In my parish, baptisms are done at Sunday mass so the exorcisms are done often. In fact, the people respond as a body to all the questions, renewing their baptismal promises:
Do you reject Satan? (I do.) etc., etc.
Like you, I prefer liturgical red meat to liturgical quiche.
I don't think we've come close to understanding the 20th century. But certainly one to the unintended consequences of the serious theological work of Danielou, Congar and de Lubac was a loss of the sense of the supernatural. I think many professional people in the Church are embarrassed by the very idea of the afterlife. It's a very strange time.
St. Margaret Mary's Traditional Catholic Church at Oakland, CA.
Beef...it's what's for dinner
http://www.stmargmaryoak.org/
Robert Miole, if ever I am in Oakland, CA ...
Kathy:
I agree. I also think it ties in with the errors the hierarchy has made in regard to homosexuals, pedophiles, ephebophiles in the priesthood. Their faith has been in the secular "science" of modern psychology, because that is so much more "sophisticated and rational" by worldly standards. So many seem to even be embarrassed by the Catechism, which in my opinion, even bows a little too deeply to current scientific opinion on these issues.
Personally, I believe there is enough "self-devilishness" in us. We do not need some horned, red and tailed spirits promulagated by the likes of Dante and Hollywood. It is even stranger that these "satans" are still around considering the power of my guardian angel. You should meet this guy!! Simply awesome!! If he ever went to the dark side, even Darth Vader would look sheepish.
Oh well, we have to blame someone for our misdeeds so lets keep the devils around a bit longer.
Realist,
Why do you paint it as an either/or? It is a both/and. The Church teaches that we are fallen AND there are evil forces who do their best to help us embrace and harden our fallen nature.
There will be a time when the Adversary and his legions will no longer torment us, but that time is not yet. If you are simply exaggerating because you think humans are too fixated on blaming their sin on the Adversary rather than taking personal responsibility, I can't agree.
Most importantly, one needs to admit the existence OF sin in their lives before affixing blame FOR it, and it seems that modern man is convinced that he no longer sins AT ALL. This is simply part of the almost oxymoronic dictatorship of relativism the Holy Father describes.
Pius XII diagnosed THE sin of the 20th century as the loss of a sense of personal guilt and sin. If it was true in his day, it is true now in spades.
Augustine,
We are fallen but it is only from the trees.
But certainly one to the unintended consequences of the serious theological work of Danielou, Congar and de Lubac was a loss of the sense of the supernatural.
Kathy, can you back that up?
Realist,
Ah, humor. A sign of intelligence. Rather miraculous for the descendent of inorganic, non-sentient matter.
But if you insist you are just a more highly evolved monkey, I won't argue with you. Just leave me out of your family tree.
The personal existence of a devil was reasserted by Paul VI, but it plays next to no role in contemporary theology. I like the beautiful presentation of Satan in Pasolini's great film The Gospel of Matthew (such a cleansing antidote to the crass stupidity of Mel Gibson) -- Satan as a cipher of elusive forces of evil that play about the edges of our vulnerable existence.
If you would like to see my final essay on Benedict's Encyclical, it is now on my website.
Professor Blosser,
We welcome you at any time. We could use some common sense over here in the Left Coast.
If you're ever in the area, we could knock back a couple of beers and talk about Scheler and the folley of 'hot-tub Christology'.
'folley' should be 'folly'
That's what i get for working on a paper comparing Nietzsche and Scheler in the middle of the night.
"We are fallen but it is only from the trees."
Nonsense.
Santiago, in the second book of his trilogy I Believe in the Holy Spirit, near the beginning (page 30 or so), Congar says that his past writings have tended to emphasize the Holy Spirit's work in the Church at the expense of the work of the risen Christ. He retracts that overemphasis.
That's one example.
For the "Adam & Evers", check out https://www3.nationalgeographic.c...phic/
index.html for an update on the latest Homo sapien (the real A&E) science (click Explore the Atlas). After updating your knowledge about our ancestors, you can for $100 determine what tree you fell out of. A recent finding: "
Millions of Men May Be Descended From Irish King, Study Says"
I can only say - we would not be writing and communication in this venue if it were not for folks that actually would use their god given brains to enhance our understanding of this beautiful world. To gain in knowledge, and to enhance our technologies and our sciences.
I find it sad to see some give up and tire of the neverending quest to a better future.
Our creator was kind to us and had our sorts evolve to very refined thinking human beings - that is pretty amazing. I could care less if to get here our creator perhaps set it all up from day one and had us go through all kinds of development stages. The beauty and kindness of the creators thoughts and creations will endure regardless of updated scientific understanding. Our creator gave us the very tools to gain in our understanding. Thus yes Realist is proberly very correct and at some point we all evolved from creatures very different from humans in 2006.
Humans 10000 years ago most certainly looked and thought very different from us today. What is so scary about that thought I wonder.
Yes you guys please hold onto scientifically plain wrong believes - you hold onto yesterdays views.
The scientific,engineering and cultural progressives of tomorrow will march right over you into a different and exciting future.
And no not one second do I believe Dr. Blossers naive rediscoverd love affair for the Devil will do much for anybody.
IMHO Fundamentalism is for lazy folks that can not deal with the future.
I am sorry to see that Dr. Blosser and friends are getting scared of the future and tired of complex questions.
Grega,
You are all over the place in that last post, broad-brushing, over-simplifying, etc.
If you are going to insult, at least know what you are talking about and to whom it accurately applies.
For instance: who are the fundamentalist, anti-science Luddites here and what do they believe exactly?
Realist,
Are you Catholic?
CCC 360-61: "Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity for 'from one ancestor God made all nations to inhabit the whole earth' This law of human solidarity and charity, without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples assures us that all men are truly brethren."
CCC 374-5: "The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself....The Church..teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original 'state of holiness and justice.'"
CCC 385-387: "Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile...
CCC 390: The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language BUT AFFIRMS A PRIMEVAL EVENT, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the CERTAINTY OF FAITH that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely COMMITTED BY OUR FIRST PARENTS."
And this especially for the disembodied Spirit of Vatican II...
CCC 391-2: Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church's Traditions see in this being a fallen angel, called 'Satan' or the 'devil'. The Church teaches that....'the devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.'"....
"The devil 'has sinned from the beginning, he is a liar and the father of lies."
CCC 407: A hard battle...
The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parent's sin, THE DEVIL HAS ACQUIRED A CERTAIN DOMINATION OVER MAN, EVEN THOUGH MAN REMAINS FREE.....IGNORANCE OF THE FACT THAT MAN HAS A WOUNDED NATURE INCLINED TO EVIL GIVES RISE TO SERIOUS ERRORS IN THE AREAS OF EDUCATION, POLITICS, SOCIAL ACTION AND MORALS."
"The scientific,engineering and cultural progressives of tomorrow will march right over you into a different and exciting future."
Just like the Nazis once did I suppose. They too promised an 'exciting future'.
Should it prevail, maybe I would rather 'die' than support your future culture of death. I hope to be free in Jesus Christ, not Satan's slave and engineer of future sin and nothingness. - Better suffering for the Light of God, than content under the silken shadow of the Antichrist.
==
Ahh, the neoCatholics respond!! Very good. Tis a great life God has created capped by the gifts of free thinking "post-chimpers" like ourselves.
And sure I am Catholic but I have been a bit "Crossanized" with a flavor for the current theology of Catholic universities where A&E went on the myth pile years ago.
And Augustine, simply cite the CC verses web addresse. No sense copying and pasting (some blogs consider it rude to do so by the way). Once the Vatican gets up to speed with anthropology, the references to A&E will either be deleted or changed to "our original ancestors from Africa". I assume the references to magic fruit and talking snakes have already been deleted. White AARPies like ourselves move slowly especially those without wives to keep them active.
Augustine:
Upon re-reading my previous post - it is fair to characterize it along the lines that you did.
"You are all over the place in that last post, broad-brushing, over-simplifying, etc."
Mea culpa.
I think our time indeed asks for a much more nuanced discussion regarding many issues not a more simplified one. For me, issues such as gene technology, homosexuality, equality of woman in church and society, undemocratic structure of our church etc. are not any easier to discuss when viewed through a black- white filter.
And yes I admit that I personally find the concept of original sin deeply troubling.
For me every baby is born pure and good. I would find the reading of the text that Dr. Blosser cites as good and aspiring example from the 1962 Missal at my sons baptism for example as very troubling.
If the church of the future indeed insist to go back to pre Vatican II days along the lines outlined by our host they will have to do so without my financial or emotional support.
