You wrote that his election shattered the American Episcopal church. Y'know, it's even more than that -- his election has precipitated damage throughout the worldwide Anglican communion. Not that there weren't problems before, but most Africans, many Asians and some South Americans took that as a major, major slap in the face, and it was an effective Rubicon moment.
I find it ironic that you're lumping all "religious conservatives" under one umbrella. Not all of us think Rick Warren is an adequate choice. He speaks only for a denatured, generic Christianity. Why wasn't a Catholic Cardinal chosen to offer an invocation? And why didn't it occur to anyone that that was an omission?
I find it ironic that you're lumping all "religious conservatives" under one umbrella.
He's not, the Family Research Council is: that's how FRC talks.
Pastor Warren's decision to give an invocation at the inauguration probably didn't do him any favors with most "religious conservatives," Protestant or Catholic. If it had occurred to Obama to invite a Cardinal, and the Cardinal had accepted, people would be kind of looking askance at that too. It kind of smacks of a sellout or like one is giving one's approval or blessing -- I'm not saying it is a sellout, etc., just that it kind of has that appearance.
A cardinal would probably fit in quite well with Robinson, unfortuantely. Group hugs all-round.
I have no idea of what I would do if I was a religious put in that position ie: being invited to pray at the inauguration. I would probably go because they are praying for the "office" as well as the President, and we should do that.
My problem would be that I would be tempted to get up and say, "Dear Lord, help this pagan reprobate who thinks killing babies and old people is a good thing, to see the light and save himself from eternal damnation."
As to having Robinson?? What an obvious bone to throw to the homosexuals and they are too stupid to see it for the insult it really is. We have become so pathetic as a nation!
Can one be a homosexual and a eunuch at the same time?
He has the sweetest "no trubba fum me, boss" smile, so befitting the modern cleric.
First Came Thomism.
Then Came Transcendental Thomism.
Now Comes Uncle Thomism.
I don't know exactly what courses you teach at the seminary, PP, but here are some subjects for student papers:
The Whimper as a Catechetical Tool
Invisible Man: a New Approach to Ecumenism and Catechetics
No More Missionary Position! No More!: Innovative Postures in the Cultural Dialogue
Ah Sunflower hat! Weary of dogma . . .
Joe,
Your comment is completely uncalled for. Is this just more of your constant "Catholic anti-Catholicism"? Because it's getting more than a bit tedious. And it's also more than a bit ironic that while you can't ever think of a good thing to say about Catholicism, your putative faith, you can always find something good to say about evangelicalism, the one you left behind. Curious, actually.
Garrison Keillor clearly has his finger on the pulse of the Episcopal Church.
Are you sure "joe" is the Joe you're thinking of, Randy? It's hard to be sure who is who with internet screen names.
But whoever "joe" is, you do seem to be kind of touchy about Catholics, especially converts from evangelical heresy, having positive things to say (or merely seeming to have positive things to say) about evangelicals or evangelicalism. Hopefully you've not got a bit of Anti-Evangelicalism.
Jordanes,
Since my comment was not addressed to you, I don't have to justify it to you. But in the interests of a wider subject, I'll say the following. Many converts (and I survey enough blogs to know) are hypercritical of the Church. They bitch and moan about everything - large and small, important or not. The impression I get from these comments is that converts are indulging in the very "Catholic anti-Catholicism" to which I referred. It's always made me wonder about mental reservations among those who hop from denomination to denomination and, sometimes, to Catholicism, complaining all the way. By the time they reach Catholicism, they've usually sojourned in two (or more) denominations, sometimes worlds apart theologically, and can't seem to make up their minds about what it is they are after.
It's one reason I always caution my students about "Catholic" weblogs. I tell them the content and comments are mostly the equivalent of gossip and casual conversations, mixed with less-than-reputable "facts." Mostly, it's just people letting off steam, usually noxious steam.
I'd like my students to learn "facts," but also to learn respect and deference for their forebears in the Communion of Saints as well as the Holy Father, priests, and bishops. After reading a few of the comments (here and elsewhere), offered by supposedly "devout Catholics," it's difficult to understand why such people stay in the Church, let alone waste their time on its "problems."
Randy,
Are you talking about Catholics who support Obama? Personally, I don't see how any Catholic suffused with "respect and deference for [his] forebears in the Communion of Saints as well as the Holy Father, priests, and bishops" could vote for a weasel like that. Don't you think? Makes evangelicals look like cradle Catholics by comparison!
