WHERE HE SAID THE VARIETY OF FAITHS IS A SOURCE OF SPIRITUAL ENRICHMENT AND MUTUAL INSTRUCTION
I love these monarchist fantasies...
But you know there are only 5 real monarchs left today, hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades and ENGLAND. The future King of England declares himself the DEFENDER OF FAITHS, a truly prophetic innovation.
Well the Emperor of Japan might be a suitable monarch -- if you like a nice mother goddess like Amaterasu.
Oh, I see, THE POPE FOR KING. But the Pope is not a pure king, because he is ELECTED. Do away with papal elections and let the king be nominated by a prophet like Saul (in the absence of the good old bloodline) and then you will have a true biblical monarchy. But what is that stuff in the Bible somewhere about God not wanting Israel to have kings?
Oh, I see, you mean CHRIST THE KING. Gosh, I wish you would DEFINE what kind of Monarchy you want.
For myself, Charles III looks like just the right kind of king for our times. Vive le roi.
Commenting by HaloScan
