Mark P. Shea's Blog, page 1332

On the bright side...

...the Minnesota press also published this.

Minnesota Pol picks invokes Good Friday...

...to spring to the defense of Planned Parenthood.

Cool Beirut Easter Flash Mob

Happy and Glorious Easter!

[image error]

Jesus Christ has defeated death. Everything else is small beer.  Let us rejoice and be glad!

Lefties Bravely Beat Up a Child With Down's Syndrome

Chris Johnson does the autopsy on Wonkette's post-human ethos and the self-pitying bullies who run the site. It's been a long time since I've seen something to equal the contemptible behavior of Wonkette, except of course for the equally contemptible behavior of Louis CK and Opie and Anthony.

One of the many marks of a culture in radical decline is when the comics stop doing their job of making fun of the powerful and begin to make fun of the weak instead. As is always the case with human beings in the grip of evil, such cowardice always attempts to portray itself as courage ("Look at me! I'm edgy!"). The fitting rejoinder to such comics is, of course, other comics who still remember what their job is (NSFW):



Also, some spit in the face and being pelted with mud can be salutary should these creatures show their faces in public, combined with a complete withdrawal of *all* advertising revenue and lots of public shame and humiliation. Finally (assuming these measures spark some penitence in these hardened and cruel hearts) the reminder that there is abundant forgiveness and pardon in the crucified and risen Christ can turn even such vile bullies as these into saints.

So....

Any Gaia worship at your parish this weekend? Nothing to report at this end except the normal Dominican liturgical gorgeousness. I love my parish and am so grateful for it! Thanks be to God!

I did hear that one pastor had this to say:

Our profession of faith begins with the words: "We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth". If we omit the beginning of the Credo, the whole history of salvation becomes too limited and too small. The Church is not some kind of association that concerns itself with man's religious needs but is limited to that objective. No, she brings man into contact with God and thus with the source of all things. Therefore we relate to God as Creator, and so we have a responsibility for creation. Our responsibility extends as far as creation because it comes from the Creator. Only because God created everything can he give us life and direct our lives. Life in the Church's faith involves more than a set of feelings and sentiments and perhaps moral obligations. It embraces man in his entirety, from his origins to his eternal destiny. Only because creation belongs to God can we place ourselves completely in his hands. And only because he is the Creator can he give us life for ever. Joy over creation, thanksgiving for creation and responsibility for it all belong together.

No word yet on whether anybody will be resigning from his Church today in protest over all this sinister pagan environmentalism. I suspect not.

How would you answer this?

I like you Dale and I love your Chesterton program and I love Chesterton. But I disagree totally with your interpretation of Catholic teaching about birth control and abortion and if Chesterton and every Pope who ever lived agrees with you then I disagree with them too. The fact is you cannot have a viable society if you ignore the laws of biology, human sexuality and economics. And while it is true that our hedonist culture has glaring flaws, mostly caused by people who do not have any moral foundation – who are dishonest. But if you do away with contraception and abortion what you will have is universal misery. Apparently that is what you, Chesterton, and the Popes (if they agree with you, which I don't grant at all) want.

Because I'm inclined to answer it the same way I'd answer this.

Speaking of Crazy Marxists and Randians

So here's the thing: Rush Limbaugh is a big fan of Ayn Rand. That would be the Ayn Rand who says:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

It's that Ayn Rand who saw abortion as an absolute right more fanatically than Obama does.

It's that Ayn Rand who said, "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Now, because Limbaugh is a fan and Approved Conservative Media Organs like FOX are promoting a "Get Out the Vote" campaign for the awful film of Rand's awful novel, it is not surprising to note that a growing number of people in the Thing that Used to be Conservatism, including Christians, are attempting to square the circle by invoking this deeply anti-Christian lunatic as somehow compatible with the Christian faith. In this, they are something like the Liberation Theologians who wish to pretend that Marxism can be baptized and reconciled with the Faith. They are deeply and desperately wrong of course. Oh, to be sure, Rand (like all ideological nutcases) has a couple of good points (rather like Hitler had a good point when he said Germany got a raw deal at Versailles). But I would recommend neither Hitler nor Rand as a major formator of a healthy Christian worldview.

However, tribalism being what it is, Limbaugh and the growing cadre of people who give Rand a pass despite her icy pride, hatred of the Faith, contempt for the weak, zeal for abortion, and antichrist worship of Self, are not nearly so charitable to the people they have been taught to vilify as outside the Tribe of the Righteous. With Randians, we are urged to "eat the meat and spit out the bones." Fair enough. That's a Catholic attitude. Affirm was can be affirmed.

But when Obama gives an ordinary garden variety remark which reflects ordinary garden variety Christian piety--"I wanted to host this breakfast for a simple reason--because as busy as we are, as many tasks as pile up, during this season, we are reminded that there's something about the resurrection--something about the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ, that puts everything else in perspective."--Limbaugh thinks nothing at all of ridiculing that statement

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, President Barack Obama, peace be upon him, praise be his name, commenting on Easter at the Easter prayer breakfast at the White House yesterday. There's just something about the Resurrection that puts everything else in perspective, like, what, tax cuts are no big deal, tax increases are no big deal? When you start thinking about the Resurrection, you know, socialism, not that important to me. What does he mean? What is it about the Resurrection that puts everything else? He said something about it. What about it?"

I've just never heard [the Resurrection] discussed this way. When he discusses the call to prayer in the Muslim world as being one of the sweetest sounds in the world, I mean that's an eloquent way to describe the Muslim call to prayer. Here we're talking the Resurrection. There's something about that....

You know, after hearing him describe it that way, I'm actually surprised that Obama doesn't think of Easter as the day a big rabbit comes out of his hole and, depending on whether he sees his shadow or not, tells us if we're in for a long winter.

Yes. Clearly, when Obama says that Jesus Christ has conquered death, he can *only* mean that everybody should ignore US tax policy. It's all bone and no meat, because Obama, the quintessence of evil in the universe, is saying it. He can't mean, oh, what all the rest of believing Christians mean: that the conquest of death is of much greater moment than the stuff that consumes our media chatter--including the media chatter of Rush Limbaugh.

It will be interesting to see if Christians will choose to go along with Limbaugh and ridicule belief in the Resurrection just because Obama said he believes it. It will be interesting to see if a single caller to his show is permitted to say, as Ann Althouse said to her great credit, "Good Lord, let it go!"

Me: if Obama calls Jesus "Lord and Savior" and professes to believe the Resurrection, I think the sensible thing to do is take him at his word.

That does, of course, entail abandoning the cherished (and spreading) wingnut conspiracy theory that he is secretly a Muslim (cuz, y'know, Muslims ain't really keen on calling Jesus "Lord"). And it might even mean giving up the notion (just illustrated by Limbaugh's petty response) that he is the pure distillation of all evil in the universe such that any proposition affirmed by him is, ipso facto, false and contemptible. Indeed, it might even involve reflecting on whether it's a great idea to always take one's spiritual signals from a movement that is increasingly coming to hail Rand as a genius.

No, that doesn't mean giving Obama a pass on his immense failings just because he calls himself a Christian. It merely means *not* reflexively giving a pass to Randian Christians (and Limbaugh is a Christian) merely because they hate Obama and take anything, including a confession of Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, as an occasion for contempt for the guy. Even lousy presidents are right when they hail Jesus as Lord and proclaim his resurrection.

Conservative Christians have been wigging out about the influence of Saul Alinsky on Obama for years. Fair enough. I agree we should be cautious about accepting guidance from a consequentialist like Alinsky. So when will these same Christians likewise question the influence of Ayn Rand on Limbaugh and the various people giving marching orders to the viewers of FOX. Marx isn't the only Antichrist. Sometimes she wears a skirt.

That's not to say I don't think Limbaugh a Christian. I do. I think him a deeply muddled one, like Obama.

The Trouble with Catholic Social Teaching

A terrific little piece by Dale Ahlquist, full of common sense that baffles sectarians in the Land Where There are Only Two Sides to Every Question:

The old economic models no longer work. In order to have a just society we need to act with principles other than economic profit. This is a theme repeated by Chesterton throughout his writings. It is also a theme repeated in the writings of a small group of men who dealt with the subject before, during, and after the time that Chesterton wrote about it. This group has consisted entirely of Popes. The writings were the encyclicals on Catholic Social Teaching. The latest installment is Caritas in Veritate ("Love in Truth") from Pope Benedict XVI.

Mammon, the one real alternative to God, has always had a robust following, but never more so than in the modern world, where, as the new encyclical points out, the amount of overall wealth has increased but so has the disparity between the rich and the poor.

The Pope says, "Every economic decision has a moral consequence." He echoes the phrase, "distributive justice," which was used by his predecessors and gave rise to the social philosophy of Distributism, which was espoused by Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Fr. Vincent McNabb, and others. And like these other great thinkers and great men of principle, Benedict does not confine his treatment of social issues to mere economics. He touches upon technology, ecology, and education−the whole human person. He affirms the Church's teaching on life, which means not only the right to be born, but truly the right to live, to enjoy the wonders of creation, to eat and breathe, to work and play and worship.

The reaction to the latest encyclical? Parts of it were welcomed by some but winced at by others – and vice versa. Political agendas always come up narrower than the ministry of the universal Church.

People of all faiths, in spite of their doctrinal differences, have generally been encouraged when the Catholic Church takes a stand for religious belief. In a skeptical and materialistic age, the social encyclicals seem to garner the widest attention because everyone is interested in seeing how the Church will adjust to the trends of the modern world. However, it is arguable that there has never been a real surprise in any papal encyclical. The Pope simply affirms the truths the Church has always affirmed. The encyclicals are needed only because the world changes, not because the truth changes. The world needs to be refreshed by the truth. For instance, in 1968, the only surprise of Humane Vitae was that the Church was not going to give into the world. Lust is still wrong. Now, in 2009, the only surprise of Caritas in Veritate was that the Church was not going to give into the world. Greed is still wrong.

Read the whole thing. Chesterton (and Ahlquist) remain sane in a world of crazy Marxists and Randians.

Hey Western Washington!

Here's where I'll be tonight!

April 25 7:00 PM Wine and Wisdom. The Kells, Seattle, WA. Topic: 101 Reasons Not to Be Catholic. Contact: David Larson. Phone: 206-274-3129.

Hope to see you there!