Randy,
I joined the Church because I could not escape the fact of her Truthfulness. I am wistful for the superior body life of Evangelicalism and for its--on the local and talking head levels-- clearer and more courageous proclamation of the reality of sin and of sexual morality because--again--I think that is the truth of the matter. My cardinal jab was uncalled for, so I'll apologize, but my bitterness over the lousy of condition of things I think every but justified. Thus I imagine I'll continue to annoy you.
Joe
Joe
Ralph,
No, I wasn't talking about Catholics who support Obama. Obviously. I was talking about the ordinary Catholics (and there are many of them) who are deeply faithful and who don't deserve the kind of character assassination and ridicule that I read on these blogs. Most Catholics don't comment on blogs or are even aware of these blogs. And they do their best to live up to the teaching of the Church.
People are misled by blogs generally. Their following are equivalent to the number of people who watch MSNBC - miniscule. Even the large political blogs have relatively small followings. Religious blogs are much smaller. They are vocal, therefore they get coverage. Ever checked the circulation numbers for NCR or Commonweal? Miniscule. Yet, these are the people who are interviewed by the MSM. They don't reflect the views of the ordinary Catholic. Same with blogs. The vituperation of many of the Catholic blogs, many run by disaffected converts, who think they know better than the leadership of the Church, distorts the landscape. Then add the snarky comments.
Joe,
You're just a whiner. I run into this kind of comment all the time from converts: they acknowledge the "truth" of the Church, then they go on to bitch and moan about the Church nonstop. Of course, you didn't acknowledge the utter clarity of Papal teaching on sin and sexual morality, which has been consistent through the ages, as well as Papal clarity on other aspects of Church teaching. There are many fine priests and bishops who are equally forthright on these issues - perhaps not yours, but you can't argue purely anecdotally.
I think you just like to complain. You liked the "fellowship" of evangelicalism. But you never acknowledge the problems in evangelicalism, which are legion. Self-identified evangelicals are just as likely to engage in pre-marital sex, abortion, divorce, etc., as anyone else. There is evidence that younger evangelicals are now prepared to accept same-sex marriage. Their much-talked-about fellowship is largely a myth. Many of their programs have been revealed as failures (take Willow Creek, for examples) and many don't go beyond a sort of "Jesus religion," which is hardly a Trinitarian faith, but more of a historical Jesus buddy system. There's no sacramental sense and no idea of a cosmic faith. Evangelicals pick and choose from the "Great Tradition" with no integration of its elements.
You can complain all you want, but you don't sound like you've even tried to delve into Catholicism, especially the liturgy, and appreciate its depths. Stop the whining and do some real work.
"No, I wasn't talking about Catholics who support Obama. Obviously."
Well, not so obviously. If you are talking about "Catholics" who are so ignorant of their faith, and so indifferent toward its moral teachings, that they enthusiastically lend their support to a man who is scornful of their tradition while using its posturings to advance his career, then I would think that you would have to at least give them a mention in your zeal to silence Catholic "critics".
Let me say that I agree with you about evangelicals. Protestants have generally made eunuchs of themselves. If you happen by the TCT network, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what you see there from QVC or some bonehead C & W cable station (Not that EWTN is that much better). But if both protestant social clubs and the Catholic church have serious problems, the answer, whether you are a convert or not, is to speak up about it, not ignore it, or suffer in silence. There is a school of thought which puts politeness and accentuation of the positive above all things, but IMO you don't strike me as a student of that school, since most of your comments on this blog have been essentially negative.
I would also say that the real threat to the Church from converts comes not from the "whiners", but from those who zealously peddle scraps of Rahner, the nouvelles, and all of the crowd resurrected by V2, in their own silly populist -- and sometimes rather profitable -- ways, thus contributing to the general degradation.
Ralph,
I think you grievously overestimate the number of Catholics who follow Obama.
And I'm not particularly zealous to "silence" Catholic critics. I would just caution them to remember that other people read the nonsense and frequently shallow stuff they spew and some of these people are young. And the number of factual errors should also be taken in account, too. Some of them are spotted by undergraduates, giving the lie to your statement that Catholics don't know their faith.
