I got a junk-mail advertisement for this and threw it away. Didn't realize who it was from. Disappointing.
Whatever this guy is taking I want some; maybe if I and a couple of others take it, then I don't have to turn in some homework for a while. I could say with all seriousness, "Yes Father, the dog ate it."
And the mainstream American denominations continue to spin like a helicopter with its rear rotor shot off. I wonder if the book quotes the guy who "proves" 9/11 was an inside job by pouring kerosine over his model WTC tower made of cinderblocks and rabbit-cage wire.
okay....
May I play devil's advocate?
Can anyone here prove this lunatic wrong?
I'm not trying to bring down fire and brimstone upon myself, and I certainly don't accept such theories, but there are some hereabouts who accept similarly silly premises in regard to the need for reform in the Church.
See, says Kathy, there's no reason except prejudice and inertia, so girls serving at the altar must be a good thing.
See, says Grega, you guys are all just patriarchal, prejudiced dead white men, so we should let the pew peasants decide when and how to ordain women, allow contraception.
See, says Ralph Roister-Doister ( with, I must admit, a more convincing, but still unconvincing argument): the chaos around us is all the fault of the modernists.
See, says Fr. O'Leary, whenever he finds a non-blocked computer: prejudice against gays is going to be another Galileo. Why can't we learn from the Anglicans. [Why we would want to be a Church of the Wealthy but ever shrinking population is a mystery].
THank you, Philip, for bringing the lunatic American fringe to our attention in this article. What response should we mount in response to this?
"I'm not trying to bring down fire and brimstone upon myself, and I certainly don't accept such theories, but there are some hereabouts who accept similarly silly premises in regard to the need for reform in the Church."
I'm confused. The note is about a silly book about 9/11. You are not talking about that, though. You are talking about "the need for reform in the Church".
Ok, what is your point about that? That there is no need for it? That there is, but Kathy, Grega, Ralph, and Fr Joe have all misdiagnosed the problem, hence their suggestions for reform are suspect? What do you mean by "reform", anyway?
Then we're back to the "lunatic American fringe". Are we still talking about "the need for reform in the Church"? Or are we talking about David Ray Griffin, who is American and seems loony enough? Or are we talking about the fact that liberal protestantism is setting about marginalizing itself with ever more ingenious strategies (which, I would think, is PP's real topic here)?
The notion that most interests me is the assertion that America is the world's chief dynamo of "demonic power". There is more substance to that assertion than to all of Griffin's others put together: the "Great Satan" is not the USA, but he is certainly a player within the USA, as he is within the brutal, malevolent world of Islam (a world no less addicted to power than the gluttonous corporate Moloch Islamists demonize).
So what exactly is the devil's advocate advocating?
If the devil's advocate (or anyone else) is looking for a convincing demolition of Griffin's conspiracy theory (and most others) from a scientific viewpoint, he might check the following:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/...se/
1227842.html
Unfortunately it's really impossible to convince a conspiracy theorist he is wrong, because something else is going on with his thinking process than a commitment to truth, so they won't be swayed by evidence or logical or scientific arguments and proofs.
Jordan,
Chris didn't say anything about proving it to the conspiracy theorist. He said only "can anyone here prove this lunatic wrong?" We probably cannot prove to the lunatic who thinks he is Napoleon that he is merely a lunatic. It is enough that he does not convince us that he is Napoleon.
Chris is attempting to draw some kind of parallel between certain hard-charging commentators on this blog (including one whom I know to be absolutely brilliant), and the "American lunatic fringe". I eagerly await his expansion of the point.
I interpreted his comment as asking why some are dismissing the 9/11 theories as lunatic and yet interacting with arguments calling for women priests and the reversal of the teaching on contraception as if they deserved a hearing.
I appreciate Scott's help. I've been working on low brain power recently. If I had been more focused, I would have put it as succinctly as he did.
Apologies if I offended anyone.
"Chris didn't say anything about proving it to the conspiracy theorist. He said only 'can anyone here prove this lunatic wrong?'"
Yes, and I, like you, wasn't sure what his point was, so I figured I would just wait for Chris to explain, while in the mean time posting my comment in response to your own comment on the excellent Popular Mechanics debunking of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
I'm glad Scott helped Chris explain his point better. I would say the reason we interact with the kooks who believe in priestesses and disabling the human reproductive system is because, unlike the 9/11 conspiracy kooks who are just a fringe minority -- definitely way out of the mainstream -- in our culture and in the Church the modernist kooks are a significant chunk of Catholics, and hence must be confronted and their ideas defeated.
in our culture and in the Church the modernist kooks are a significant chunk of Catholics, and hence must be confronted and their ideas defeated.
Or as I like to say, they provide an opportunity for proper catechisis. 