I am by the way not talking about things like Latin language or Gregorian chants, both of which many liberal leaning catholic love as much as you traditionalist.
Re: For me every baby is born pure and good.
Mmm. Had many babies?
Grega:
While I wasn't really seeking an apology (what you wrote really wasn't that bad) I readily accept yours. No problem.
The problem is that, at least if you are Catholic, you must draw distinctions between doctrine/dogma, disciplinary/pastoral matters and areas where we are free to "explore". You continue to mix apples and oranges.
1) "Gene technology": this is a new area and there is still much open to legitimate discussion. But there are limits to that freedom, even now(in regard to embryonic stem cell research, for instance).
2) "homosexuality": If you are referring to "gay marriage" or any approval of acts of sodomy, then it is black and white. There is no real nuance, Grega. If you are talking about how to best deal with the problem of homosexuality (i.e. you recognize that it is morally wrong), then there is room for nuance and discussion.
3) "equality of woman in church and society": If you are talking about the ordination of women to the priesthood, this is another black and white matter. "Women's Equality" is usually liberal/heterodox code for "women priests". Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Women's ordination is not possible. Doctrine, not discipline.
If you are talking about the NON-ordained roles of women, then, yes, there is plenty of room for discussion and nuance.
4) "undemocratic structure of our church": If you are referring to Her hierarchical structure, that is not going to change and to discuss it is only to waste time and confuse people. But there are legitimate discussions to be had about the interaction between the hierarchy and the laity, the sensus fidelium, etc.
As our current Holy Father has pointed out, it is an error to see the Church in terms of "the pre-Vatican II Church" and "the post-Vatican II Church" as though Vatican II is some kind of "super-dogma" that obliterated, superceded and contradicted the Church in the past.
And to draw lines in the sand like you have done above publicly is a very dangerous thing, Grega. Either this is the Church Jesus Christ established or it isn't. If it is, then one ought not lay such ultimatums down.
I'm not sure why you are so troubled by original sin. All of creation has fallen since that first sin of Adam and Eve and the world "groans in anticipation" of its final redemption, which is the second coming of Christ.
The CCC says: "By yielding to the tempter (Satan), Adam and Eve commited a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state." Original sin a wound to our nature that is passed on from parent to child. As one who understands heredity and genetics, this shouldn't be so completely difficult to conceive of, at least in part.
And by the way....I regularly attend Novus Ordo Mass, although I do love much about the Mass of Pius V and wish the bishops of the world would heed the words of JPII to make it available generously.
Dear grega,
Don't despair. Theologians have been very critical indeed of the passages from the Catechism trotted out against you as the Last Word. The Vatican's only answer to this is to void the church of theologians, but this cannot work, for if their voices are silenced the very stones cry out.
Augustine's incomprehension, real or assumed, about homosexuality, is the kind of stance the church cannot bunker into forever -- science and the progress of human awareness are mighty forces that override defensive posturing.
The idea that children have the devil stuck inside them when they are born was quaintly reflected in the view of older Irish Catholics that the baby's screams at baptism were the shrieking to the departing demon.
Note that the Catechism recognizes how threatened the doctrine of devils and fallen angels has become in that it resumes it in historical mode.
For an example of the gulf between Benedict XVI and the fundamentalists who appeal to him, look at his remarks on prayer toward the end of his encyclical.
Realist,
I didn't copy and paste anything. I personally typed out what was particularly pertinent and contradictory to your and "Spirit of VII"'s ruminations on the nature of the Adversary. I am not aware of an online Catechism.
No one else has complained except you.
If you have been truly "Crossanized" you may be Catholic by baptism but you are no longer Catholic by belief.
Do you believe in the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Holy Trinity?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ performed actual miracles, the miracles attributed to him in the Gospels?
Do you believe in the historical nature of the Gospels and that they faithfully hand on what Jesus really said and did while he was on earth?
If you truly have faith in Crossan and his seminar, then why not be honest and start your own religion?
I have a theory as to why the heterodox stay in the Church: it is because they know in their bones the Church is what She claims to be. And so, as in the case of a wayward child at odds his mother, they can't stand it and can't deny that they care.
But while they desire peace, they refuse to conform themselves to the Truth in order to find true peace. Instead they pridefully and vainly choose to try to conform the Church to their vascillating, disordered thinking and practice.
But it will be a long, long wait for that peace, an eternity really.
If one ever had a doubt about the sneaky, deceitful nature of the Devil and his continued workings in the world, they need but read the last post from the disembodied spirit of Vatican II.
To use the words of Jesus Christ (Luke 19:40)which testify to His Lordship in the service of a perverse crusade is beyond execrable and could only emanate from a mind deep in the clutches of sin, a mind in league with the father of lies.
It becomes clear why such a one would want to minimize the existence and influence of the Adversary in the world. May the Lord rebuke him.
Grega, you seem like a decent man who is struggling. Please, do not be confused and deceived.
Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and READ it. Pick up the Bible and READ it. Christ protects THE CHURCH, from error. He does not protect "theologians" and dissident priests.
I beg you, do not place your eternal destiny in the hands of mere men with dubious motives. If you believe the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established, then follow Her. She alone is sure and true.
Some supporters of homosexuality manage to cloak it in noble, even soaring terms. But what are we mostly talking about, really?
How did we get to the place where so many are confused over whether man was designed to ejaculate into another man's rectum; whether that is an "enlightened" thing or not?
How is a seriously reduced life-span evidence of true enlightenment?
How is the spread of a whole genre diseases peculiar to sodomy, many of which are incurable, some of which are deadly evidence of true enlightenment?
How is a lifestyle associated with significantly higher rates of depression, suicide, drug use and abuse at the service of enlightenment? (And no, these cannot be waved off as purely the result of "homophobic" pressures at witnessed by countries that openly accept sodomy as a lifestyle).
Is there any question that sodomy is a mortal sin (under the requisite conditions, of course)? Then it cannot be authentically loving and compassionate to confirm anyone in it. Authentic love moves one to lead a brother or sister from danger, not more deeply into it.
It strikes me that there seems to be a pattern in regard to homosexuality and other similarly damaging behavioral perversions: an overabundance of societal wealth tends to breed many moral hazards including the tendency to delude man into believing himself self-sufficient, which, combined with a loss of the sense of the eternal and sacred robs him of what all men require: a sense of real meaning and purpose.
This lack of meaning and purpose then drives man to find ways overcome the numbness, to temporarily experience a rush of adrenaline and endorphins to cover over the quiet desperation that is his life, including drug abuse, gambling, body piercing and deviant sexual practices...and to create the requisite "philosophy" and "theology" to justify all of the above.
Do we see the third world independently clamoring for sodomy as a sacrament?
"Truly I tell you: a rich man will find it hard to enter the kingdom of Heaven. I repeat, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
NOR has an excellent article on the reality of homosexuality in this issue:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/n...03-notes-
rebuke
This is the article I meant to link to at NOR:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/a...sp?did=0206-
lee
The other one is an older, although still useful, article.
"The Vatican's only answer to this is to void the church of theologians, but this cannot work, for if their voices are silenced the very stones cry out."
Whaaaaaaat?! L-O-L! As dialog for a bad comic, this is quite good.
Augustine,
A 1992 version of the CC: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/...1/CDHN/
ccc.html.
You might also want to check free reviews of the historic Jesus etc. posted at:
http://www.earlychristianwriting...m/
theories.html
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb077.html
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan1.rtf
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan2.rtf
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan3.rtf
http://www.mystae.com/
restricted...r.html#Criteria
http://southerncrossreview.org/1...g/14/
pagels.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...2/
0401torah.asp
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bis...es/
bissar24.htm
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/jh...hc/
jhcbody.html
http://www.religion-online.org/
http://www.mystae.com/
restricted...r.html#Criteria
http://www.ntgateway.com/
http://www.mystae.com/restricted.../
testament.html
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm
Thanks Fr. O'Leary and Augustine for your kind words.
In my personal life I know a number of fine people that very much think along the lines that you outline Augustine. And quite honestly of course this is after all quite close to the proper catholic status quo regarding the issues we discussed. Let me do you the courtesy and mumble an attempted spontaneous honest personal opinion regarding a few topics
a) Gene technology: There is an extensive effort to work with adult stem cells -
I am not in the known enough to understand if this will ultimately be scientifically sufficient or if the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells are so pressing that reasonable people will allow for further research along such lines. Yes you are correct our church will have to take the stand you outline at this point in time- yet for me it is not clear at all if this will suffice in the long run.
