Mark P. Shea's Blog, page 1359

A reader writes...

I was hoping you could give me some guidance. I've been looking to pick up a book that explains the history of the Catholic Church/Christian faith. Could you pass along a good recommendation? Something that give a balanced accurate account.

Ascension Press has a nifty DVD series called "Epic".

Also, Paul Johnson has a nice one volume History of Christianity.

A reader writes...

I am doing a contemporary issues project about the modern day Catholic Church and some problems it faces for my English III AP class. As an insightful and entertaining Catholic writer, I hope that you can answer some questions that I will state below. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,

1. Do you believe women should be ordained into the Catholic priesthood?

The question is not whether they should be, but whether they can be. And the Church has already given its answer: She lacks the authority to do that in the sacrament of Holy Orders, just as she lacks the authority to consecrate chocolate eclairs and milk (which I would much prefer) in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The faith is not the private property of the Pope which he is free to alter on a whim. Jesus and the apostles never ordained women, just as they never baptised in olive oil or wine (though they do use these elements in other sacraments). We can't improve on what they handed down. For more on this from me, go here.

2. Would making priests non-celibate reduce the amount of sex crimes among priests?

Has making public school teachers non-celibate (and female) done that? The sex crime percentages there are much higher.

3.Are Protestants correct when they say that mortal and venial sins are anti-Biblical?

No. Here's why.

4. How is Catholicism unique among other Christian sects?

By not being a sect but the Church Christ founded circa 33 AD.

5. Does science disprove religion? What are your views on scientism?

Science cannot possibly disprove religion. You may as well say that science can use a telescope to scan the face of God for warts or burn a sample of Hitler's hair and release the green fumes of mortal sin for chemical analysis. Science measures time, space, matter and energy. That's it. That's all. Science sucks at dealing with any reality beyond this, such as as "How much do you love your daughter?" or "What is the meaning of the Mona Lisa?" or "How do you know your wife is faithful to you?" or "What is justice and beauty?" There are vast realms of this world that are a closed book to science, let alone the next world.That, by the way, summarizes my answer to your second question: namely, that scientism is one of the many reductionist ideologies of our time that attempt to take all of human experience and cram it into some tiny All Explaining Theory of Everything like "Everything is Class Struggle" (Marxism), "Everything is Profit and Loss" (Capitalism), "Everything is Natural Selection" (Evolutionism), "Everything is Race or Gender or Language as Power, etc." For some narrow minded people "Everything is Science". Such people imprison themselves in the clean well-lit cell of a single idea and are, as Chesterton says in Orthodoxy, mad men.

6. What are your views on the abundance of abortion in the modern world? Can the pro-life movement make a difference?

My views on the abundance of abortion in this world are much like views of most people about the abundance of murder in this world. In answer to your second question, not only *can* the prolife movement do something, it has been and is doing something. Every baby that has ever been born in a crisis pregnancy since Roe v. Wade owes his life to the prolife movement (and, of course, to the grace of Almighty God who inspires that movement).

7. Is Catholicism a repressive religion?

No. Catholicism is the most joyfully liberating thing I have ever encountered. The repression lies in a culture that constantly tells you what you may and may not think, say, and do. My culture tries to squeeze me into a box everyday. Standing alone against all the parties, shibboleths, tribes and code words is one thing: the Catholic faith which, as Chesterton says, alone can save you from the degrading slavery of being a child of your age and which, by the way, is the only thing that can get rid of my sins. If anything, what really terrifies most postmoderns about the Catholic Church is that her intellectual subtlety and freedom of thought is too terrifying for those who are only comfortable with slogans, catch phrases and simplistic labels.

8. Do you believe that the Church eventually accept homosexuality due to society's acceptance of the act?

If by "the act" you mean homogenital sex, then no: the Church will never accept it because it is unnatural, contrary to nature, and cannot be reconciled with Scripture or tradition. If by "homosexual" you mean the homosexual person who feels desires that are intrinsically disordered, then the answer is that the Church always has and always will accept such persons, just as she accepts persons like me, who likewise feel disordered desires in the area of another bodily appetite: eating.

The problem is not that homosexuals feel disordered desires. The problem is when the person with disordered desires demands that the Church and the world pretend those desires are not disordered.

Grace and Sin in the Small Things

A little meditation on the ways in which both God and the devil spend so much of their time in the little cracks and crevices of life.

How to Make Yourself Beloved at St. Blogs

Tip #1: When you suck up the oxygen in my comboxes by importing dumb disputes you have with other people on other blogs, be sure and try to drag the extremely busy Kevin Knight over at New Advent into the discussion by writing him (and cc'ing the target of your righteous ire--in this case, me):

Dear Mr. Knight:
I wanted to express some concern about a link you recently posted to a story on Mark Shea's blog. The article Mr. Shea wrote made reference to another article by Louis Berlanger, who looked back nearly 30 years and discovered that a group of psychologists and doctors advised that the "visionaries" of Medjugorje have their visions in front of a group of responsible priests "to eliminate any reinforcement of a suggestive type."

Without taking issue with the article, which I found lacking merit, I simply wanted to make you aware that Mr. Shea did not allow a free flow of conversation in his combox but made a point to immediately remove nearly all the posts that I wrote which offered a critique of his views or those of his readers who expressed views with which he agrees. Mr. Shea is clearly not interested in even correcting the misconceptions regarding Medjugorje that his readers post (I would be happy to provide you with examples of this, which he immediately deleted without offering any explanation). The discussion section of his website is filtered to the point that the readers are left with a carefully constructed and clearly biased viewpoint. Especially targeted for deletion were any comments whose point was to critique Mr. Shea's article or his comments. I find this behavior to be dishonest and I think it shows a lack of courage on Mr. Shea's part (it's ironic that his blog's subtitle is "Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!"--clearly a misnomer). It also demonstrates that Mr. Shea is not at all interested in getting to the truth regarding Medjugorje but only making sure that he his views are heard without serous critique. A chief concern of his is to ensure that the postings of anyone who expresses sound criticism and well constructed arguments against his views are quickly expunged without explanation. A few of my comments were left intact, however, the vast majority, especially those that took issue with the article, critiques Mr. Shea's writing or the mistakes and misunderstandings of his readers, were all immediately deleted. I will add that Mr. Shea refused my request to delete a message left by a reader, Elaine Spencer, which would be extremely insulting to the Virgin Mary if she is in fact proven to be appearing in Medjugorje. I did not think you would want to use your own website as a platform for such rude and intellectually dishonest behavior, especially when directed at the Mother of God. Given that you gave Mr. Shea's article a prime place on your website for two days, I would hope that you would think twice in the future before linking to another article by Mr. Shea, especially one regarding Medjugorje.

Kevin, I am sure, was thrilled to receive this. Nothing gives him more pleasure, I have no doubt, than the demand from a total stranger that he drop everything to adjudicate a complaint by a disgruntled comboxer who believes I owe him a platform. Indeed, everybody in St. Blog's undoubtedly feels that way and would be thrilled at the opportunity to forsake their busy lives in order to dance attendance on some guy who thinks I am somehow bound by some moral law to let him suck the oxygen out of my comboxes. If you have a crank cause you think I owe you a forum to talk about, please do be sure to CC, not just me, but every Catholic blogger and explain to them, in long (and hopefully repeated) letters, why it is so important that they drop everything and command me to hand the mike to you, the most important person in the world. Just for extra persuasiveness, tell them that the phrase, "So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!" actually means that no thought of *yours* should ever go unpublished again. And ignore them when, like me, they tell you that I don't owe you a forum and that if you want to bleat ASCII about your personal obsessions, then you should feel free to start your own blog.

Oy!

Andrew Sullivan Perfects His Charlie Sheen

"I know of no one in the MSM who has claimed that Trig is not biologically Palin's child. I certainly haven't." - Andrew Sullivan

As the kids say these days, "What the WTF?"

A reader writes:

I teach RCIA, and sometimes sit in on our Confirmation classes that are happening simultaneously. One of the ladies that teaches Confirmation began with an overview of the Marian Apparitions at Fatima. This was nice, but then she started talking about the consecration of Russia, which I had always read was done, and that Sr. Lucia and PJII confirmed this in writing. I mentioned this before she got further, and she basically just sort of ignored me. She also said something to the effect that the Church affirms that we are "obligated" by the messages of these Apparitions. I know we are not bound by private revelation, but she called this "public revelation" even. I'm not sure she knows what she's saying.

I'm really uncomfortable with this. I know that there is a fringe element with the Church that believes that the institutional Church is covering-up the "true" third secret, and that the consecration was not valid, despite the statements of Sr. Lucia and JPII. The implications of their accusations are not good: for instance, our present Pope (God bless him) is implicated in their accusations. I'm worried that this is sowing seeds of division, and I want to be able to point this lady towards what the truth is. Can you help me?

She doesn't know what she's talking about. Fatima is emphatically private revelation. Public revelation closed with the death of the apostles.

CCC 66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The consecration of Russia (and the world) was done by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1984. Sr. Lucia, who oughtta know, said this fulfilled the request Our Lady of Fatima made. Likewise, Sr. Lucia testifed on multiple occasions that the Third Secret revealed in 2000 was what she had written down. You can see it and read Joseph Ratzinger's interpretation of it here.

I'd recommend three things to get a grip on a) the complexities of private revelation and b) Fatima. For an overview of the fascinating question of private revelation, I'd take a look at Chapter 3 - Private Revelation, Marian Apparitions and Sundry Tales of the Unexplained in Mary, Mother of the Son: Volume 3 - Miracles, Devotion, and Motherhood. I found this to be the single most interesting chapter to research and write and think you will find it helpful. Second, I'd highly recommend Fr. Benedict Groeschel's A Still Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations, which is all about how to navigate your way around claims of private revelation and separate wheat from chaff. Finally, with respect to the sundry claims of conspiracy that tend to swirl about in fringe circles when it comes to Fatima, I strongly recommend the well-research and accessibly written Fatima for Today by Fr. Andrew Apostoli.

As it happens, I just finished writing a study guide on this book, as well as on The 13th Day and Finding Fatima, so I've gotten pretty familiar with the details of this extraordinary event. I have no doubt Our Lady appeared at Fatima. I also have no doubt that some people are filled with conspiracy theories based on their own paranoia. What they show is that no Catholic mistakes Mary for another God but lots of Catholics mistake her for another Pope.

Who Could Possibly Have Predicted...

...that an Islamic Revolution in Egypt would lead to persecution of Christians--or that the western media would turn a blind eye to it?

Life is full of surprises. God help the Christians in the Islamosphere once the old secularized tyrants are gone and new Islamic tyrants take their places.

Meanwhile, there are strategies the Old Tyrants might still use to cling to power. We'll see if they are cunning as well merely brutal and stupid.

A good question

Q: How can any missile crewman know that an order to twist his launch key in its slot and send a thermonuclear missile rocketing out of its silo—a nuke capable of killing millions of civilians—is lawful, legitimate, and comes from a sane president?

A: "Shut up!" they explained.

The fact that we are still here this long after 1945 is due entirely to the grace of God and the strenuous efforts of our guardian angels.

Starving the poor...

...to make us rich folk feel morally superior.

By the way, kudos to Mike Flynn on the latest honors accorded Eifelheim.

A reader writes...

From a Robert George piece on Bernard Nathanson:

George asked Nathanson, publicly:

"When you were promoting abortion, you were willing to lie in what you regarded as a good cause. Now that you have been converted to the cause of life, would you be willing to lie to save babies? How do those who hear your speeches and read your books and articles know that you are not lying now?"

It was, I confess, an impertinently phrased question, but also, I believe, an important one. He seemed a bit stunned by it, and after a moment said, very quietly, "No, I wouldn't lie, even to save babies."

At the dinner he and I had with students afterward, he explained himself
further: "You said that I was converted to the cause of life; and that's true. But you must remember that I was converted to the cause of life only because I was converted to the cause of truth. That's why I wouldn't lie, even in a good cause."

The wisdom of a great man.