I think whiners are a problem. Since you're one of them, you obviously don't see the problem. If all you do is bitch and moan, that becomes an end in itself. But the point of Catholicism is not to sit in judgment of others all the time, but sometimes to be happy that you're Catholic. I can understand, to some extent, the frustration of some of the old, grandpa types like yourself, who have endured endless insults from some of those who think they are enlightened. But converts, who have gone to some trouble to enter the Church, are a mystery to me. They remind me of the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia who didn't wait 24 hours after they were freed from communism to begin killing each other. No appreciation for freedom, they got right to hating and killing. Just like you and Joe never take any joy in Catholicism, but get right to kvetching.
Most Catholics don't comment on blogs or are even aware of these blogs. And they do their best to live up to the teaching of the Church.
Actually there's no way to deny that most Catholics don't do their best to live up to the teaching of the Church. Most rarely if ever go to Mass. But then Jesus said the way to eternal life is narrow and difficult, and few find it -- most opt for the easy road to perdition.
And Randy, I hope you can see the irony in whining, bitching and moaning baout whiners, bitchers and moaners.
"About," that is.
Jordanes,
You have no warrant for anything you've written. When you say most Catholics opt for perdition, you are actually placing yourself on that very road with that remark. How would you know?
And by the way, some of your comments have been pointed out to me by students as having a fairly high error quotient.
Read more carefully, Randy. I didn't say "few Catholics opt for perdition." I cited the words of Our Lord, who wasn't just talking about Catholics, and I also said "most opt for the easy road to perdition," not "most opt for perdition." If you can't see the huge difference between what I said and what you said I said, then you might want to consider carefully what you might be teaching your students.
How would I know that when Jesus says few people find the road to eternal life, that means few people find the road to eternal life? By faith in Jesus. And if reiterating what Jesus said places one on the road to perdition, then truly few if any of us can be saved.
Jesus also said, "Judge (i.e. condemn) not lest ye be judged," and I'm concerned that you're sidling dangerously close to doing that with Joe and Ralph.
Again, I'm puzzled that you seem to be unaware of what study after study has shown about Catholics knowing and practicing their faith, including how often they come to Mass. It's well less than half of adult U.S. Catholics who come to Sunday Mass regularly, and the numbers are even worse in Europe. So, given what we know about concupiscence, and keeping in mind what Jesus says about most humans failing to find the difficult path, and that we are to accuse ourselves as unprofitable servants when we have accomplished everything that God requires of us, it is impossible to establish that most Catholics are doing their very best to follow what the Church teaches.
Finally, your closing assertion that "some of your comments have been pointed out to me by students as having a fairly high error quotient" isn't really of any use. We know nothing of how qualified your students are to offer such an opinion, nor for that matter can we trust that you can make a similar judgment. Unless you give some actual examples of my allegedly erroneous comments, in practical terms it amounts to nothing more than a parting shot.
Uh, errr, that should be, "I didn't say, 'Most Catholics opt for perdition.'"
I readily admit to a "fairly high error quotient" in terms of typos . . .
"grievously overestimate the number of Catholics who follow Obama"
Where did I put a number on it? Since you bring it up, though, I think a very compelling case can be made that Obama owes his victory to the Catholic vote. Hispanics mostly from western states and Reagan democrats from northeastern states made it all possible.
I think if I whined about Joe, evangelicals, and other things you don't like, Randy, you might be more inclined to celebrate my scintillating powers of analysis than you are. I don't believe you cruise Catholic blogs as officiously as you do because you long to witness demonstrations of Catholic happiness, but because you want to whine about whiners who whine to a different drummer.
Here's a question which I've noticed you have avoided so far: can you imagine any justification whatsoever for an informed Catholic to vote for Obama?
" the old, grandpa types like yourself"
What a strange thing for a total stranger to say, Randy. Nod, wink.
Jordanes,
Here's what you wrote: "most opt for the easy road to perdition." Clear enough? You have no way of knowing that. Nor does you use of statistical surveys prove anything. Statistics can be made to prove anything.
The errors my students mentioned weren't typos. They were statements of "fact," at least fact as you perceive it. Your answer to "Abraham, our father in faith," was one such howler. Even my graduate students, who normally disdain blogs, laughed out loud at that one.
Ralph,
I never said there was any justification for a Catholic to vote for anyone, including Obama. This only proves what I tell my students about the quality of respondents on Catholic blogs. They can't argue about anything without distorting the very terms of their "opponents." They're one-note ideologues who bring every issue back to their own fixations.
