Off of the catholic scene for a while. But still on my basic philosophy.
Two groups of people hurt the arts. First: The snob who looks and sees what others like and then makes sure he (THE SNOB) doesn't like it.
Second:The connoisseur: He gives no reason for his judgments but his own taste.
This year Oscar best picture may be a big surprise. "Slumdog" would win the most votes from the film going public, BUT, there's the rub. The snob sees its popularity and won't be caught dead really liking this movie. They like "Button" because a majority don't like it. It's all very simple. Plus since "Button" has won almost nothing, what an upset!!!
The connoisseur? Well he thinks all Oscar movies are just trash. His favorite is any Coatian movie about dwarfs.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
After 50 years. No Answer
Just a few brief remarks on the abortion issue. I have discussed all aspects of the issue in other posts.
One: There can be no argument that the church, historically, and at present has a strong anti-sex position.
Two: The natural law argument , that is, that the sexual act must always be open to procreation is based on nothing but a desire to paint sex as bad. The logic is clear:Sex acts must always be justified by the possibility of pregnancy.
Three: The church's assertion that any male ejaculation outside of the vagina and that a 15 year old masturbating are "highly disordered" actions is absurd.
Four: The church's teaching that all of God's specially chosen (priests) as well as the unmarried should avoid or sublimate all sexual desires is nonsense as well as impossible.
Five: It is noteworthy that these sexual 'rules' are all promulgated by celibates who have sworn off all sex thought and actions to be close to God.
AND NOW THE BIG QUESTION!!!! I have tried for 50 years to get an answer to the following: If abortion is murder at all times and in all circumstances, why are those murderers who have abortions not punished as we do all others who commit murder. Oh, I know they might be under pressure. But does pressure justify MURDER. I have never gotten an answer, and am sure I won't.
One: There can be no argument that the church, historically, and at present has a strong anti-sex position.
Two: The natural law argument , that is, that the sexual act must always be open to procreation is based on nothing but a desire to paint sex as bad. The logic is clear:Sex acts must always be justified by the possibility of pregnancy.
Three: The church's assertion that any male ejaculation outside of the vagina and that a 15 year old masturbating are "highly disordered" actions is absurd.
Four: The church's teaching that all of God's specially chosen (priests) as well as the unmarried should avoid or sublimate all sexual desires is nonsense as well as impossible.
Five: It is noteworthy that these sexual 'rules' are all promulgated by celibates who have sworn off all sex thought and actions to be close to God.
AND NOW THE BIG QUESTION!!!! I have tried for 50 years to get an answer to the following: If abortion is murder at all times and in all circumstances, why are those murderers who have abortions not punished as we do all others who commit murder. Oh, I know they might be under pressure. But does pressure justify MURDER. I have never gotten an answer, and am sure I won't.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I AM A SNOB!!!!
Okay, humility is not the first impression I make. But I am a SNOB---a catholic snob; like so many I see on the internet. The death of Neuhaus kind of made me think. What I know of Neuhaus, he was a smart-alec snob. Another than a Republican (pew), I think that is all he will be remembered for.
But isn't our Church full of snobs.
We scream with laughter when Oral Roberts sees an 80 foot Jesus, BUT many of us believe the sun fell toward the earth at Fatina. Hmmm? Or at least we argue over Fatima but just laugh at poor Oral.
We laugh at Benny Hinn when he heals a sore arm, BUT seriously debate Padre Pio's raising of the dead child in the luggage. Hmmm?
We laugh at the TV preachers, BUT seriously debate whether Pio can be in the Artic and the Sahara at the same time. Hmmm?
We laugh at Oral and the TV boys collecting millions to advance the cause of their ministries, BUT think nothing of the Billions and Billions of dollars collected at Lourdes and Fatima. Hmmm?
We laugh at 'prayer cloths' and faith seeds, BUT gratefully receive two onces of Lourdes water to heal our cancer. Hmmm?
We laugh at 'penties' speaking in tongues, BUT can't wait to debate whether plastic stutues really cry blood. After all Pius XII said they do. Hmmm?
Well I could go on, but isn't Neuhaus just Hinn, Roberts, etc with a bigger vocabulary and a smart-ass tongue.
But isn't our Church full of snobs.
We scream with laughter when Oral Roberts sees an 80 foot Jesus, BUT many of us believe the sun fell toward the earth at Fatina. Hmmm? Or at least we argue over Fatima but just laugh at poor Oral.
We laugh at Benny Hinn when he heals a sore arm, BUT seriously debate Padre Pio's raising of the dead child in the luggage. Hmmm?
We laugh at the TV preachers, BUT seriously debate whether Pio can be in the Artic and the Sahara at the same time. Hmmm?
