Brutally Honest

Illogic and ignorance being used to smear Santorum

John C. Wright explains:

So, in this weird parallel Twilight Zone in which I found myself, both liberal and conservative commentators thought it worthy of comment that a practicing Catholic when addressing a Catholic audience would rebuke the sins of pride, vanity and sensuality, particularly the pride of intellectuals as seen in the La trahison des Clercs — and then rebukes the Church for falling into disarray.

The queen of the Twilight Zone is Maureen Dowd, whose reaction was to quip: “Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola. That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah.” and then to say “When, in heaven’s name, did sensuality become a vice? Next he’ll be banning Barry White.”

This is what passes for wit in the Twilight Zone: to express disbelieving yet smug disdain that Christians do not celebrate and laud the sins of the flesh.

In this weird parallel Twilight Zone, no one had been to Sunday School, or listened to a sermon, or else they would have heard this same theme at least once in their lives.

Neither had they ever cracked a history book, or else they would have known Western Civilization was Christian.

So Santorum said that proud academics think they are smarter than everybody and deny the existence of truth. I seem to recall the same point being made by Ayn Rand fifty years ago, and GK Chesterton a hundred years ago: and I cannot think of two writers more starkly opposite than the jovial theist anti-capitalist Chesterton and the choleric atheist pro-capitalist Rand. If they agree on something, it must be as common as table salt and as obvious as sunlight.

Not so obvious to the theologically and historically shallow.  DO read the entire thing... and thank Matteo for the find.

"Don't let fear keep us part"

So it's Lent... and this one will seem especially meaningful I suspect when Easter gets here 40 days from now.

I've been doing lots of navel gazing of sorts lately, pondering life, pondering death, pondering all that comes with both.

And that pondering, today at least, has me thinking about reconciliation.  First and foremost with God, but also and particularly with those whom I've caused grief, those whom I've wronged in some way.  I began this morning to take stock, to inventory, people I've grieved and whether or not I'm reconciled with them.  I think, at the moment, that I may have some work to do yet with a few people and I'm endeavoring to figure who those people are in the next 40 days because, though Lent is traditionally about giving up things, Lent can also be about taking things on, especially if those things lead to something fruitful.

What I don't want to live with is regret.  I don't want to live with the consequence of my not being reconciled with someone, especially if, God forbid, I'd lose the chance to do so.

So today, I'm thinking about reconciliation... and about regret... or more specifically, how to be in possession of the former while ensuring that I lose the latter.

Thoughts I'm dealing with on a Wednesday at lunch.  

What follows I found at Deacon Greg's place and it, in essence, fueled the pondering all the more.  Some of you will think it hokey... not to your tastes... that's too bad really cuz it's chock full of things we should all be pondering, especially over the next 40 days.

Thanks Greg.  And for those inclined, enjoy.  For those who find it hokey... hey, to each his own.

Carry on.

Why is the Catholic Church so unpopular?

Russell Shaw has a reason or two:

As the controversy over the Obama administration’s January directive to religious institutions to pay for employees’ contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs was heating up, Michael Gerson — a conservative columnist frequently friendly to the Church’s views — speculated on the reasoning behind this provocative move.

“The Obama administration seems to have calculated that, since contraceptives are popular and the Catholic Church is not, the outcry would be isolated,” Gerson wrote.

Leaving aside whether the administration actually thought that, as well as the element of exaggeration in the formulation, there’s a core element of truth here that serious Catholics need to face. In some quarters at least, the Church really is unpopular. The question isn’t whether but why.

A comprehensive answer would far exceed the space available. Countless individuals and groups have countless quarrels with the Church over countless grievances, real or imaginary. Let me speak of just one group — America’s secular establishment — which is of particular relevance in the present context.

By “secular establishment,” I mean the cluster of people who dominate America’s secular culture and its institutions — the great universities, the national media, the big foundations and think tanks, and now of course the White House.

It’s fair to say these people for the most part subscribe to a world view in which traditional religion does not play a large role. They are not just “secular” but secularists — secular ideologues — for whom a certain coolness (I use as neutral a word as possible) toward the Catholic Church comes naturally.

They also share a particular approach to resolving ethical questions. Pope Benedict XVI famously spoke of the “dictatorship of relativism,” and that is one way to express it. Another way, highlighting the sources of antipathy to the Church, is along the following lines.

The Catholic Church adheres to an ethic of substantive human purposes — things like life, truth, and justice — that establish the parameters of ethically acceptable choices and behavior. To do the right thing is to act within these boundaries; to do what is wrong is to act outside them.

