I have been on some other blogs and have not written here in some time. But taking time off from football and the election, let me respond to some common comments I've been see.
The Church Pillars keep talking about destroying "innocent" life. The anti-abortion crowd are falling right in line. Thus my question: How can we say one cell is "innocent." Does not 'innocence imply by necessity 'not innocent' or 'guilty?' After all does "up" have meaning without "down?" My finger is human life. Is it "innocent" or "guilty.?" Silly question, to be sure. But the Church pillars talk like a single cell is "innocent." Could this single cell be "guilty?"
I constantly find myself amazed by the verbal "tricks" of the self serving hierarchy. But do the lay Catholics, the true catholics in my opinion, not see this trick? Jack
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Render Unto Caesar
Kind of a slow weekend in college football for me, so I spent my time reading Chaput's "Render unto Caesar.". For those who have nostalgia for the past, this book is a wonderful trip backward. I guess it is good to know that old style catholic triumphialism and bigotry is still around. Basically the book is a snide denigration of American values and shows that Blanchard's "American Freedom and Catholic Power" still has value. Chaput, the Catholic Archbishop of Denver, is about as far right and anti-American as one can find in today's hierarchy.
The unstated, but underlying premise of the book is based on the, many hoped, pre-vatican 2 theory of only the Church has the truth and the state SHOULD enforce Catholic doctrine on American democracy. A view that Vatican 2 was supposed to have repudiated. In addition, Chaput comes very close to claiming the Church's infallibility for himself. After all he is an authenic spokesman for that "Truth" which belongs most fully to the Catholic Church.
Written with the feeling of a sour old maid, his book is so filled with absurd leaps of logic and naked prejudice that it probably deserves line by line refutation. However since the only ones who will take it seriously are the Weigles, Opus Dei, and the anti-anything modern fanatics, I will leave the task of refutation to others. But as a Catholic, let me place here a mere sampling of his screed.
Overlooking, indeed denying all apparent lessons from history we are told that that American democracy has nothing to do with the Enlightenment. Alll reputable historians with which I am familiar emphasize the importance of the Enlightenment. Chaput copies the exact thoughts of Weigel and his couple of cohorts and informs us that America democracy is basically the fruit of Medieval Christian moral thought. Chaput then takes on what most believe are essentials of our democratic way "pluralism", "consensus," "choice," "the common good," "tolerance," "equal rights," democracy," etc. and arrogantly states that these words are merely slogans of the ungodly. Only the Church, Chaput fulminates, knows the "true" meaning of these words. Our society, he argues, uses these words as simply cover for its calamitous sins.
Readers may or may not be enlightened to know that the great changes in our concept of sexual morality are not caused by the changes in our economic and social developments, a view of social change that is almost universally accepted, and which is the standard explanation of historians,
but by the use of contraceptives and, marvel or marvel, by John Kennedy's Houston speech in which he stated his policies would not be dictated by the Church. On Kennedy, the Archbishop virtually evauates himself with scorn. Not only is JFK a principal cause of sin of all types in our country but his "Theological vapidity", a view not directly from Chaput but one which he approves, shows the President's failure to even vaguely understand the true faith.
And Catholic social justice doctrines. Chaput follows the present practice of many in the Catholic hierarchy of ignoring them completely after a brief nod in passing by. To these prelates there is only one social justice teaching---anti abortion. All the others are just whims up for grabs. I have asked many bloggers this question: Which candidate should a catholic support.
Candidate A. Opposes minimum wage laws, denies his employees health insurance, polutes the environment, is violently anti-hispanic, sexually molests young boys, BUT is a leader in the anti-abortion movement.
Candidate B. Pays workers above the minimum wage, provides health insurance to his workers, has an active 'save the environment' program, treats his hispanic workers like he treats all, BUT is a leader in the local Planned Parenthood movement. To my
amazement most prefer candidate A as probably does the great Archbishop.
The book is filled with sly slaps at bigoted Proestants, complete distortions of history, a claim that to even discuss the idea of "personhood" in the abortion debate is noxious.
And the company he 'keeps'. Clarence Thomas, a devotee of pornography, Robert Bork, David Brooks, George Weigel---well enough said. Those he hates: JFK, all democrats (one or two exceptions) Hugo Black(Chaput lets the reader know he (Black) was a member of the Klan for a short period of time failing to mention Black's standing in Supreme Cout history and his recognition as a great Supreme Court Justice. He never mentions Clarence Thomas' love of pornography.)