We laugh at Oral and the TV boys collecting millions to advance the cause of their ministries, BUT think nothing of the Billions and Billions of dollars collected at Lourdes and Fatima. Hmmm?
We laugh at 'prayer cloths' and faith seeds, BUT gratefully receive two onces of Lourdes water to heal our cancer. Hmmm?
We laugh at 'penties' speaking in tongues, BUT can't wait to debate whether plastic stutues really cry blood. After all Pius XII said they do. Hmmm?
Well I could go on, but isn't Neuhaus just Hinn, Roberts, etc with a bigger vocabulary and a smart-ass tongue.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Furious
I officially united with the Church a year or so ago. So far nothing but disappointments. The latest. My 11 year old grandson had a "field trip" for "vocation day." 10 and 11 year olds being talked into becoming priests. I haven't ask my grandson Jack the details (don't want to hurt his faith) but what in the hell is going on. A bunch of priests telling these kids that they should never have sex thoughts? That way they can better serve God. Our wicked old bishop putting down, by implication, Jack's parents because they are less than the old fool bishop because they got married and had SEX thoughts? Does the church have no shame? Fortuneately the kids thought it was boring. What do these priests and bishop know about having loving a wife and the bond between parents and their children? I hope to hell they had chapperones there.
Because my parents were church musicians I am quite familiar with Methodist, Baptist,Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran churches. In NONE of these did the clergy try to persuade 10 and 11 year olds to become minister, pastors etc. I know the catholic bishops love to raise their vocation rates, but I think they are sick!!
My wife, a lifelong catholic, has tried to cool me down by telling me these vocation sessions have gone on forever. Frankly the kids laugh at them. But sorry, I don't like celibates, many wierd, messing with the minds of kids.
Because my parents were church musicians I am quite familiar with Methodist, Baptist,Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran churches. In NONE of these did the clergy try to persuade 10 and 11 year olds to become minister, pastors etc. I know the catholic bishops love to raise their vocation rates, but I think they are sick!!
My wife, a lifelong catholic, has tried to cool me down by telling me these vocation sessions have gone on forever. Frankly the kids laugh at them. But sorry, I don't like celibates, many wierd, messing with the minds of kids.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
More Pedophile Heterosexual Priests
Since Vatican2 and the sex abuse scandal in the church, a civil war has been raging in the church. To be decided: Do the laity have any voice in the direction of the church or is this only a matter for the hierarchy. So a brief look at the sex abuse scandal.
At first the church claimed the sex abuse scandal was just a media circus. But as more information came out, the situation seemed more serious. So statements, reports committees, commissions all seeming to say there was a problem. It looked bad for the clergy and the bishops frantically covering up the situation. Then, MANNA FROM HEAVEN for the clerics!!The Rand Report said there were no more pedophiles in the church than other occupations---including Mississippi prison guards it would seem. The hierarchy was ESTATIC!!!!! Some had hoped, mistakenly apparently, that God's chosen on earth might be less likely to molest children. Foolish people!
But maybe further action was necessary. So the church launched a furious attack on homosexuality. Now it is true that the church clearly has a higher degree of homosexuals in its clergy than other professions have among their members. Nationwide about 15 percent of child sexual abuse cases have males as the victims. In the church over 80 percent of child sex abuse cases have males as the victims. BUT, and this is important, there is NO evidence that a homosexual will molest a child than will a heterosexual. The church played with the male abuse figure by saying more males were "available" for sexual molestation than females. Hmmm?
I believe the answer to the diproportionate number of male victims and the coverup is rather clear. ONE: A significant number of bishops are homosexual. TWO: The bishops desired to protect the reputation of the church, of which they were the leaders. THREE: Celibacy is not a cause, but the decisions of sometimes young men to become priest and to forego all sexual life, may lead to decisions by those too immature to make such a decision. The church admits this.
I think none of us who have seen the interviews ot the victims of sex abuse can forget one clear impression. The overwhelming, if naive, trust the parents of these boys and the boys themselves had in priests---elevating them to almost god like level. And I think the priest themselves felt some self-adulation, as the representatives of God on earth.
Okay, the church seems to have a simple solution. Blame it on homosexualiity and hope that, at the minimum, more heterosexual pedaphiles will apply for the seminary.
At first the church claimed the sex abuse scandal was just a media circus. But as more information came out, the situation seemed more serious. So statements, reports committees, commissions all seeming to say there was a problem. It looked bad for the clergy and the bishops frantically covering up the situation. Then, MANNA FROM HEAVEN for the clerics!!The Rand Report said there were no more pedophiles in the church than other occupations---including Mississippi prison guards it would seem. The hierarchy was ESTATIC!!!!! Some had hoped, mistakenly apparently, that God's chosen on earth might be less likely to molest children. Foolish people!