As usual, you have no proof that Catholics made the difference in any vote. You just throw a lot of mud around.
Well, you never said it under the name "Randy", at least.
Teacher wobbles on pedestal; "grad students" bleat helplessly
"As usual, you have no proof that Catholics made the difference in any vote. You just throw a lot of mud around."
http://www.latimes.com/news/
opin...,6548041.column
It's an article of faith in U.S. politics that, when it comes to the popular vote at least, Catholics determine the winners in our presidential contests.
In fact, with the notable exception of George W. Bush eight years ago, no candidate in recent memory has entered the White House without securing a majority of the votes cast by Catholics, who now make up more than a fourth of the U.S. population.
http://www.sentinel.org/node/9593
"An estimated 54 percent of voters who describe themselves as Catholic helped elect Sen. Barack Obama Tuesday as the first African-American president.
"That’s a significant boost for Democrats since 2004, when it was President Bush who carried Catholics at 52 percent. This year, young Latino Catholics helped Obama take key battleground states."
http://www.catholic.org/politics...ry.php?
id=30450
"More than half of U.S. Catholics voted Tuesday for a presidential candidate at odds with the Church's stance on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, despite the urging of more than 50 heads of dioceses to support pro-life candidates"
I find it ironic that you're lumping all "religious conservatives" under one umbrella. Not all of us think Rick Warren is an adequate choice. He speaks only for a denatured, generic Christianity.
True, but he does have good moments like when Ann Curry (sp?) asked if he would change his mind about homosexuality if science discovered gays were born that way (it was clear she wanted to say that they ARE born that way and we are all just waiting for the scientific verification)--he said no, he was born with a disposition to have sex with every beautiful woman he saw, but that doesn't make it right.
I note that most media clips leave this little nugget of liberal face pwning out.
Randy I like much of what you have to say. The numbers of Catholics that voted for Obama are not all that mysterious - I read mostly numbers around 55 to 60%. Good for us Catholics.
Well big deal if the conservative bloggers of this world get bend out of shape over it.
Politically the Blossers and alike have not gotten it right for a decade. Theses are the folks that rather create fancy websites as excuses for unjust wars and 'torture'.
Oh well. Freedom of speech.
But in my view whiners they are not - they just call it as they see it - agree or disagree.
Black Jesus Inauguration Day!
Lecherous old coward suffers seizure of happiness, says Obama spokesman!
Katy Couric in throes of thirty-minute on-air orgasm!
Aretha Franklin afflicted with bizarre protruberance from skull!
Redeemer-of-Us-All advises people to forget all that "change" stuff: the next four years are going to suck like a $1000 Electrolux regardless.
"The numbers of Catholics that voted for Obama are not all that mysterious - I read mostly numbers around 55 to 60%"
Grega, are you throwing mud too??
The numbers are "mysterious" only to Randy, who seems to believe that no proof exists that "Catholics made the difference in any vote" -- a belief that is as blissfully naive and illogical as his claims of superior knowledge on virtually every topic to which he turns his olympian attention are pompous and self-inflated.
Here's what you wrote: "most opt for the easy road to perdition." Clear enough? You have no way of knowing that.
Yes I do -- I just have to believe what Jesus said.
Nor does you use of statistical surveys prove anything. Statistics can be made to prove anything.
No, not anything. They sure can't be made to prove that most Catholics today are just waiting to die so they can be straightaway canonised.
The errors my students mentioned weren't typos. They were statements of "fact," at least fact as you perceive it. Your answer to "Abraham, our father in faith," was one such howler. Even my graduate students, who normally disdain blogs, laughed out loud at that one.
Ah, I'd forgotten all about that exchange -- this month has been pretty hectic. Still smarting from that one, eh? You objected that I was pedantic, but then your statements were imprecise at best, and you did not establish that anything I said was factually in error.
Boy Ralph - quite some verbal Jazz (perhaps Rap is the better term)you blurted above.
Your Black Jesus moniker is BS and you know it.
Otherwise, you must be in heaven - likely you have plenty of targets for your deep seated lust for the negative for decades to come - man the places you can go verbally -
over the years perhaps be careful not to turn into an old man who suffers delightful seizures of negativity - sorry honestly no insult intended.
Keep it up - what a joy to read.
Commenting by HaloScan