I must not conclude without mentioning his hyperbolic chapter on Thomas More, one of the most insideous persecutors, torturer, and killer of herectics of his day. As to be exected he says nothing of the strange sexual orientation and practices of More, no doubt approved by Chaput.
And finally, but not near exhaustively, his preference for Southern catholicism with its adherence to 'family values' and apparently its poverty, its distain for women, its child sexual mutilation, its starvation as opposed to the decadence of America with its perverted ideals. Well, as an African catholic cleric said'we let the people have their local ways and customs.'
ap
The unstated, but underlying premise of the book is based on the, many hoped, pre-vatican 2 theory of only the Church has the truth and the state SHOULD enforce Catholic doctrine on American democracy. A view that Vatican 2 was supposed to have repudiated. In addition, Chaput comes very close to claiming the Church's infallibility for himself. After all he is an authenic spokesman for that "Truth" which belongs most fully to the Catholic Church.
Written with the feeling of a sour old maid, his book is so filled with absurd leaps of logic and naked prejudice that it probably deserves line by line refutation. However since the only ones who will take it seriously are the Weigles, Opus Dei, and the anti-anything modern fanatics, I will leave the task of refutation to others. But as a Catholic, let me place here a mere sampling of his screed.
Overlooking, indeed denying all apparent lessons from history we are told that that American democracy has nothing to do with the Enlightenment. Alll reputable historians with which I am familiar emphasize the importance of the Enlightenment. Chaput copies the exact thoughts of Weigel and his couple of cohorts and informs us that America democracy is basically the fruit of Medieval Christian moral thought. Chaput then takes on what most believe are essentials of our democratic way "pluralism", "consensus," "choice," "the common good," "tolerance," "equal rights," democracy," etc. and arrogantly states that these words are merely slogans of the ungodly. Only the Church, Chaput fulminates, knows the "true" meaning of these words. Our society, he argues, uses these words as simply cover for its calamitous sins.
Readers may or may not be enlightened to know that the great changes in our concept of sexual morality are not caused by the changes in our economic and social developments, a view of social change that is almost universally accepted, and which is the standard explanation of historians,
but by the use of contraceptives and, marvel or marvel, by John Kennedy's Houston speech in which he stated his policies would not be dictated by the Church. On Kennedy, the Archbishop virtually evauates himself with scorn. Not only is JFK a principal cause of sin of all types in our country but his "Theological vapidity", a view not directly from Chaput but one which he approves, shows the President's failure to even vaguely understand the true faith.
And Catholic social justice doctrines. Chaput follows the present practice of many in the Catholic hierarchy of ignoring them completely after a brief nod in passing by. To these prelates there is only one social justice teaching---anti abortion. All the others are just whims up for grabs. I have asked many bloggers this question: Which candidate should a catholic support.
Candidate A. Opposes minimum wage laws, denies his employees health insurance, polutes the environment, is violently anti-hispanic, sexually molests young boys, BUT is a leader in the anti-abortion movement.
Candidate B. Pays workers above the minimum wage, provides health insurance to his workers, has an active 'save the environment' program, treats his hispanic workers like he treats all, BUT is a leader in the local Planned Parenthood movement. To my
amazement most prefer candidate A as probably does the great Archbishop.
The book is filled with sly slaps at bigoted Proestants, complete distortions of history, a claim that to even discuss the idea of "personhood" in the abortion debate is noxious.
And the company he 'keeps'. Clarence Thomas, a devotee of pornography, Robert Bork, David Brooks, George Weigel---well enough said. Those he hates: JFK, all democrats (one or two exceptions) Hugo Black(Chaput lets the reader know he (Black) was a member of the Klan for a short period of time failing to mention Black's standing in Supreme Cout history and his recognition as a great Supreme Court Justice. He never mentions Clarence Thomas' love of pornography.)
I must not conclude without mentioning his hyperbolic chapter on Thomas More, one of the most insideous persecutors, torturer, and killer of herectics of his day. As to be exected he says nothing of the strange sexual orientation and practices of More, no doubt approved by Chaput.
And finally, but not near exhaustively, his preference for Southern catholicism with its adherence to 'family values' and apparently its poverty, its distain for women, its child sexual mutilation, its starvation as opposed to the decadence of America with its perverted ideals. Well, as an African catholic cleric said'we let the people have their local ways and customs.'
ap
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)