But maybe further action was necessary. So the church launched a furious attack on homosexuality. Now it is true that the church clearly has a higher degree of homosexuals in its clergy than other professions have among their members. Nationwide about 15 percent of child sexual abuse cases have males as the victims. In the church over 80 percent of child sex abuse cases have males as the victims. BUT, and this is important, there is NO evidence that a homosexual will molest a child than will a heterosexual. The church played with the male abuse figure by saying more males were "available" for sexual molestation than females. Hmmm?
I believe the answer to the diproportionate number of male victims and the coverup is rather clear. ONE: A significant number of bishops are homosexual. TWO: The bishops desired to protect the reputation of the church, of which they were the leaders. THREE: Celibacy is not a cause, but the decisions of sometimes young men to become priest and to forego all sexual life, may lead to decisions by those too immature to make such a decision. The church admits this.
I think none of us who have seen the interviews ot the victims of sex abuse can forget one clear impression. The overwhelming, if naive, trust the parents of these boys and the boys themselves had in priests---elevating them to almost god like level. And I think the priest themselves felt some self-adulation, as the representatives of God on earth.
Okay, the church seems to have a simple solution. Blame it on homosexualiity and hope that, at the minimum, more heterosexual pedaphiles will apply for the seminary.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Southern Strategy
The term "Southern Strategy" has become well used and known in American politics. It refers to the Republican theory that the best way to win national political electionsis to win the southern states. But less widely known it is also a mantra of many catholic commenters. In this case it refers to the increasing emphasis on South America and Africa as the true repository of catholic values on the grounds that in these areas "family values" are still highly significant. So "family values" needs to be looked at closely, not just the euphemistic term, but its background and meaning as the church uses it today.
It must be noted that these "southern", "family values" countries are almost all countries that are basically pre modern, pre-industrial, countries with a very low economic development with its component of very low education standards. In almost all of these South American and African countries the role of women is very primitive compared to the more "developed" countries of the world. Women have virtually no place in the political, social or economic lives of these countries. The formal education of women is quite limited, and women are basically dependent on men for their very survival. Some catholic apolotists like to point to the high divorce rate in the more modern countries as a decline in moral,family vales, for example. As is obvious to all serious observers, the high divorce rate, bad as it may be, is to a great extend due to the ability of women to 'survive'--themselves and their children--and not be totally dependent on a dominant husband and father.
The low education level of these countries is also an open invitation to superstitious levels found in many religions, especially catholicism. As a catholic, I am aware, as I have written earlier, that the basic catholic teaching is no more fallacious than other Christian religions. However, throughout history, for reasons I will not touch on here, the catholic church, for good or bad, sanctions or lives with a vibrant tradition of pre-modern beliefs. Bleeding statues, stigmata, marian apparitions, being in two places at once, dancing suns----no catholic is required to accept these pre-modern, unproven, highly improbable anti-scientific 'happenings', but still the church does little to discourage, indeed encourages, to an extent, such beliefs.
What the church believes as family values finds a fertile field in these "Southern" countries. Male dominance, the subjugation of women, beliefs that are already there. And the women's role as subservient to the male and as primarily a mother and the sexual satisfier of men has a long history in catholicism, with such still left to a high degree although some small improvements have been made. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: Men are the glory of God; women are the glory of man. A catholic cleric interviewed by John Allen has added :We let the natives keep some of their pre-christian beliefs.
Another blog I visited recently has as its 'moto' John Paul II's quote: The family is called...the domestic church. And how appropriate. The position of women in the church is to have no say; to be totally subservient to males , males with no physical bond to women (or children). Thus the "Southern Strategy," and its appeal to the catholic hierarchy.
It must be noted that these "southern", "family values" countries are almost all countries that are basically pre modern, pre-industrial, countries with a very low economic development with its component of very low education standards. In almost all of these South American and African countries the role of women is very primitive compared to the more "developed" countries of the world. Women have virtually no place in the political, social or economic lives of these countries. The formal education of women is quite limited, and women are basically dependent on men for their very survival. Some catholic apolotists like to point to the high divorce rate in the more modern countries as a decline in moral,family vales, for example. As is obvious to all serious observers, the high divorce rate, bad as it may be, is to a great extend due to the ability of women to 'survive'--themselves and their children--and not be totally dependent on a dominant husband and father.
The low education level of these countries is also an open invitation to superstitious levels found in many religions, especially catholicism. As a catholic, I am aware, as I have written earlier, that the basic catholic teaching is no more fallacious than other Christian religions. However, throughout history, for reasons I will not touch on here, the catholic church, for good or bad, sanctions or lives with a vibrant tradition of pre-modern beliefs. Bleeding statues, stigmata, marian apparitions, being in two places at once, dancing suns----no catholic is required to accept these pre-modern, unproven, highly improbable anti-scientific 'happenings', but still the church does little to discourage, indeed encourages, to an extent, such beliefs.
What the church believes as family values finds a fertile field in these "Southern" countries. Male dominance, the subjugation of women, beliefs that are already there. And the women's role as subservient to the male and as primarily a mother and the sexual satisfier of men has a long history in catholicism, with such still left to a high degree although some small improvements have been made. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: Men are the glory of God; women are the glory of man. A catholic cleric interviewed by John Allen has added :We let the natives keep some of their pre-christian beliefs.
Another blog I visited recently has as its 'moto' John Paul II's quote: The family is called...the domestic church. And how appropriate. The position of women in the church is to have no say; to be totally subservient to males , males with no physical bond to women (or children). Thus the "Southern Strategy," and its appeal to the catholic hierarchy.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The Power Brokers
I think some readers of my blog believe I am anti-catholic. Of course, this is not so. I am very anti-clerical, that is the use or mis-use of the church's power to maintain the absolute power and authority to protect the priviledged position of a small group of celibate men.
As history has progressed and women have been seen as equal to men in almost all areas, it is very important for the priestly celibate class to, by all means possible, maintain its superior position. History clearly shows that the church has had a strong anti-female position along with a strong anti-sexual strain. I will deal with both. But as to women we need look no further than JP2 who clearly recognized the historically anti-female position of the church. Unfortunately he did very little to change the position of women in the church. Or to be more accurate did nothing to change the anti-female practices of the churh. In fact his barely veiled conservatism has set the cause of women back.
Just a quote or two from the past. Saint Jerome: Women are "the devil's gateway, a dangerous species, a scorpion's dart." Saint John Damascene: Women are " a sicked she-ass, a hideous tapeworm, the advanced post of hell." Saint Thomas Aquinas: Women are " misbegotten and defective." Pope Gregory the Great: Women have only two uses, "harlotry or maternity." Just samples.
Society today has changed. But the church still does not allow women any say in the church. ALL decisions are made by an almost completly dominant legion of celibate males, pledged to lead a totally sexless life. Women as the bearer of children is still the principal doctrine of Rome.
Now my point here, and afterword, is that celibate male dominance is of the utmost importance and benefit, psychologically and in terms of material advantage,to these celibate clerics, and the church clerics are in full force to protect their dominance of women by claiming the superiority of the male .
As Sipe writes: The Augustinian equation is "sex=plrasure=women=evil." And again celibacy is not the problem but "a power system using celibacy for the domination and control of others."
As history has progressed and women have been seen as equal to men in almost all areas, it is very important for the priestly celibate class to, by all means possible, maintain its superior position. History clearly shows that the church has had a strong anti-female position along with a strong anti-sexual strain. I will deal with both. But as to women we need look no further than JP2 who clearly recognized the historically anti-female position of the church. Unfortunately he did very little to change the position of women in the church. Or to be more accurate did nothing to change the anti-female practices of the churh. In fact his barely veiled conservatism has set the cause of women back.
Just a quote or two from the past. Saint Jerome: Women are "the devil's gateway, a dangerous species, a scorpion's dart." Saint John Damascene: Women are " a sicked she-ass, a hideous tapeworm, the advanced post of hell." Saint Thomas Aquinas: Women are " misbegotten and defective." Pope Gregory the Great: Women have only two uses, "harlotry or maternity." Just samples.
Society today has changed. But the church still does not allow women any say in the church. ALL decisions are made by an almost completly dominant legion of celibate males, pledged to lead a totally sexless life. Women as the bearer of children is still the principal doctrine of Rome.
Now my point here, and afterword, is that celibate male dominance is of the utmost importance and benefit, psychologically and in terms of material advantage,to these celibate clerics, and the church clerics are in full force to protect their dominance of women by claiming the superiority of the male .
As Sipe writes: The Augustinian equation is "sex=plrasure=women=evil." And again celibacy is not the problem but "a power system using celibacy for the domination and control of others."
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Two questions.
Just a couple of fast questions . Possibly a fellow catholic can answer them for me.
Why can Marian apparitions not be photographed?
If Padre Pio is in two places at once, say the Artic Circle and the Amazon jungle, is he clothed the same?
Why can Marian apparitions not be photographed?
If Padre Pio is in two places at once, say the Artic Circle and the Amazon jungle, is he clothed the same?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)