The secularist mindset, by contrast, favors a libertarian ethic of process and procedure — values like democracy, equal opportunity, and that epitome of the process ethic: the “right to choose.” To be sure, most people rightly live by a mix of values of both kinds — partly substantive, partly procedural — but the differences in emphasis are real and often extremely important.

He's got more and it's interesting but he seems to me to minimize the elephant in the living room.

Did that Priest just flip Obama off?

Well... yes... he did... kinda sorta:

Thanks Frank.

With priests like this, the Catholic Church is in good hands.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"This entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration"

As a blogger who has folllowed Elizabeth Scalia for years now, I perk up when she declares some piece a must read.

Consider myself perked up after reading this Forbes column by Charles Kadlec, who states unequivocally that he is not a Catholic nor does he affirm the Church's position on contraception:

The story line that President Obama miscalculated in picking this fight with the Catholic Church vastly underestimates the man’s political skill and ambition. His initial approval of the ruling requiring the Church pay for abortion drugs and sterilization was but the first step in a calculated strategy to further his goal of transforming America.

President Obama chose to pick this fight with the Catholic Church by choosing to release the regulations first, and then, as he explained in last Friday’s statement to the press, spend “the next year (before the new regulations take effect) to find an equitable solution that would protect religious liberty and insure that every woman has access to the care that she needs.” The alternative would have been to find the “equitable solution” before announcing the regulations. In other words, this entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration.

The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:

Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.

There's more, and I agree with Ms. Scalia.  It's a must read.

The question now can arguably be boiled down to this. 

Will hatred for the Catholic Church and what she allegedly stands for (and I say allegedly because so much of what fuels opposition to the Church is ignorant hogwash) get in the way of this country's defense of liberty?

Will Obama successfully couch this as a women's rights issue when in reality it's freedom's right to be recognized and affirmed?

It's time to choose sides.  We are literally at a crossroads.  More people are recognizing this as each day passes but not enough to quash what it is Obama and his minions are attempting.

What side are you on?  Will you believe the lies or will you affirm the truth? Or putting it more bluntly, is your ability to recognize truth still existent?

I hope so.  For all our sakes and the sake of the future of this country.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"Catholics were not real Christians"

Dr. David Anders chronicles his journey from Catholic basher to enthusiastic Catholic.  Good stuff:

I grew up an Evangelical Protestant in Birmingham, Alabama. My parents were loving and devoted, sincere in their faith, and deeply involved in our church. They instilled in me a respect for the Bible as the Word of God, and a desire for a living faith in Christ. Missionaries frequented our home and brought their enthusiasm for their work. Bookshelves in our house were filled with theology and apologetics. From an early age, I absorbed the notion that the highest possible calling was to teach the Christian faith. I suppose it is no surprise that I became a Church historian, but becoming a Catholic was the last thing I expected.

My family’s church was nominally Presbyterian, but denominational differences meant very little to us. I frequently heard that disagreements over baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or church government were unimportant as long as one believed the Gospel. By this we meant that one should be “born again,” that salvation is by faith alone, and that the Bible is the sole authority for Christian faith. Our church supported the ministries of many different Protestant denominations, but the one group we certainly opposed was the Catholic Church.

The myth of a Protestant “recovery” of the Gospel was strong in our church. I learned very early to idolize the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin, because they supposedly had rescued Christianity from the darkness of medieval Catholicism. Catholics were those who trusted in “good works” to get them to heaven, who yielded to tradition instead of Scripture, and who worshipped Mary and the saints instead of God. Their obsession with the sacraments also created an enormous impediment to true faith and a personal relationship with Jesus. There was no doubt. Catholics were not real Christians.

Our church was characterized by a kind of confident intellectualism. Presbyterians tend to be quite theologically minded, and seminary professors, apologists, scientists, and philosophers were frequent speakers at our conferences. It was this intellectual atmosphere that had attracted my father to the church, and his bookshelves were lined with the works of the Reformer John Calvin, and the Puritan Jonathan Edwards, as well as more recent authors like B.B. Warfield, A.A. Hodge, C.S. Lewis, and Francis Schaeffer. As a part of this academic culture, we took it for granted that honest inquiry would lead anyone to our version of Christian faith.