I am going to suggest that the modernist kooks are few, but very vocal and always the first people the MSM calls for Catholic commentary. This gets us into the question of why didn't JPII DO something about those dissidents. I'll go out on a limb and say that he prudently recognized that their days were numbered and rather than give them the attention which they thrive on, ignore them and let them die a natural and well-deserved death. Yeah, they can do damage to the faithful, but I am astounded by the swarms of younger catholics coming up that thirst for orthodoxy.
Let me expand on the point, just slightly. We [me included] have ourselves advanced some pretty kookie ideas. Why do we raise them ourselves when we dismiss this lunatic as exactly that? On the other hand, perhaps we do this to establish SOMETHING as beyond the pale. Do we return to my concept of needing to prove that something is intended to be satire?
"I would say the reason we interact with the kooks who believe in priestesses and disabling the human reproductive system is because, unlike the 9/11 conspiracy kooks who are just a fringe minority -- definitely way out of the mainstream -- in our culture and in the Church the modernist kooks are a significant chunk of Catholics, and hence must be confronted and their ideas defeated.
Jordan Potter | 09.22.06 - 1:10 am | #"
I appreciate the sentiment Mr. Potter and trust that you recognize that on the question of contraception for example the vast majority of folks during their reproductive years very much utilize the full arsenal of options - IMHO this cat is well out of it's back and will never ever go back in.
Society is solidly pushing safe sex and all safe birth control methods for very good and rationale reasons.
Same goes for the question of female Priests - which as you know many christian and jewish denominations answered differently than our church.
Some have married clergy, we all seem to have plenty of homosexuals within the ranks.
A word like 'modernist kooks' does not describe it correctly at all. Unless you guys want to patt each other on the back verbally so to speak for being such wonderful obedient and enlightened catholics.
Last I checked plenty of the 'enlightened' have just as hard of a time accepting the Popes words if they happen to go against conservative pet issues - no capital punishment - no agressive war - United Nations - catholic social teaching etc.
We all seem rather selective in our own ways - that does not make us 'kooks' per se if you ask me.
This is not to say that there are plenty good reasons to have your and the catholic churchs position on the raised issues.
Try to be tollerant with us 'modernist kooks' if you can once in a while.
Grega:
Jordan's, Ralph's, Philip's and mine are opinions of absolutely no consequence at all if and when they disagree with anything taught by Holy Mother Church. This is true of your opinion, too. You are right to castigate us when we disagree with settled Church doctrine. It would only be credible, however, if you could abide in recognition of the same standard. See: you want the standard to change. He who insists on obedience, but doesn't practice it but rather flaunts disobedience and disregard for the truth can't exactly call to account those who are striving to be obedient, succeed or fail.
Chris:
You are very correct I am not the one around here that is in position to sniff around for obedient or disobedient behavior. I gladly let you guys 'police' yourself - seems to me that left to your own apparently acceptable level of absolutism and intolerance you shred each other to pieces in no time if the right issue comes around.
Not even a rather stern and solidly conservative Pope like the recent one can quite life up to the deep running 'we know exactly what our church needs - Vatican II was such a disaster' torrents that tear through most of your guys thoughts.
I could be wrong but I have the impression that our church by definition can never renounce as fundamental of a change as Vatican II certainly was.
Thus I have no illusion about the fact that our church will not very easy change the named issues anytime soon.
Quite frankly most of us are indeed not holding our breath for Rome to allow us to do this or that -
But most certainly our church is already compromising stern absolute positions:
'Natural family planning' is just the low tech version of birth control. For me philosophically the breach is there - we as humans assume control of the number and spacing of our children.
Regarding Female Priests:
I do not have to rub your nose into it but as you know Altar girls and all kinds of females are hopping around the altar these days. They lead the congregations in singing, are giving communion and in general seem rather active participants in parish life- which I happen to find just wonderful.
Look at our church - this is the religion thatallowed the Virgin Mary to consistantly gain in status (due to popular demand in my view) throughout our 2000 year history - to the point that we have a de facto female goddess( excuse my frankness). Good again in my view.
I certainly have experience through the example of my mother and father how important particular worship to the Virgin Mary is for most of us Catholics and particular for women.
Thank you, Grega, for your eloquent testimony. You prove the level of sickness, self-immolation which paralyzes the Church in our own day.
What further need have we of witnesses?
Chris:
Thanks for the backhanded compliment – it would be nice if you tried to see something positive once in a while - otherwise real life in this modern society will get awfully tedious.
If it makes you feel better certainly keep calling the majority of Catholics and others around you ‘sick’ - if you ask me you make it awfully hard for yourself to appreciate the positive aspects that most everybody also has and that our Lord encourages us to seek in each other.
Commenting by HaloScan