You all can be assured that the very second some Chinese scientist ( for example) will discover a way to grow new nerve cells to perhaps heal a paralyzed person that there will be no holding back on the part of our fine western scientist and the leading institutions.
Did anybody register by the way, the noticeable shift in tone by democrats and republicans alike shortly after news of the (as it turns out fake) South Korean clone experiment were announced?
You can be assured that this will not happen a second time without us being also in the hunt. The Catholic Church will stop this as much as the Catholic Church is unable to control the catholic flock’s preferred ABC habits.
Women’s Role: Sorry I personally do not buy into the 'never a female priest ever ' argument quite frankly. In the long run the church will not be able to sustain the current tack. It does not make any sense to leave the talents of half of humankind unused.
Homosexuality: I have to only look at my sons best friends mothers at his daycare to understand that society will give samesex couples the rights they deserve. Rights they need in order to enable them to raise children and care for their loved partners toward the end of life.
Society will see much value in stable samesex relationships - our society unlike the Muslim societies will reward such fine folks.
The church will not be able to sustain declaring the many more future loving committed couples as disordered - my personal opinion. And since we stubbornly will perhaps hold onto the male only celibacy requirement our Priesthood will continue to be gay to a high percentage, thus we will continue to have plenty of undercover change agents within our ranks - just kidding.
Our Lord certainly had not hesitation to let those that did the lord’s work come to him. He actually preferred them over some of the pious scribes of his day.
Democratic church: My hair is raised whenever I have to endure listening to the term 'Princes of the church'.
IMHO the fact that this term can be used with some meaning sums up rather nic
There has been, in the last thirty years, no development within Catholic theology on many points where development is sorely needed. The reason is obvious: any first step in such a development is stamped on and quashed, and Catholic theologians are simply afraid to think boldly. In addition there has been a huge brain drain away from Catholic theology. The result is a withering of theology into stalest restorationism, as in this current popularity of devils, exorcism and the like. Theology is being dragged down to the level of the Da Vinci Code.
Realist, Spirit, and Grega pooh-pooh the Devil. Realist scoffs the notion of a horned red Devil with a tail, saying we've only "fallen from trees," implying we've evolved into Comte's third "Scientific" stage where we now sit atop our Mount Olympus and view all the previous sub-cultures of theological and metaphysical pre-scientific superstition. Spirit's language and references are more sophisticated, but his assumptions aren't much different: the Devil is a mythic construct of pre-scientific societies. Grega pityingly speaks of my "naive rediscoverd love affair for the Devil."
Never fear for me, my friends. I can fend for myself with all this goofy horned and tailed imagery quite well, thank you. After all, the imagery is only that: imagery, as image stands in echtypal relation to the archetypal original. The Church reminds us that we have three enemies: the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. It has always struck me how immersion in one or another of these renders a person oblivious to his enslavement to the other(s). Kreeft's book on Angels and Demons is worth reading here as an antedote. Anyone who subjectivises the influence of demonic spirits, as though it were simply some psychological pathology, is deluding himself. There are sufficient accounts of exorcisms in the public record of the Church for anyone to be withouth excuse here. The problem is the pre-theoretical pre-commitments that the anti-supernaturalists will bring to the "data," preventing them from apprehending what is there. Here Pascal understands more than Kant, Wojtyla more than Heidegger.
Don't despair.
When "Spirit" tried to comfort Grega with these words and encourage him to resist the traditional Catholic and Judeo-Christian understanding that the world and history are a battlefield not only between visible but unseen forces of light and darkness, I am not amused, but troubled. There are two "myths," if you will, that govern our view of things -- "myths," here, not in the sense of "fictions," but of Weltaunschaungen or 'lenses' through which we view the world and history. One -- the ancient one -- is usually regarded condescendingly by secular anti-supernaturalists (ever religious ones like Fr. O'Leary) as benighted and "dark." The other -- the newer one -- is usually regarded by the same crowd as scientific, Enlightened, and "light." (The light and the darkness, I would argue, may in fact be in the opposite camps.) A very good introduction to these "myths" is that written by Tom Howard in the introductory chapter to his book, Chance, or the Dance, entitled: "The Old Myth and the New."
The disturbing thing is that an otherwise apparently reasonable man like O'Leary -- who rightly condemns the abuses of the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, homophobia, sexism, and ecclesiastical repression, where it exists -- can look square in the face of a century where the yield of secularized anti-supernatural reason, untethered from ecclesiastical authority, has yielded the calculated and technologically sophisticated extermination of 7 million human beings by the Nazis, 50 million by the Soviets, 3 million by the Khmer Rouge, and who knows how many more millions by the Chinese, the Tutsis in Rowanda, not to mention the millions killed each year by licensed medical staff by paying customers covered by paying insurance agencies.
Enjoy dining this evening with your Jesuit colleagues at Sophia University, Fr. O'Leary. I trust your dinner conversation is light and amiable and graced with no unpleasantries such as these.
There has been, in the last thirty years, no development within Catholic theology on many points where development is sorely needed.
"Spirit" deliberately conflates "development" with "change," and complains why there hasn't been any in the last thirty years. And the reason is clear. The last thirty years has seen the advent of the sexual revolution in western society and he wants the Church to bend it's moral theology to accommodate it. Sorry, my friend, but that's called aiding and abetting the Enemy.
"Spirit" also complains of the "brain drain in the Church and of Catholic theology being "dragged down to the level of the Da Vinci Code." HE wants us to think the problem is literalism about the Devil, exorcisms, and such, but fails to see how the problem of ignorance and distortion of truth represented in the Da Vinci Code stems from precisely the anti-supernaturalistic outlook he embraces and the degraded view of "divine revelation" that results from it. What is "divine revelation" then, but collective unconscious psycho-cultural auto-suggestion?
Grega,
Many of the differences between your perceptions and those of Augustine and myself and other Catholics stem from what you allow to shape your vision. Two people can view the same data and see completely different things. This is a fact. Wittgenstein's illustration of the "duck-rabbit" is a good example. Pascal's exploration of what different dispositions bring to perceptions of data helps see why people see differenly. When such differences appear, we owe it to ourselves to open ourselves to the possibility that we may not be seeing the whole picture, or even the picture as the Author intended it -- assuming we believe the picture has a Divine Author.
I REALLY hate to agree with Spirit. But I agree that a lot of theological work has to be done. For example, St. Therese's doctrine must be mined to come up with a more nuanced answer to the Lutheran communions on the question of grace and merit. And de Lubac's work on the incompatibility of Buddhism and Christianity should be amplified and developed further.
To Augustine, the "Inquistioner"-
(before I am burned at the stake),
My current beliefs are the same as those being taught in Catholic Theology/Philosophy 101 at many Catholic universities by many Catholic theology and philosophy professors.
How can we be a truly welcoming faith community if we reject Satan? Perhaps we should just ask him to behave himself.
Grega, Vii-spirit of buddha, and realist- fallen the trees,
You are wallowing in your own glory
and rejecting the wisdom of the magisterium outright. Don't be misled by modern institutions that call themselves Catholic. (CINO)
St. Micheal protect us against the wickedness and the snares of the devil.
Marc,
Just like the devil(s), angels are being swept into the myth piles. Hear any sermons lately from or about your guardian angel?
I want to write a book: The Revival of the Permeable Firmament.
Dr. Blosser:
"Many of the differences between your perceptions and those of Augustine and myself and other Catholics stem from what you allow to shape your vision. Two people can view the same data and see completely different things."
I can agree with that.
Another way around, you and Fr. O'Leary immersed yourself into very similar literature - you are obviously both on top of your game as theologians and philosophers yet because of the particular path in life you come to very different conclusions. So what, what is novel or unique about that thought? Yeah sure I can very much understand that your believes are as honest and heartfelt as Fr. O’Leary’s. But honest to god, why would you expect that anybody would get excited about a guy that writes:
"The Church reminds us that we have three enemies: the World, the Flesh, and the Devil."
The world is our enemy - you got to be kidding.
I have to tell you, I find it rather scary to imagine where you would like us all to go as a church and society here in the US. Since most certainly we are currently formally "untethered from ecclesiastical authority" while each of our citizens enjoys freedom of religion. A very good solution if you ask me, that I prefer any day over the Taliban approach of mixing governance with ecclesial authority.
Realist correctly in my mind noted that literal interpretation of the scripture regarding Adam and Eve just does not work out within the framework of generally accepted understanding regarding the origins of our particular species. Even JPII in so many ways admitted that evolution is a very reasonable scientific interpretation of the data and evidence at hand.