All of these influences left definite impressions on me as a child. I came to see Christianity as somewhat akin to Newtonian physics. The Christian faith consisted in certain eminently reasonable and immutable laws, and you were guaranteed eternal life provided you constructed your life according to these principles. I also thought this was the message clearly spelled out in the official textbook of Christian theology: the Bible. Only mindless trust in human tradition or depraved indifference could possibly explain anyone’s failure to grasp these simple truths.

There was one strange irony in this highly religious and theological atmosphere...

Fascinating story of one who was staunchly critical to now one who is staunchly a defender of the Catholic faith.

Read the whole thing.

Belong... and know hope

Tomorrow will be two weeks since we first received the news.  Two weeks of ups and downs, of highs and lows, of thinking good things and bad things. 

My prairie woman remains strong and hopeful, buoyed by her faith and family, her inner strength giving others strength, her outer calm relaying a message to those that love her that all will be well.

We've both been uplifted by small things.  A reassuring hug and confident prayer given by our priest last week.  A snail mail note sent by someone at the church who beat this same diagnosis some years ago.  Quick words of encouragement from family and friends at opportune times.

We've also been carried by much bigger things.  Being told repeatedly by members of the RCIA leadership team that they're praying for us.  Scheduling to meet our priest on Tuesday for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.  Meeting Christ in Holy Communion and asking Him for healing as His cells meet our own in the mystery that is the Eucharist.

It's all so interesting and personally awe-inspiring given that less than two years ago, we were in essence homeless spiritually.  No church to draw strength from, no church to call home, no body of believers from which to be comforted or consoled.

Yet today, facing what is undoubtedly the biggest challenge of our lives, we belong to a body that acts as if we've been there all along.

I write this post for a variety of reasons.  

One, to give folks a bit of an update.  Two, to let people know we continue to covet your prayers (and to express here and now how much we appreciate them).  But really, in the end, I write this to encourage those of you who aren't connected to a local body of believers to get connected.  

Some of you may be feeling like you don't belong.  Some of you might be facing challenges and trials that are scary, even paralyzing.  Not belonging while facing frightening stuff is just something I can't fathom dealing with.

Find a body.  Christ is there.  My preference is a Catholic church where literally Christ's presence is real and tangible but I'm a little biased.

Bottom line is don't face these things alone.  

Belong... and know hope.

"This is the first time in the history of the United States..."

"... that a presidential administration has purposely tried to interfere in the internal working of the Catholic Church, playing one group off against another for political gain.  What isn’t always understood is that the Bishops of the Church make no attempt to speak for all Catholics; they never have.  The Bishops speak for the Catholic and apostolic faith, and those who hold that faith gather around them.  Others disperse.  That dynamic is clear in history and became clear also in the official visit to Rome that the Bishops of our region made this week.

Our visit has reminded us that the Church enjoys divine assistance even when she is being attacked."

- Francis Cardinal George, OMI - Archbishop of Chicago

Someone should ask the President what he thinks about this first.

Someone should ask Nancy Pelosi, the Catholic Nancy Pelosi, what she thinks.

Someone should ask Kathleen Sebelius, the Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, what she thinks.

Don't hold your breath.

H/T to Wheat&Weeds.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"Every single move in the Obama administration's effort to sweep Catholicism from the public stage has happened before"

Peter Sean Bradley at Lex Communis:

Why knowing history is important.

Having recently read books on the Kulturkampf and the Nazi state's relationship with the German Catholic Church, I am struck by the fact that every single move in the Obama administration's effort to sweep Catholicism from the public stage has happened before.

The Obama's administration's argument that Catholic conscience and practice is protected only when it involves the administration of the sacraments to Catholics? The Nazis made the same distinction for the same purpose, namely to eliminate Catholic influence in "political" life. See this and this.

The Obama's administration use of Catholics who identify themselves as Democrat or liberal or progressive first, and Catholic second?That is a gambit, again, right out of Nazi Germany.

The intrusion of state power and politics into every facet of life so that dissenting from the State's policies on maters of conscience is made into a risky "political" decision? The Nazis, again.

Using State power to suppressing Catholic moral doctrines on the grounds that such doctrines are "superstitious"? The German Kulturkampf - a period of oppression and persecution initiated and sustained by German liberals. 

Ludicrous you might be saying.  Outrageously Godwin-ian.  Far-fetched rightwing outlandishness.

To which I say... I hope you're right.  I genuinely do.  

"The secular state is no longer satisfied with this sort of steady drift toward secularization..."

Father Robert Barron speaks to Obama's secular totalitarianism with wisdom and prescience... listen through to the end and understand why he's not just speaking to Catholics: