Dwight Longenecker's Blog, page 299
March 2, 2012
The Coming Persecution
So much talk amongst right wing Catholics of the erosion of religious liberty, the collapse of all things and the coming persecution. Talk of government detention centers and priests being shot like Bl. Miguel Pro.
I don't think they get it. That's not what it will be like.
America is different. We're into image big time. We thought the Soviets were into brainwashing and propaganda. We put them in the shade. America is all about healthy, lusty, good looking guys and gals who are clean cut, successful and smiling. We're into the good life. We're into being good and looking good, and if not the former at least the latter. We're into being the best, most successful and happy people in the world. Don't you know that??
There will be no martial law or military in the streets. The officers who enforce the mandate will be lawyers in suits bearing legal documents. There will be no closure of churches, for everyone will be guaranteed "freedom of worship." In fact, it is probable that as the state takes over the hospitals and schools they will also offer to fund the houses of worship. The State will not only encourage worship--it will be mandated too.
The State will not seek to close down any churches. Instead it will support the churches. Clergy training will be paid by the state. The church buildings will be maintained by a church tax which will be called the "tithe". Clergy will remain in their posts. Their dignity will be respected. All they will need to do is sign certain documents which ensure their safety and their freedom of worship in return for acknowledging the authority of the State (in civil matters only of course) These documents will be worded in such a way that a conscience clause will be admitted. The State will control the church "insofar as the law of God allows."
There State will bring in a sensible recognition of the validity of orders between the Christian churches. For practical reasons the Episcopalian priest or the Lutheran minister will be able to exchange ministries with the Catholic priest just as the Episcopalians and Lutherans already do. It will be a practical matter. Nothing theological will be implied for the Ministers of State would never presume to infringe on the theological aspect of the church. That would be above their pay grade. The orders will be interchangeable because the two churches are already so similar, and furthermore, many Episcopal priests are former Catholics and so have valid orders. This will smooth over the inconsistencies.
Many Catholic priests, after all, agree with the Episcopal doctrines and are in favor of married priests, women's ordination and homosexual marriage. Furthermore, the majority of the Catholics in the pews have no real problem with these things, and they see the sense of the government's re-organization of the religious life of the country. They never did like the noisy 'neo con' Catholics with their constant harping on about abortion and being homophobic and obsessed with sex. The government's solutions, it will be agreed, will bring peace to the whole situation. Common sense will prevail.
Oh there will be the complainers to be sure. They call them the 'recusants'. Cranky old homophobic, misogynistic priests--probably most of them secret pedophiles. The ones who are left are living off the grid. Most of the others are locked away for their own safety in the clergy 'retirement homes' that the government took over. Some of the recusant families refuse to pay the "tithe" to maintain the churches and they are being fined and punished for their stupidity. These recusants harbor the priests and hide them away and think they are being martyrs for some great cause.
In the meantime, mainstream America continues on happily. There have been no great revolutions. The economy did not collapse. There was no great world war. The Muslims did not attack America. Families still go to the Mall, eat out at their favorite restaurants, and enjoy all the great amusements and opportunities America has always had on offer. They're still neat and snug in the suburbs, the Catholic churches and schools that have chosen to be sensible and conform have been rewarded. They continue on much as they have done in the past.
To be sure, there is a certain lack of edge--a certain softness, but they were like that before the changes happened. Dulled by a happy consumerism, and satiated with the American Dream, these Catholic schools and parishes and universities haven't minded too much that the Pope has been quietly marginalized by the State. They were never too keen on him anyway, and now that things have settled down it's all for the best.
I don't think they get it. That's not what it will be like.
America is different. We're into image big time. We thought the Soviets were into brainwashing and propaganda. We put them in the shade. America is all about healthy, lusty, good looking guys and gals who are clean cut, successful and smiling. We're into the good life. We're into being good and looking good, and if not the former at least the latter. We're into being the best, most successful and happy people in the world. Don't you know that??
There will be no martial law or military in the streets. The officers who enforce the mandate will be lawyers in suits bearing legal documents. There will be no closure of churches, for everyone will be guaranteed "freedom of worship." In fact, it is probable that as the state takes over the hospitals and schools they will also offer to fund the houses of worship. The State will not only encourage worship--it will be mandated too.
The State will not seek to close down any churches. Instead it will support the churches. Clergy training will be paid by the state. The church buildings will be maintained by a church tax which will be called the "tithe". Clergy will remain in their posts. Their dignity will be respected. All they will need to do is sign certain documents which ensure their safety and their freedom of worship in return for acknowledging the authority of the State (in civil matters only of course) These documents will be worded in such a way that a conscience clause will be admitted. The State will control the church "insofar as the law of God allows."
There State will bring in a sensible recognition of the validity of orders between the Christian churches. For practical reasons the Episcopalian priest or the Lutheran minister will be able to exchange ministries with the Catholic priest just as the Episcopalians and Lutherans already do. It will be a practical matter. Nothing theological will be implied for the Ministers of State would never presume to infringe on the theological aspect of the church. That would be above their pay grade. The orders will be interchangeable because the two churches are already so similar, and furthermore, many Episcopal priests are former Catholics and so have valid orders. This will smooth over the inconsistencies.
Many Catholic priests, after all, agree with the Episcopal doctrines and are in favor of married priests, women's ordination and homosexual marriage. Furthermore, the majority of the Catholics in the pews have no real problem with these things, and they see the sense of the government's re-organization of the religious life of the country. They never did like the noisy 'neo con' Catholics with their constant harping on about abortion and being homophobic and obsessed with sex. The government's solutions, it will be agreed, will bring peace to the whole situation. Common sense will prevail.
Oh there will be the complainers to be sure. They call them the 'recusants'. Cranky old homophobic, misogynistic priests--probably most of them secret pedophiles. The ones who are left are living off the grid. Most of the others are locked away for their own safety in the clergy 'retirement homes' that the government took over. Some of the recusant families refuse to pay the "tithe" to maintain the churches and they are being fined and punished for their stupidity. These recusants harbor the priests and hide them away and think they are being martyrs for some great cause.
In the meantime, mainstream America continues on happily. There have been no great revolutions. The economy did not collapse. There was no great world war. The Muslims did not attack America. Families still go to the Mall, eat out at their favorite restaurants, and enjoy all the great amusements and opportunities America has always had on offer. They're still neat and snug in the suburbs, the Catholic churches and schools that have chosen to be sensible and conform have been rewarded. They continue on much as they have done in the past.
To be sure, there is a certain lack of edge--a certain softness, but they were like that before the changes happened. Dulled by a happy consumerism, and satiated with the American Dream, these Catholic schools and parishes and universities haven't minded too much that the Pope has been quietly marginalized by the State. They were never too keen on him anyway, and now that things have settled down it's all for the best.
Three Misconceptions about the Catholic Church
Read John Allen's excellent article here. He corrects three widespread misconceptions about the Catholic Church in the mainstream media and general population (and also among many Catholics) 1. The Church is all about the clergy. Nope. The clergy make up only .04% of the Catholic population. 2. The Church is in decline. Nope. The global church is growing phenomonally. What is in decline is old fashioned American cultural Catholicism. 3. The Catholic Church is the oppressor. Nope. The rate of Catholic martyrdoms is sky rocketing. In over 100 countries around the world Catholics are being persecuted, deprived of property, imprisoned, tortured and killed.
Jesus a Hermaphrodite?
It's Lent, so that means it is the silly season for the mainstream media. Any chance they get they'll come up with some sort of cranky "discovery" about the origins of the Christian faith. Maybe it's the burial casket of St James or the "discovery" that Jesus survived the crucifixion and became a Hindu swami in Tibet or that he eloped with Mary Magdalene to France to sit on the patio sipping red wine and watching their kids grow up to be Merovingian kings, or maybe it was the "discovery" that the Apostle John was really a girl kind of like Pope Joan they were both cross dressing or perhaps the Ark of the Covenant is really being used as a drinks cupboard in a club in Tangiers....
Here's the latest: a "scholar" in England who specializes in transgender studies "and other fun stuff" suggests that Jesus was actually hermaphrodite. That is--he was both male and female. Here's the article.
Before you laugh at such a suggestion--remember that not too long ago it would have been equally laughable to suggest that women could be priests and bishops, that homosexuals would be able to be "married". It would have been scandalous to suggest that contraception and abortion was acceptable and that divorced Christians could be re married in church.
It all begins with some scholar somewhere making an outrageous suggestion. Before too long the chattering classes are picking it up. More articles are written, then a study group is formed by some Anglican bishop somewhere. This grows into a pressure group and a campaign is started.
To stand things on their head, you can just hear an Anglican theologian saying,
"I have recently read a most fascinating article by Dr Cornwall--a theologian in Manchester who suggests that Our Lord was actually hermaphrodite. Certainly there were some feminine aspects to his personality. His gentleness towards children and his close identity with his mother, but there are also some other fascinating clues: Notice his regular identification with many women in his life. He understands them in a way most men do not. He sympathizes and understands the woman taken in adultery, the sisters Mary and Martha and the grieving women of Jerusalem. Indeed, perhaps this is what St Paul himself means when he writes in Galatians that "in Christ there is no male or female." Is this not Scriptural proof of Dr Cornwall's hypothesis?"
Chortle into your coffee if you like, but it's not so far off. Just go read some radical feminist theologians and you'll find that such lunacy is ripe and abundant.
Here's the latest: a "scholar" in England who specializes in transgender studies "and other fun stuff" suggests that Jesus was actually hermaphrodite. That is--he was both male and female. Here's the article.
Before you laugh at such a suggestion--remember that not too long ago it would have been equally laughable to suggest that women could be priests and bishops, that homosexuals would be able to be "married". It would have been scandalous to suggest that contraception and abortion was acceptable and that divorced Christians could be re married in church.
It all begins with some scholar somewhere making an outrageous suggestion. Before too long the chattering classes are picking it up. More articles are written, then a study group is formed by some Anglican bishop somewhere. This grows into a pressure group and a campaign is started.
To stand things on their head, you can just hear an Anglican theologian saying,
"I have recently read a most fascinating article by Dr Cornwall--a theologian in Manchester who suggests that Our Lord was actually hermaphrodite. Certainly there were some feminine aspects to his personality. His gentleness towards children and his close identity with his mother, but there are also some other fascinating clues: Notice his regular identification with many women in his life. He understands them in a way most men do not. He sympathizes and understands the woman taken in adultery, the sisters Mary and Martha and the grieving women of Jerusalem. Indeed, perhaps this is what St Paul himself means when he writes in Galatians that "in Christ there is no male or female." Is this not Scriptural proof of Dr Cornwall's hypothesis?"
Chortle into your coffee if you like, but it's not so far off. Just go read some radical feminist theologians and you'll find that such lunacy is ripe and abundant.
March 1, 2012
Lent Series
Here is the second article in my Lent series for National Catholic Register. In this series I am discussing various "ism's" that poison our thought processes and bias us against true Catholicism.
Dawkins and Singer Trying to Think
Watch this video of Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins discussing infanticide. Last week my homily was about the three ugly sisters of utilitarianism, individualism and sentimentalism.
Notice how, in this conversation between two noted 'thinkers' they actually have no thoughts at all of any substance. They throw opinions back and forth that are a mish mash of individualism, utilitarianism and sentimentalism.
In other words, they try to come up with a framework of morality which is based on 'what works' or 'what is economical' (utilitarianism) combined with sentimental feelings towards animals in pain versus a human unborn child and all fueled by the individualism which makes them think they are the only authority to make the choice in the first place.
The video is important because it shows the quicksand of modern 'thought'. Without the magisterium of the Catholic Church and the Sacred Scriptures they have no fixed place on which to build an argument, support an idea or propose a solution. Instead there can only be an exchange of opinions, a vague proposal of a hypothesis, a suggestion of a way forward or a possible option.
This becomes the 'dictatorship of relativism' when it reacts against any form of dogma. As long as they are left to flounder about in their sea of uncertainty they can be left to their insipid impotency. However, no one likes to flounder about without a purpose--so they must go on the attack, and the ones they attack are not people who simply have opinions contrary to theirs.
They must attack people who say that their own beliefs are not simply opinions based on sentimentality and utilitarian principles, but they are beliefs based on objective fact, the natural law, historical data and (worst of all) divine revelation.
Counter their arguments with these hard truths and they will come at you snarling.
February 28, 2012
Freedom of Worship?
Cardinal George writes here on the direction our country is going. Among other things he comments on the prevailing tendency by Hilary Clinton and the Obama administration to change the term "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship."
"Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union," Cardinal George said. "You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship—no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society."
By the way, lest any reader berate me for being "political", I guess if it's good enough for Cardinal George to comment on these matters publicly it's okay for me too.
"Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union," Cardinal George said. "You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship—no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society."
By the way, lest any reader berate me for being "political", I guess if it's good enough for Cardinal George to comment on these matters publicly it's okay for me too.
What's Going On?
Here is what is going on politically: In this public appearance Nancy Pelosi says the Catholic Church wants to ban contraceptives.
This is part of a political ploy in election year. The HHS Mandate was a set up. It wasn't about women's health. It wasn't about contraceptives per se. It was a way to set the Catholic Church against the Obama administration and then, by November, to portray the Catholic Church and the Republican party as being in an anti-contraception alliance.
Nothing wins over the crowds more effectively than a common enemy, and who better a common enemy than the Catholic Church with their weird "anti contraception" and no free sex rules?
They will try to say that not only is the Catholic Church opposed to contraception, but it wants to ban it. Pelosi's comments prove it. The stage for this make believe drama was first set by George Stephanapolos' question to Romney in a debate. He asked, "Do you think a State has a right to ban contraception?" Romney was floored. Where did he get such a crazy idea? Stephanapolos hammered away, not allowing evasion. Then at last week's debate the CNN moderator asked a similar question: "Which candidate is in favor of contraception?"
This political ploy will accomplish several things for the President: 1. By shifting the abortion debate away from abortion to contraception the two things will be merged. Indeed, they may well use Catholic and pro-life rhetoric in order to show that abortion and contraception are linked. The reasoning on the left will be: "Nobody is against contraception. Abortion is a form of contraception. Abortion is legal. So cut the anti abortion argument. It just doesn't apply because everybody is already in favor of contraception. 2. The Republicans (especially if Santorum continues to rise and is even nominated) will be portrayed as being allied to the Catholic Church. This will allow all the historic anti-Catholic rhetoric to be brought out, but this time not by anti-Catholic Protestants, but by radical atheists and secularists who hate the Catholic Church. 3. After the election the POTUS will see the imminent defeat of this HHS Mandate, and happily put it on one side and grant everybody an exemption who wants one, because it wasn't about health care for poor women to start with.
It was about winning the election.
This is part of a political ploy in election year. The HHS Mandate was a set up. It wasn't about women's health. It wasn't about contraceptives per se. It was a way to set the Catholic Church against the Obama administration and then, by November, to portray the Catholic Church and the Republican party as being in an anti-contraception alliance.
Nothing wins over the crowds more effectively than a common enemy, and who better a common enemy than the Catholic Church with their weird "anti contraception" and no free sex rules?
They will try to say that not only is the Catholic Church opposed to contraception, but it wants to ban it. Pelosi's comments prove it. The stage for this make believe drama was first set by George Stephanapolos' question to Romney in a debate. He asked, "Do you think a State has a right to ban contraception?" Romney was floored. Where did he get such a crazy idea? Stephanapolos hammered away, not allowing evasion. Then at last week's debate the CNN moderator asked a similar question: "Which candidate is in favor of contraception?"
This political ploy will accomplish several things for the President: 1. By shifting the abortion debate away from abortion to contraception the two things will be merged. Indeed, they may well use Catholic and pro-life rhetoric in order to show that abortion and contraception are linked. The reasoning on the left will be: "Nobody is against contraception. Abortion is a form of contraception. Abortion is legal. So cut the anti abortion argument. It just doesn't apply because everybody is already in favor of contraception. 2. The Republicans (especially if Santorum continues to rise and is even nominated) will be portrayed as being allied to the Catholic Church. This will allow all the historic anti-Catholic rhetoric to be brought out, but this time not by anti-Catholic Protestants, but by radical atheists and secularists who hate the Catholic Church. 3. After the election the POTUS will see the imminent defeat of this HHS Mandate, and happily put it on one side and grant everybody an exemption who wants one, because it wasn't about health care for poor women to start with.
It was about winning the election.
February 25, 2012
They Call it Gendercide
The murder of unborn baby girls in Britain is in the news this week, and this female columnist is shocked and horrified. Yet, in the middle of the article she clings stubbornly to the Clinton creed about abortion wanting it to be "safe, legal and rare."
The simple fact is that although abortion might be legal it is not rare nor is it safe, for even if it does not harm the woman physically it harms here psychologically, and it is certainly not 'safe' for the child be yanked from its mother's womb.
The article in the Telegraph reveals how much the pro aborts are running scared. The writer sees where abortion on demand has led. She is shocked by the proliferation of abortion and is dismayed that it is used a form of contraception.
It would be nice to think that the gradual revelation of the facts of abortion and the abuses of abortion will convert more and more people to the pro life side, and I believe this is happening, but we must also recognize that an increasing number of pro aborts will admit that abortion is killing, and will simply say, "So what?"
This is the real end game of the abortion debate: that ordinary human beings will kill the innocent with no qualms. They will do so as a matter of convenience or more often because they are paid to do so.
In our own country we actually have a president who not only voted for infanticide, but argued aggressively for it when he was an Illinois lawmaker. He has neither publicly owned up to this shocking scandal nor sought to distance himself from his decision. Every policy and appointment he has made has, in some way, supported his "a baby is a punishment" mindset.
Then we must face the fact that we elected him, and we will probably do so again.
The simple fact is that although abortion might be legal it is not rare nor is it safe, for even if it does not harm the woman physically it harms here psychologically, and it is certainly not 'safe' for the child be yanked from its mother's womb.
The article in the Telegraph reveals how much the pro aborts are running scared. The writer sees where abortion on demand has led. She is shocked by the proliferation of abortion and is dismayed that it is used a form of contraception.
It would be nice to think that the gradual revelation of the facts of abortion and the abuses of abortion will convert more and more people to the pro life side, and I believe this is happening, but we must also recognize that an increasing number of pro aborts will admit that abortion is killing, and will simply say, "So what?"
This is the real end game of the abortion debate: that ordinary human beings will kill the innocent with no qualms. They will do so as a matter of convenience or more often because they are paid to do so.
In our own country we actually have a president who not only voted for infanticide, but argued aggressively for it when he was an Illinois lawmaker. He has neither publicly owned up to this shocking scandal nor sought to distance himself from his decision. Every policy and appointment he has made has, in some way, supported his "a baby is a punishment" mindset.
Then we must face the fact that we elected him, and we will probably do so again.
February 23, 2012
Why Fasting?
Fasting, Almsgiving and Prayer during Lent, and today a few thoughts about fasting. Why fast?
First of all, let's put to rest that ridiculous, girly idea that Lent is all about "taking something up" not "giving something up". I've always considered that to be a soft option. By all means take something up, but you should give something up as well.
Why give something up? Not because it is bad in itself. We're not Manicheans. We don't believe that physical pleasures and physical things are bad in themselves. Instead we give something up not because it is bad, but because we are seeking a greater good. We're seeking self mastery and self discipline and self control.
All of that is good, and also the idea that by giving something up we are focusing more on Christ the King and the Kingdom that is not of this world.
Here's another idea--something more radical: by giving something up we are countering the pleasure obsessed culture in which we live. We are standing the whole thing on its head. We live in a society that is not embarrassed to call itself "consumerist". We live in a culture which considers "more" to always be better and "economic growth" to be a good that cannot be questioned. We live in a society in which "self indulgence" is called "self esteem", where unlimited acquisition is considered a sign of success and where uninhibited pleasure is called "self expression."
So fasting cuts right across all of that. Fasting and abstinence calls it all into question--first for ourselves and then for others. Fasting says to the gluttonous, lustful, greedy society in which we live, "Fuhgeddaboudit"
Fasting is therefore a sign of contradiction. It is being counter cultural. It is being subversive.
I'm for it. At the beginning of Lent I feel like I want to be a hermit--to live a shack in the woods and grow a long beard and be silent and be a sign of contradiction. Suddenly I admire St Simeon Stylites who lived on top of a pillar in the desert for thirty nine years.
Why fast? To be a voice of one crying in the wilderness.
That's why.
Take Up Evangelism with Holy Cards
At the beginning of Lent you are often encouraged to "take something up" as well as "give something up"
Well, why not take up Catholic Evangelism with Holy Cards?
Here's how it works. I have had four types of holy cards printed up with a beautiful Catholic image on the front and Bible verses on the back. There is a Jesus/Church card, a Jesus/Eucharist card, a Divine Mercy card and a Blessed Virgin card.
The Bible verse on the back explains the image on the front.
So for example, on the back of the image of the Blessed Mother is the text:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you, Blessed are you among women" -- Lk. 1.28
Jesus said about Mary, "Behold Thy Mother" Jn. 19.27
Jesus commanded, "Honor thy Mother" Mt. 15.4
Mary said, "All generations shall call me blessed." Lk. 1.48
On the back of the card with Jesus in the Eucharist the text reads:
Jesus said, "Take, eat this is my body" Mt.14.22
If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh,for the life of the wordl. Jn.6.51
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life within you." Jn. 6.53
St Paul wrote, "The cup we bless..is a participation with the blood of Christ...the bread we break is a participation in the Body of Christ."
To do Holy Card Evangelism you buy the holy cards and hand them out like Protestants do gospel tracts.
At the supermarket check out you just smile and say to the person helping, "Would you like one of these prayer cards? It's a reminder that Jesus loves you and I'm praying for you" or "Why not take one of these nice prayer cards? God bless you!"
Or maybe you leave it at the restaurant with your tip (but you better leave a good tip!)
This can be your way of "Taking something up for Lent."
If you would like to purchase some of these cards they are just a quarter each. Buy 20 cards for $5.00.
Five cards of each style.
After you get the cards, and before you hand them out remember to get them blessed! Then they are sacramentals, and not just pretty cards. Also remember to pray as you hand them out and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
If you would like some just send me an email: and I'll tell you how to make payment and we'll send them in the mail.
Dwight Longenecker's Blog
- Dwight Longenecker's profile
- 80 followers
Dwight Longenecker isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