Next thing you know Dr. Blosser comes along and compares all of those that happen to subscribe to such rational thoughts as folks that promote "secularized anti-supernatural reason" leading to efficient terminations of millions. Do you understand what you accuse some of us of? Would you mind toning it down a bit?
You a perfectly rational smart human being starts mixing up all kinds of stuff together to say:
I am correct, I am the church and you guys do the Devil's bidding - would you mind?
You wrote
".. a century where the yield of secularized anti-supernatural reason, untethered from ecclesiastical authority, has yielded the calculated and technologically sophisticated extermination of 7 million human beings by the Nazis, 50 million by the Soviets, 3 million by the Khmer Rouge, and who knows how many more millions by the Chinese, the Tutsis in Rwanda"
Excuse me; you are aware that Nazi Germany was very much a Christian country aren't you? You are aware that last I checked here in the US as in all western democracies we are members of very fine secularize societies that believe in the scientific methods - thank you very much.
What in the world rides you to compare the evil of the Stalin’s and Hitler’s of this world with rather reasonable scientifically based reasoning of the major
"Would you mind toning it down a bit?"
Excuse me grega, ....but you wrote:
"And no not one second do I believe Dr. Blossers naive rediscoverd love affair for the Devil will do much for anybody.
IMHO Fundamentalism is for lazy folks that can not deal with the future.
I am sorry to see that Dr. Blosser and friends are getting scared of the future and tired of complex questions."
You say some people are 'naive', have a 'Love affair' with the devil, are fundamentalist, 'lazy', unable to cope or 'deal with the future', 'scared', 'tired of complex questions'....
Perhaps you could be a little bit more kind and generous with Dr. Blosser and friends?
Speaking for myself only, I do not care one way or the other what you think of me.
Does it surprise you and others that some of us still have faith in the supernatural, are Catholics/Christians, and do really believe in the existence of God and holy angels, even Satan and demons, and so on; or even have perhaps had some experience of such things?
==
Hello Realist former Convergent;
Question: Do you pray?
==
Paul,
Do I pray? I assume that is not another question with an bent on the Inquisition. Sure I pray but never for miracles anymore. Nor do I ask my guardian angel to protect me anymore. "Angel of God my Guardian Dear" is not even taught in Catholic schools anymore to the best of my knowledge. Or do I pray that his that his fallen counterpart will leave me alone (in keeping with the current thread). Waste of time really since both are on the myth pile
My take on miracles since you probably will ask:
Up to age 55, I always believed in the literal NT but there were always lingering questions especially with respect to miracles. The questions were basically why did/does God/Jesus cure so few when there were/are so many suffering, how could God/Jesus violate His natural law, why were/are so many prayers for cures not answered, why were miracles so limited (birth defects like Down’s Syndrome and missing/legs/arms/eyes have never been cured) and what medical expertise was available to the first century AD/CE to make any definitive diagnoses of the sick and cured.
Diagnoses even today with our technology are not always correct. For example, I have a rare medical condition that can have a large number of possible symptoms. It is easily found via an MRI scan of the brain, but many with this condition have been misdiagnosed with MS, Lyme disease, depression, diseased gall bladders, epilepsy, and/or carpal tunnel syndrome.
I took early retirement at age 55 and began to read about miracles and the historic Jesus in order to answer my lurking questions. It turns out there are a large number of contemporary biblical scholars who have addressed my issues. http://www.earlychristianwriting...m/
theories.html. To date, I have read many of the books of J.D.Crossan, Raymond Brown, Karen Armstrong, J.P. Meier, Marcus Borg, Bruce Chilton, Luke Johnson, Burton Mack, and Robert Funk. And yes, I am quite aware of what conservatives think about some of these authors but if you read their books, you will note that they have done their homework. For example, see Crossan’s list of references at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan1.rtf .
Of the ten miracles recorded in Matthew 8 and 9, for example, five appear to have historic reliability based on the number of attestations from multiple sources (Matt 8: 1-4, Matt 9:1-8,:18-26,:27-31,:32-34) http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan2.rtf . The five "historical" miracles were more than likely misdiagnosed patients or simply a sudden end to a storm front.
To get an idea of the work of healers in the first century, I recommend reading the books of contemporary biblical historians as Jesus was not the only healer in this time period.
In summary, I am still a Christian but the miracles of life and the universe are sufficient.
So my prayers are typically those of thanksgiving for life and the universe with an occasional prayer to win the PowerBall Lottery which is up to $300 million this ev
Realist - from the trees said:
"Just like the devil(s), angels are being swept into the myth piles. Hear any sermons lately from or about your guardian angel?" <
So where does YOUR capacity to love come from? Is scientific rationality all that is needed to
imprison the thought (i.e.,machine man)?
Marc,
The words from "We are Family"- the Pittsburgh Pirate theme song when the won the World Series:
"We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
Everyone can see we're together
As we walk on by
And we fly just like birds of a feather
I'm not telling no lie
All of the people around us to say
Can we be that close
Just let me state for the record
We're giving love in a family dose, yeah"
And the lyrics from the Pirate version:
"We're still family, I got all my sons with me
We're still family, get up, everybody and play!
We're still family, I got all my sons with me
We're still family, get up, everybody and play!
Don't you still remember when we played the game
Did it all for love
(Love!) Never at all did we hold out for money
I won't tell no lies
(All!) All of the fans still believe we're the best
The best Pirates team of all
Don't deny that we did it, did it all for the loyal fans"
Realist,
I don't think appealing to what you believe many American Catholic colleges teach is convincing evidence for your own Catholic identity.
But you never answered my four, simple questions. I am merely looking for logical evidence, proof, as a scientist would, really, of your claim to be "Catholic". And I have to believe in light of what you have written that you esteem the scientific method, yes?
So, again:
Do you believe in the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Holy Trinity?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ performed actual miracles, the miracles attributed to him in the Gospels?
Do you believe in the historical nature of the Gospels and that they faithfully hand on what Jesus really said and did while he was on earth?
And while you're at it, are you in full agreement with the Nicene Creed?
www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
If this was the Inquisition, you'd have been in for a very different kind of "questioning" long ago, so such complaints/comparisons are inapt. Although, I suppose a relativist would consider the defense of meaningful definitions and standards "torture".
You know where Dr. Blosser, I and the others who are committed to established Catholic teaching stand. All you have to do is look it up in the Catechism. But you have not really come clean. Why not let us at least begin know as much about you as you know about us?
"The myth pile."
RFC, how sad to spend your retirement amidst the shipwrecked faith of the skeptics. Many scholars who have "done their homework" have also managed to keep their faith. Your smug dismissal of tradition does you no service, And you ring in here to... share the joy? You see how contagious it is.
Hmmm.....and here I thought you were concerned about cutting and pasting things that one could simply link to, Realist. Isn't that rude?
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/
t...earefamily.html
Some people describe the Jesus Seminar's methods essentially like this:
Hypothesis: The miracles recorded in the Scriptures did not really occur.
Experiment: Examine the scriptures and other sources and see if miracles really occurred.
Important definitions: 1) miracle: something that is not possible. 2) Expert: someone who agrees with us.
Evidence: Scripture says miracles occured.
Conclusion: Although the Scriptures clearly say that miracles occurred, this is not possible by definition, therefore, as experts (see definition above), we declare that they did not occur.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/...om/
links04.html (scroll down on this link)
http://www.cin.org/users/james/f...les/
seminar.htm
http://www.christiancourier.com/
...susSeminar1.htm
http://www.allaboutreligion.org/...sus-
seminar.htm
http://www.allaboutreligion.org/...seminar-
faq.htm
http://www.allaboutreligion.org/...seminar-
faq.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/prob...s/
jesussem.html
Realist:
You write: "why did/does God/Jesus cure so few when there were/are so many suffering."
Perhaps you might consider the possibility that you don't understand the meaning of suffering, and THIS is real problem? Is temporal suffering inherently "evil" in the eternal perspective? Or is our response to suffering what determines its value? Consider first that suffering was the means through which God brought salvation to all men.
You continue: "how could God/Jesus violate His natural law"
First, "natural law" is different from the laws of nature, right?
There are few possibilities I think but here's one: the "laws of nature" as we commonly understand them are not complete. We understand the laws of nature in respect to our limited, earth-bound, mortal abilities and powers. Why couldn't a being who is inherently more powerful (like an angel or God) do that which is truly "miraculous" to those who do not have that power? So, from our perspective, it would be correctly identified as a "miracle", but in God's frame of reference it is well within his laws.
You continue: "why were/are so many prayers for cures not answered"
Again, if we are ultimately concerned with eternity, not our temporal existence, how can you be so sure that such cures are always to someone's eternal benefit, or the benefit of others around them? In Christ's case, His suffering was to the undeniable benefit of mankind.
You continue: "why were miracles so limited (birth defects like Down’s Syndrome and missing/legs/arms/eyes have never been cured)"
1) I have a niece with Down's and no one in our family would trade her for anything! She has caused many wonderful, miraculous things to happen within our family. And the other families we know say very similar things. But not everyone. The difference? Perhaps it is the reaction and approach to the Down's rather than the Down's itself.
2) What do you believe miracles are for, Realist? Yes, miracles were performed to stop temporal suffering. The suffering is real enough, even if only temporal. But it was also to establish WHO HE WAS so that they would have FAITH in Him...so they would FOLLOW WHAT HE TAUGHT....which leads to SALVATION. You take away the miracles, and you take away one the key things that identified Him as the one to be followed.
You continue: "and what medical expertise was available to the first century AD/CE to make any definitive diagnoses of the sick and cured."
So, your faith is in science then? The same science that tells us weekly that something will kill us, be good for us, then kill us again? The same science that assured us that the universe had no beginning and oscillated eternally back and forth....only to now admit that it had a beginning (the big bang) and is expanding with no hope of collapsing again upon itself? I suspect that even if science did sign off on his miracles, you would still have doubts. There are rel
There are relatively modern accounts of miracles, you know, right? Accounts that medicine/science has not been able to really explain. Do you believe these miracles, or do you tend to simply find new reasons to doubt?
http://www.therealpresence.org/e...r/
lanciano.html
http://www.therealpresence.org/e...rst/mir/
a3.html
http://www.geocities.com/meta_cr...r/
miracles5.htm
http://www.geocities.com/meta_cr...r/
Miracles4.htm
You continue: "Diagnoses even today with our technology are not always correct. For example, I have a rare medical condition that can have a large number of possible symptoms. It is easily found via an MRI scan of the brain, but many with this condition have been misdiagnosed with MS, Lyme disease, depression, diseased gall bladders, epilepsy, and/or carpal tunnel syndrome."
What is this condition, if you don't mind? I know someone with these symptoms!
Augustine,
www.wacma.com 
And here I thought you would be impressed that I remembered all the lyrics of "We are Family".
"For an example of the gulf between Benedict XVI and the fundamentalists who appeal to him, look at his remarks on prayer toward the end of his encyclical."
We'd do that, if there actually were any fundamentalists who appeal to him. On this planet, fundamentalists aren't too keen on the Catholic Pope.
Oh yeah, I forgot that "fundamentalist" is one of your shibboleths, a derogatory term of "faithful Catholics." Never mind then.
The area in which theological development is most urgently needed in not the sexual one (where most of the problems are recognized as false ones by serious moralists) but the area of Christology.
As to the millions killed by non-Christian societies -- recall that Hitler, a Roman Catholic, led a State that had a Concordat with the Vatican.
Today I was dragged off to a photographic exhibition about the Vietnam War by an elderly Hungarian Jesuit. 3,000,000 victims are counted by Vietnam (not inclusive of the Laotian and Cambodian ones I suppose). Credit for this goes to that Natio Christianissima, the USA.
Fundamentalism is murderous -- do we not know that yet?
"The area in which theological development is most urgently needed in not the sexual one (where most of the problems are recognized as false ones by serious moralists) but the area of Christology."
Death from AIDS in 2000 CE, 3,000,000 victims
http://gbgm-umc.org/health/wad01.../
2000global.stm
Spirit of Vatican II: I would suggest you pick one single fight and stay on it. Fundamentalism is a big problem. Fix it. But people aren't going to take you seriously if you keep firing scattershot from all directions. You'll only make people more "us" against "them"--or rather, "you."
Spirit of Vii:
Forecast: your next evolutionairy moniker will likely devolve from your loosly defined ethers of Vii to "Episco-pagan" where secular humanism runs unbridled. But for mercy sake, at least then you'll be set free from the dreaded orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic magisterium whom you shroud as the anchor of fundamentalism.
Kathy:
While Father o'Leary is certainly smart, honest, blessed with appreciation for arts& music,poetry, beauty, a deep thinker, intellectually stunning etc. you name it- he will not be able to fix anything anytime soon. If I were a fine conservative leaning catholic (like most here) I would just enjoy the window into a real part of our church that Father generously provides free of charge. Do however not expect a quick fix for anything either from Father or anybody else here.
Realistically- as scarry as this may sound to some - Father o'Leary plants seeds in each of our brains. Seeds that will contribute one way or the other to our view of the world.
Perhaps some will look at their gay neighbors/children/friends a bit different and with more merci.
Perhaps some will be able to follow the lead of JPII and forgive a murderer and not request the death penalty. Perhaps some will be able to either enjoy hymns from the 1960's/70's/ 80'/90's or at least be kind enough to not see the end of western civilisation because some others happen to enjoy such sentimental dizzies.
Perhaps some will be more generous in allowing us liberals to voice our opinions just as freely as is granted to the conservatives/traditionals.
Be assured all this will not be the end of the world.
"Fundamentalism is a big problem. Fix it."
Since I am one who freely uses/used the word fundamentalism here I shall not fail to mention that christian fundamentalism typically is not a catholic thing - I am sure the 'true christian fundamentalist' would very much take objection to any catholic considering himself a fundamentalist.
Due to the bad rap that the muslim fundamentalist give the name everybody is actually scrampling these days to get away from the term.
On the other hand for me it is clear that we do have a substantial percentage in our western societies that are succeptive towards religious fundamentalism. For me there is a very good reason why our church, as Dr. Blossers points out and bemoans avoids the 'simple, clear powerful language' regarding the devil.
Our muslim brothers and sisters certainly are very much subjected to such 'clear and powerful language' - I do not know about you, but I very much dislike what I see over there.
Grega, look over your last post. You're sooooo dogmatic!! So very eager to wrap things up into neat packages of meaning.
I don't think conversation is a method of keeping the ball rolling between parties who are bound to eternally disagree. I think it is a means of solving intellectual problems. Unless and until Fr. O'Leary proves unreasonable, I'm going to continue reasoning with him, if you don't mind.
(With all good will, though, I'm pretty close to giving up on you.)
continue:
Let me give you an example:
Our church after all is said and done is certainly 'confoundedly befuddeled' regarding a good number of issues.
Take homosexuality if you must-what does our church really say, it goes something like this: disordered they are yes, but after all we are all gods creations, thus we have to deeply respect one another etc.
Death penalty - the same thing
Divorce - the same thing
ABC - the same thing.
In my opinion there are very good reasons why the church of 2006 is forced to stear well clear off simple answers/ or at least is well on the way sine Vatican II some might argue to take that route.
Dr. Blosser and many of you disagree and would like to go back to the days of more firm advice - while this is a valid request I honestly disagree that such a thing is possible or desirable.
I happen to prefer a society and church that allows our many homosexuals to be a integral part and enjoy a free and good life.
I hapen to enjoy a society and church that truly tries to allow women to be equal.
I happen to enjoy a society and church that allows for free scientific discoveries - even if it might spill danger and mean that some anchient text is not exactly the literal truth.
Yes a gay person in Saudi Arabia will go down the path outlined 'kindly' for us by our very own Old Testament.
Yes a woman in the arab world will have much more limited venues to express herself and will most certainly not be able to live through a moral lapse or a unfaithfulness to her husband.
While the longing for simple answers and clear advice is a historical reality I truly believe that we have to be very careful with such desires for simple answers that are simply not there.
I prefer the diversity that many voices bring to the picture over the view of few. Our society has also chosen that path in our political system and one can argue even in some moral questions.
But yes it is at some level certainly important to firmly understand what we stand for.
That fundamental level for me is our firm believe in freedom of expression, freedom of discovery, our fundamental believe to 'love our enemies' and to rise above the ususal primal responds to smack each other senseless if we do not get it our way.
I am very ready to defend our society and our religion for such treasures
Tolerance is not evil, for me equality of women and men regardless of race age or gender are not evil.
"recall that Hitler, a Roman Catholic, led a State that had a Concordat with the Vatican."
Gary Wills couldn't have said it better.
To lay Hitler on the Catholic Church would be to lay Stalin on Judaism. Both claims are irrational as both Hitler and Stalin REJECTED their religions and acted under NEW belief systems: Hitler,either pagan or atheist (I think Pagan), Stalin, atheist. THESE are the accurate ties.
Read "Salvation is From the Jews" by Roy Schoeman.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product...glance&
n=283155
And
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product...glance&
n=283155
Realist,
Thank you for the link. And, okay, yes I was impressed that you remembered the lyrics. Although I'll be more impressed if you recite the Red Sox World Series song: http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/dr...hys/
tessie.html.
In all seriousness, though, I understand your difficulty processing the reality of suffering in light of an "all good" God. You obviously know this is not a new difficulty. But do you find any of my suggestions helpful at all?
Have you read C.S. Lewis on Suffering?
http://www.catholiceducation.org...ics/
ap0032.html
Or Kreeft?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product...glance&
n=283155
I just want to suggest that it is important to have at least seriously researched ways to reconcile traditional, orthodox Catholicism with the difficulties you state before jumping to more radical answers. If you have already done this, then I won't presume that I can help more.
Grega:
Not to be flippant here (truly), but why should anyone care what you THINK or FEEL (about homosexuality, women priests, etc)? Who are YOU? And what makes you think that your FEELINGS point to any kind of objective truth we ought to be concerned with in terms of fundamental social policy, philosophy and/or theology?
You must believe that Christ endured torture and death just to leave us without any means of knowing the truth with certainty, on these kinds of fundamental issues. He did not leave us so, he gave us a Church and a head of that Church to whom he promised the following: "whatsoever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:18 )
Have you been given any such promise, personally, of which we are unaware? If not, then humility and wisdom ought to lead you to submit to the teaching of the Church. As Christ said to the leaders of the Church: he who rejects you, rejects me and he who rejects me rejects the One who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
Augustine:
"To lay Hitler on the Catholic Church would be to lay Stalin on Judaism."
You are certainly right these man were evil dictators and the church bears no responsibility for that fact.
Not that it matters all that much but Stalin entered a russian orthodox seminary thus I beleive was not jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
The point was more that the german society of 1933 was a churchgoing 90% catholics and protestant christian society. The style of a missal or the firmness of a good christian believe seem not have prevented the reign of evil. as you also know a certain antisemitism was a religious motivated one along the lines of the murders of Jesus. That said let me mention something positive from a catholic perspective.
The Nazies did not nearly do as well in the predominatly catholic parts of germany, which are in the south(Bavaria) and in the Rhineland. There they never got more than 20-30% of the votes. We also should bear in mind that the Nazies in the last free election before their dictatorship got only I believe ~33% of the vote overall.
The very first german chancellor after the war was a very impressive principled catholic Dr. Konrad Adenauer - I am sure many here would like this very fine man. He never compromissed his principles and survived the war in parts hidden in a catholic benedictan monestry near cologne called Maria Laach.
I do believe that the worth time will also bring out the best in people - as the example of Dr. Adenauer and many other fine german catholics showed.
In any case, the missal used during those years most certainly contained exactly the type of clear language that Dr. Blosser is missing these days in our church - which engages as he calls it in "cotton candy presentations". While we can certainly find plenty examples of very impressive christians in Nazi germany, in soviet Russia in Lawless Ruanda - you name it - such folks IMHO display an inner strength that is neither particularly helped not hurt by the a certainn missal or a church with or without added emphasis on the devil.
Grega,
It is true that Stalin entered seminary, but there is evidence he had a Jewish background. But my point is that it would be ridiculous to blame Judaism for Stalin's excesses, regardless. Clearly, he was not a follower of Judaism. There are other examples that are more certain, like Lenin and Trotsky (and truthfully, I meant to write Trotsky instead of Stalin!). Again, one cannot fairly blame Judaism for any of them.
As for German society and their failure to resist Nazism, there are a couple of points I would make:
1) As you somewhat note, Hitler was not democratically elected to his eventual elevated position. He got there through intrigue and underhanded maneuvering.
2) While I cannot exonerate those Germans who willingly went along with Hitler, neither can I blame the German Christians with a broad brush, either. Under the leadership of such a frightening madman, most peopole cower. This is not a function of Christianity, but rather, a function of our fallen nature.
3) Regarding the Devil, I have to imagine that he is important for us to consider, as Jesus Himself spent quite a bit of time dealing with and talking about him. God has allowed him to be there for a reason: one of which is certainly to help test and purify our imperfect wills. Certainly there is a balance to be maintained (i.e. don't become obsessed with him), but to ignore him or gloss over him is a mistake.
Augustine et al,
For additional scholarly discussion about Satan/devils see:
1. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb116.html
2. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb121.html
Make that from the Realist who is Interested.
Hmmm...are you just REALLY INTERESTED or INTERESTED IN REALITY? 
So, even the flaky Croissant (sorry, I mean Crossan) believes that Jesus spoke of the Devil? Good grief, now you have ME doubting the Devil.
Sorry, I have been just waiting for an opportunity to make that bad pun on his name. I shant return to it again.
Hitler was a validly baptized Roman Catholic. He was never excommunicated. He led one of the few states that had an official Concordat with the Vatican.
These are simple facts. Perhaps they have no significance.
Hitler committed any number of acts that seperated him from the church. Hitler was no part of the Church. To suggest otherwise is either high ignorance or malicious slander. If your going to dispute the existance of the devil you may care to cease doing his work.
"Perhaps they have no significance."
But it tickles you to mention them anyway, doesn't it?
"Hitler was a validly baptized Roman Catholic. He was never excommunicated...These are simple facts. PERHAPS they have no significance."
Lenin was a validly circumcised Jew and was never excommunicated. These are simple facts. PERHAPS they have no significance.
Judas was an Apostle chosen by Christ Himself. He was never excommunicated. These are simple facts. PERHAPS they have no significance.
"Is it true that God has fobidden you to eat from any tree in the garden? Perhaps this has no significance...."
"throw yourself down; for the Scriptures say 'He will put his angels in charge of you and they will support you in their arms, for fear you should strike your foot against a stone"....these are simple facts, but perhaps they have no significance.
Drek from the pitmaster, may the Lord rebuke him.
Read "Salvation is From the Jews" by Roy Schoeman if you want to learn about Hitler.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/
product...5Fencoding=UTF8
A few snippets from "Salvation is From the Jews" on Hitler and the Nazis:
From pages 232-236:
There are many indications that Hitler's relationship to the satanic was intentional, explicit and extensive. No less an authority than the current chief exorcist of Rome, Rather Gabriele Amorth, stated that 'certainly Hitler was consecrated to Satan.' A book that extensively details Hitler's explicit involvement in Satanism, written by a respected academic historian (The Masks of Satan by Dr. Christopher Nugent), was praise by Rev. Lawrence Gesy of the Vatican Commission on Cults as 'a masterpiece of historical research.' A final, macabre confirmation was given by Hitler's choice of one of the most significant dates of the year in Satanism to commit suicide: April 30, the pagan Feast of Walpurgis Night.
Another aspect that highlights the contrast between the Nazi pagan religion and Christianity is its attitude toward human sexuality...No concept is more characteristically Christian than that of sexual purity...
So it is not surprising that were one find the antithesis of Christianity, one fins the pursuit of sexual pleasure for its own sake, in increasingly depraved forms. That was certain the case in all of the streams-intellectual, social, and spiritual-that led up to the
Third Reich....
We have seen how the intellectual underpinnings of the Third Reich were intimately linked to the eugenics and birth control movement, which existed to separate sexual pleasure from procreation. The movement's champion, Margaret Sanger, was an outspoken proponent of promiscuity, 'the joys of the flesh', and open marriage. Central to the volkisch revival were the wandervogel hiking and camping clubs for boys that later evolved into the Hitler Youth. Not only has homosexuality rampant in these groups, but the movement itself was also an 'effort to revive the Greek ideal of pedagogic pederasty...it was pederast at its roots.'
This open embrace of homosexuality continued in the Hitler Youth to such an extent that a prominent German newspaper, the Rheinische Zeitung, warned parents to "protect your sons from 'physical preparation.' (i.e. initiation into homosexuality) into the organization. The leader of the Hitler Youth organization, Baldur von Schirach, "was arrested by the police for perverse sexual practices and liberated on the personal intervention of Hitler, who soon afterward made him leader of Hitler Youth." In 1934, the Gestapo reported over forty cases of pederasty in a single troop of the Hitler Youth. These pederastic relationships between the boys and the group leaders became in fact the prototype for the "Fuhrer principle", as one former Wandervogel member wrote: "We little suspected then what power we had in our hands. We played with the first that had set a world in flames, and it made our hearts hot...It was in our ranks that the word 'Fuhrer' originated, with its meaning of blind obedience and devotio
continued:
devotion." The Nazi's "Sig Heil" salute originated in the Wandervogel groups.
'I happen to prefer a society and church that allows our many homosexuals to be a integral part and enjoy a free and good life.'
-me too. it's called the Catholic Church. Of course, we're disagreeing on the 'free and good' part. Free from sin would be my definition of living a good life. Or at least trying to and not calling something that's a sin, virtuous.
'I hapen to enjoy a society and church that truly tries to allow women to be equal.'
-me too. it's called the Catholic Church. Again, I think we're disagreeing on the meaning of 'equal' I can't have babies or be a mother. Just not built for it, physically or emotionally since I'm male. Am I not equal to a woman? Where's the fetus going to gestate, am I going to keep it in a box? (hat tip to Monty Python's Life of Brian)
'I happen to enjoy a society and church that allows for free scientific discoveries - even if it might spill danger and mean that some anchient text is not exactly the literal truth.'
-me too. Same answer. We're not Mormons, y'know. Honestly, I don't think the Pope is living in fear of some scientific discovery that will disprove the existence of God, or that Jesus was not the Messiah. Nor am I.
Augustine:
I have to tell you, I find your tale about homosexuality during the Nazi period rather - shall we say - incomplete. You seem like a very intelligent and honest person - how could you miss the big picture and the fact that hundreds tausends of gays got killed in Nazi concentration camps?
For starters perhaps Google "Gay and Holocaust" and see where it will lead you.
It will perhaps point to the following webside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
His...d_the_Holocaust
Actual fact is, that the prevalent way how Nazi Germany dealt with Gays, was to kill them in concentration camps.
How could you miss that?
Grega,
There's a good reason you will find my "tale about homosexuality during the Nazi period...incomplete." You didn't read carefully enough. Go back again and you will see that I was dealing with Hitler's beliefs, distinguishing them from Catcholicism, because of a comment made by a certain Spirit about Hitler and Catholicism. And in this, I provided a few brief EXCERPTS from a book, Salvation is from the Jews, by Roy Schoeman. The entire post above is an EXCERPT, it is not intended as a complete treatment of anything, let alone homosexuality during the 3rd Reich.
Okay?
Many have heard the claims you repeat, and I do not know if they are true or not, but I think there is disturbing evidence of homosexuality within Nazism and even possibly Hitler himself that deserves scrutiny...another quote:
"Samuel Igra, a Jewish historian who escaped from Germany in 1939, cites police reports that show that Hitler worked as a homosexual prostitute in Vienna from 1907 to 1912 and in Munich from 1912 to 1914 (Germany's National Vice, pp66-67) These police documents are also mentioned in an OSS report on Hitler prepared during the war (The Mind of Adolf Hitler by Langer, pp 124-125), and copies of them reportedly ended up in the possession of Benito Mussolini (Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, by Rector, p 57). The same OSS report also claimed that German military records show that Hitler was court-martialed for 'pederastic practices.' The OSS also had interviews with two young men who had been Hitler's homosexual partners (Ibib, p 178 ). There is evidence of other sexual perversions as well. Hitler's coprophia (gaining sexual satisfaction by being defecated or urinated on) and masochism are detailed in the same OSS report,(Ibid p. 138 )and of four women with whom Hitler is known to have had affairs, one was his own teenaged niece and another was the thirteen year old daughter of a friend. (All four later attempted suicide, two succeeded.) (Langer, Mind of Adolf Hitler, pp 96-99)
The concentration camps themselves were not free from the scourge of deviant sexuality, as evidenced in a number of survivors' accounts. Elie Wiesel, in NIGHT, writes, 'The head of our tent was a German...like the leader of the camp he loved children...There was a considerable traffic in children amoung homosexuals here, I later learned' (Elie Wiesel, NIGHT, p. 97)"
Augustine:
"The entire post above is an EXCERPT, it is not intended as a complete treatment of anything, let alone homosexuality during the 3rd Reich.
Okay?"
I am sorry to say - it is not o.k. to do what you do - selectively cite an author and sell it as the whole story and a historical fact.
I actually think in your eagerness to combine the evil of Nazism with something you very much dislike you severly overstepped. I would cut my losses and be very quite about Nazis and Gays.
You are right however IMHO, that this particular issue(Evil Nazies - Gays) has nothing to do with the catholic church.
Why did you bring it up?
If Fr. O'Leary irritated you - please rebute line by line what he wrote:
Lets go line by line:
Father wrote:
"Hitler was a validly baptized Roman Catholic." True or False?
"He was never excommunicated." True or False?
"He led one of the few states that had an official Concordat with the Vatican." True or False?
The one line in the post that in my view is up for discussion is the last one.
"These are simple facts.Perhaps they have no significance."
I would think that Roister (smart eloquent Man that he is) succinctly dealt with the main issue that one can perhaps have with Fathers post way more effectively.
It is a verifiable historical fact that the Nazies viewed Homosexuals as 'Lebensunwert' - ever heard about "Paragraph 175"?
This link to the US Holocaust museum might be of interest to you.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhi...bit/online/hsx/
I find it otherwise rather disturbing that you seem unwilling to accept these unfortunate facts and continue to raise doubts about gays killed in concentration camps.
Grega,
I thank you for your "concern" about what I should and should not say, but this is strikes me as more than a bit ironic coming from a Catholic who publicly contradicts/casts doubt upon the teaching of the Church without much concern.
Can you see the inconsistency and irony in your first statement? You wrote: "I am sorry to say - it is not o.k. to do what you do - selectively cite an author and sell it as the whole story and a historical fact."
Objectively, I did no such thing, however, you certainly have. You have selectively focused on what I wrote and tried to sell it as the whole story.
My "eagerness", as you put it, is to relate Nazism with it's perverse religious and ideological bent which subsequently certainly appears to have ALSO had perverse sexual elements (SOME of which are apparently homosexual). As such, taken together, these religious, behavioral and ideological bents would ALL disprove the Catholic nature of Hitler and Nazism (a la the implication made by "Spirit")...they are ALL diametrically opposed to Catholicism...not one, but ALL. That is and always has been my point and intention. I quoted from a section of the book that happened to have certain elements about homosexuality. If you like, I can also quote excerpts that are a bit heavier on the history of Nazi Teutonic paganism. You need but ask me rather than inferring nefarious motives, Grega.
I have also certainly not denied anything about persecution of homosexuals, but only said, "I do not know". Would you prefer I lie? Yet, again, you infer negatively about that which you cannot possibly know. Do you see a pattern here?
Finally, have you read any of the books referred to in the excerpts from Schoeman's book? Are they inaccurate? You never address them...at all. If they are all wrong, by all means, give the evidence. I certainly would be interested to review it when I have time. Perhaps I'll contact the author himself and give him your research.
I almost expected the ubiquitous epithet "homophobe" to appear. Let's hope not. If that is your trajectory, I will allow you to continue on it alone.
Augustine:
as you should be able to detect by the tone of my posts I am not "concerned" about your opinion - but simply reserve the right to flat out disagree with you at times. Yes, I found your argument rather incomplete without the major fact that Nazi Germany killed gay men in concentration camps.
I will leave it at that.
The Nazies used actually quite a few of the buzzwords/lines of argument that might unfortunatelly sound familiar to some even today.
An excerpt from the National Holocaust Museum Link
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhi...bit/online/hsx/
"Homosexuality, the Nazis charged, weakened Germany in several ways. It was accused of being a factor in the declining birthrate that threatened to leave the nation unable to sustain itself. It was also feared as an "infection" that could become an "epidemic," particularly among the nation's vulnerable youth. It was thought that it could give rise to a dangerous state–within–the–state since homosexuals were believed to form self–serving groups. It endangered public morality and contributed to the decline of the community. For the good of the state, the Nazis asserted, homosexuality had to be eradicated."
Grega,
You keep missing the point. You made the following erroneous accusations which you have yet to retract or apologize for.
You said that I:
"selectively cite an author and sell it as the whole story and a historical fact."
I challenge you, show me precisely where I tried to "sell" the book excerpts as "the whole story and historical fact" on the issue of homosexuality in the Third Reich.
Next, you said that in my "eagerness to combine the evil of Nazism with(homosexuality) you severly overstepped."
Eagerness to combine the evil of Nazism with homosexuality? You made a rash judgment about my intentions and interior disposition. And, ironically, I believe that erroneous implication regarding my motives arose from your own hyper-sensitivity on this issue.
Next, you wrote: "disturbing that you seem unwilling to accept these unfortunate facts and continue to raise doubts about gays killed in concentration camps."
I am "unwilling to accept" that homosexuals were killed by Nazis? What comments are you reading, Grega? Again, SHOW ME, precisely where I was "unwilling"...as though I stubbornly said, "Grega, I deny that homosexuals were ever killed by Nazis."
I "continue to raise doubts"? Are you smoking some funny weeds there? Simply giving evidence of homosexuality active within Nazism is not a de facto denial of simultaneous ABUSE of homosexuals or evidence of my purposeful attempt to "raise doubts". Can you understand that? BOTH could be going on....they are not mutually exclusive. Addressing one does not necessarily have ANYTHING to do with the other.
Furthermore, you continue to ignore my previous challenge. WHAT exactly in the excerpts from Schoeman's book is factually wrong, Grega? I offered to bring the information to the author. Do you have anything, yes or no?
You say that you "flat out disagree with" me. Well, that's fine. Many people do on a variety of issues. But why should anyone care in regard to this topic? As you challenged me in regard to what Spirit wrote that was wrong, now I challenge you. Give the PROOF of factual error in what I wrote. And quotes about abuse of homosexuals by Nazis is not proof that homosexuals were not ALSO simultaneously active within Nazism. Okay?
If you have nothing else to offer other than evidence that homosexuals were mal-treated and killed by Nazis, then this debate is obviously finished as I never said a word about that. I have never taken a stand one way or the other. Never began to address it in my original posts. The point is, you misfired, thinking you saw something that you didn't, accused me repeatedly and now you don't have the decency and humility to admit it and apologize.
While it was not my original intention to address whether or not homosexuals were targeted in the Third Reich, Grega has caused me to to some examination. And I spoke with the author of the book, the following was relayed, I paraphrase:
The best book on the subject is "The Pink Swastika", which can be downloaded for free: http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc...s/pinkswastika/
.
The short answer is that it appears this targeting of homosexuals was "spin" -- the Nazis got a lot of PR heat for homosexuality, so they pretended to be aggressive about it, being VERY selective about who they "targeted". It was a good way to get rid of enemies of the Reich, like Catholic (celibate so suspect) priests. Because of PC, the author believes there is credible evidence that many people are jumping on the "poor homosexual victims" bandwagon, including the ADL.
Augustine:
nice going - tausends of gay men rounded up in concentrtions camps 'spin'.
"Because of PC, the author believes there is credible evidence that many people are jumping on the "poor homosexual victims" bandwagon"
The president of Iran was able to top that when he voiced his theory why Israel got its state.
Would you mind by the way commenting why in the world the papal nuntius (a man some would like to have declared a saint these days)struck a deal with these same Nazi Spinmeisters?
The Reichskonkordat in effect silenced the catholic church in germany during the Nazi years?
Hitler a person who truly deserved to be excommunicated -if there ever was one catholic- perhaps arguably even got the royal treatment from the papal nuntius instead - what gives?
I find it by the way more than ironic that a good number of catholics here in the US have no calms opening their mouth very wide when requesting excommunication for this or that contemporary politicans while neither understanding nor appreciating such inconvenient historical facts that the pope never excommunicated Hitler or anybody else amoung the Nazies.
Ah, and so there we have it. Thank you for being more forthright. You are of the "Hitler's Pope" group. This explains everything.
I suppose you never read about what happened when the Church more forcefully opposed Nazism in other countries?
I suppose you never read the accounts of Jews who praised the Pope for his heroic efforts in saving Jews?
I suppose you reject the accounting by Jews and Gentiles alike that the Pope saved HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Jewish lives, many in his own private palace?
You obviously have not read the book, but you condemn it. You are more concerned with defending sodomy as a moral good than defending Holy Mother Church. That is scandalous. It would seem, sadly, that you are an Anti-Catholic or a self-hating Catholic, Grega.
How many books have you read DEFENDING Pius XII? There is plenty of that kind of information out there, too, you know right?
I will be unavailable for some time due to a couple of family emergencies. But I believe I am finished with this discussion in any case.
Augustine:
You know this comment box is not the space to discuss Pius XII role from 1933-1945. I have read documents from both sides of the debate. I find it regretable that our church fell for Hitlers ploy with the Konkordat.Lets leave it at that.
Let's otherwise indeed end this futile dance on a positve note perhaps.
A collegue send me this link to a cool visual illusion.
http://www.patmedia.net/
marklevi...l_illusion.html
In some farfetched way it reminded me about our exchange here. For me the commited loving relationship becomes the important noticable feature(moving green dots) and the sexual orientation (pink) tends to blur into the background.
I wish you that your family matters turn out more than o.k.
Thank you for the well-wishes, Grega. The baby was born healthy, thank God. My other family member (emergency) has just been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, however.
That said, I find it, let's say "inconsistent"....when you are now saying that the Pope's role in Nazi Germany is not for this comment box, AFTER having made claims yourself and then finishing with one last zinger.
Homosexuality is a problem. It is not something to be celebrated.
Aside from religious views, a whole host of diseases and medical conditions are almost exclusively associated with homosexual sex (and a markedly decreased life span).
Even in so-called “monogamous” relationships, homosexuals regularly engage in serial infidelity and this is accepted as normal. (The Male Couple by David P. McWhirter and Andrew M Mattison)
Also, try these sites:
http://members.aol.com/gaymatter...matter...atter/
monog.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/ar...762/ ai_20856082
2) 70% of homosexuals admitted to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 197)
3) the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38. )
4) The Average Homosexual “union” lasts only 1.5 years (based upon health records of Dutch homosexuals by Dr. Maria Xiridous of the Amsterdam Municipal Heath Service and published in the May issue of AIDS)
It is not loving to confirm ANYONE in such a morally dangerous and physically dangerous lifestyle.
Real love is TRUTHFUL.
Augustine:
you know very well that we could march out all kinds of rather abysmal statistics regarding us heterosexuals.
Certainly our divorce rates are nothing to brag about for starters.
If you wish you can certainly dig down and find the absurdest behaviours amoung us heterosexuals - call that 'disordered' if you must- similar such things find their match amoung subgroups of the homosexuals.
Most humans however behave rather decent in my view.
I personally welcome all that engage in loving commited relationships - and I witness a good number of those right now with my own eyes and heart.
Tolerance of homosexuality is here to stay in the western world IMHO- the sooner one accepts that the better.
What is the alternative? Does one perhaps like how our muslim friends in Saudi Arabia deal with the issue?
Do you truly think our society and church will rip samesex families and kids appart? It is not going to happen. Get used to it.
Plenty of fine human beings with either homosexual kids ,grandkids, neighbors ,friends etc. will make sure that those loved ones will not be labeled 'disordered'.
I do not question that certain heterosexual populations have largely failed terribly as of late...at least in the rich West. It would be useful to make distinctions, there, Grega. For example, we do not see this drive for abortion, contraception, pornography and homosexuality in the areas of the world where material wealth has not reached problematic levels. It is THE WEST that has tried to foist it upon these poorer areas.
But I don't see how this helps you. Homosexual activity is a perversion, a sin, just as bestiality, heterosexual orgies, or whatever, are. I don't defend heterosexual perversion, either.
The reason I am focusing on homosexuality is that it is the current battleground. I don't see a wide-spread movement to societally legitimize and celebrate bestiality, orgies, wife-swapping, and other perversions. If and when that happens, I will denounce these just as much as I denounce sodomy.
This is the same reason I fight the acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell testing and infanticide. These are the front lines of the battle between Christ-centered morality and amorality.
Heterosexuality is what created every civilization, Grega. Homosexuality is inherently sterile and can never create a civilization, period.
How is it that we have gotten so confused that we cannot read the creator's handwriting? Just look at the plumbing for goodness sakes, Grega.
Do you honestly believe it is good and natural, part of God's design, to put your penis in another man's rectum? The rectum BLEEDS when you do this, because it is the OUT door, not the IN door. As a result, it is a very easy facilitor of serious disease. I'm sorry to be so graphic, but I find the argument that this is just fine and dandy incomprehensibly dim.
Finally, that statistics I cited about monogamy are from GAY-FRIENDLY sources. It is basically admitted that homosexuals do NOT practice real monogamy...even by Andrew Sullivan, for goodness sake. They desire to remake the definitions.
You may be right that these things are coming to pass, at least in certain places. But I am not so sure. There are rumblings of protest. We will see.
But if they do come to pass, it will only be a sign that this world is "passing away", moving toward the inevitable apostasy both Chirst and St. Paul spoke of.
There may also be a day when pedophilia is not considered "disordered"....the APA is already making that case. Good for you, Grega. Keep marching on in lockstep...but you will do it without orthodox Catholics.
Commenting by HaloScan
