John Henry Newman as a celebrity novelist?

A reader, writing in response to Timothy Larsen's "A Pious Fiction" (Christianity Today, July-August, 2016), says:

"I mostly liked this review in Books & Culture. On a book you recommended to me long ago. And what registers rating this reviewer's take is that Newman was in fact more the popular writer and cultural pundit than you might have thought, and maybe a bit of a celebrity novelist. I am not so sure "A Pious Fiction" isn't a gentle Protestant jab, but Catholics could roll with [Newman's novel,] CONVERSION: A NOVEL ACCOUNT [or, LOSS AND GAIN: The Story of a Convert][(University of Notre Dame Press: 2015)].

Lord of the Rings star blasts pedophile devils of Hollywood

David Outten, "Frodo Bravely Speaks Out on Pedophilia" (Movie Guide, May 31, 2016):

Wood told the London Sunday Times that Hollywood is in the grip of a child abuse scandal. Wood said the activity is all organized, “There are a lot of vipers in this industry, people who only have their own interests in mind.” He continued, “There is a darkness in the underbelly. If you can imagine it, it’s probably happened.”

The very real darkness Wood speaks of is darker than the darkest scene in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. When Wood says, “If you can imagine it,” he means it. In 1998, Jon Benet Ramsey was murdered at six years old — bound, gagged and strangled with a chord. This was an act of lust at its ugliest. The dark forces driving such behavior are not imaginary. They may not look as frightening as an ork, but they’re just as ugly.

... Elijah Wood says his mother protected him. He told the London Sunday Times, “She was far more concerned with raising me to be a good human than facilitating my career. I never went to parties where that kind of thing was going on. This bizarre industry presents so many paths to temptation. If you don’t have some kind of foundation, typically from family, then it will be difficult to deal with.”

Star-struck popes confirm "hermeneutic of continuity"!

Doubtless you've heard about how Salma Hayek, Richard Gere, and George Clooney were feted and awarted with medals by Pope Francis recently to promote the work of a foundation inspired by the pontiff, Scholas Occurrentes. "Important values can be transmitted by celebrities," said one of the organizers, Lorena Bianchetti. There's a short video from the event at this site.

Now comes the intrepid Amateur Brain Surgeon, founder of ABE Ministries, with balm for the wounds of wounded conservative and traditionalist Catholic souls. First, from a book entitled Shepherd of Souls: A Pictorial Life of Pope Pius XII, he points to a page showing how Pius XII was a movie buff, a fan of Clark Gable, and, writes the author:

When the movie King of Hollywood, his wife and daughter were granted a private audience, the subsequent callers were kept waiting in the reception hall for two hours. When Clark Gable's visit ended, Bishop Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli followed. This bishop is now known as Pope John XXIII.

Finally, from the May 9, 1967 issue of the Sydney Morning Herald, ABS quotes from an article with a banner photo of Pope Paul with his arms outstretched to welcome actress Claudia Cardinale at a special audience to mark World Social Communications Media Day. The article says:

Claudia Cardinale worse a mini-skirt, Gina Lollobrigida braved her critics, but Sophia Loren couldn't make it to an unprecedented meeting between Pope Paul VI and the world of showbiz yesterday.

... the film stars stole the show -- even from the Pope himself, who was garmented in dazzling white robes.

Claudia was the first to bring gasps when she walked to her seat near the Pope's throne wearing her mini-little black dress.

Miss Cardinale recently married outside Italy a man who is not the father of her son, born when she was unmarried.

The Church forgave her early sins, but not her marriage to a man the Church considers to be still married to his first wife.

Then came Lollobrigida, who, at first, stood in a small crowd and then was escorted to a chair in a reserved section immediately facing the Throne.

On the way a bearded Swiss Guard stopped her, but a horrified officer reprimanded the Guard with: "Obviously, you don't go to the cinema."

Miss Lollobrigida was recently acquitted of an obscenity charge brought over a falling towel scene in her latest film.

But she has also earned the Church's disapproval because of her legal separation from her husband, Milko Skofic.

... But Miss Loren, who has been embroiled for years in an alleged bigamy case over her marriage to producer Carlo Ponti, disappointed the crowd by preferring to continue work on a film, although invited.

Recent debate: Shea vs. Ferrara

This would have been fun to witness:


The Argument of the Month (AOTM) Club promises to have the audio of the debate available at their site soon (check the 'Media' link on the previously linked site). They have a before-the-fact "preview" of the debate on the above website, and there's also this pre-debate discussion between Ferrara and Michael Matt. My hunch is that it would have been pretty predictable; yet it would have been fun.

"Weimar America madness": a spiritual warfare that mere politics cannot win (Dreher on Transparent's creator, Jill Soloway, as a contemporary exhibit)

Rod Dreher, "The Next Culture War Front" (The American Conservative, December 14, 2015), writes:

Jill Soloway [the culture-war gladiator for the radical left and creator of the TV series Transparent] is an increasingly influential culture creator — and she has powerful media institutions like The New York Times on her side. What’s going on in our culture is far, far beyond politics, but it will drive politics and law, and not in a direction that bodes well for religious liberty. At the very least.

And Transparent, in which Jeffrey Tambor portrays an elderly man who transitions into life as an elderly woman, cannot be regarded as a fringe show; this year, it had 11 Emmy nominations and five wins, making it one of the most honored programs in the industry.

From Ariel Levy’s fantastic New Yorker profile of Jill Soloway, we learn (among many other things) that Soloway, Transparent's creator, has just left her husband and their seven-year-old son, and taken up with a lesbian poet, "who is over the moon about how nothing binds our behavior except our own will." But the end of the article hits us like a thunderbolt, telling us exactly what we are dealing with here:

I asked Myles [the protégé of Allen Ginsberg’s on whom the character Ali Pfefferman is modelled] if, as a poet, she struggled to refer to an individual person as “they.” She said, “It’s not intuitive at all. But I’m obsessed with that part in the Bible when Jesus is given the opportunity to cure a person possessed by demons, and Jesus says, ‘What is your name?’ And the person replies, ‘My name is legion.’ Whatever is not normative is many.” She liked the idea of a person containing more than one self, more than one gender.

“Part of it is just the fiction of being alive,” she said. “Every step, you’re making up who you are.”

Dreher concludes:

This is not primarily a culture war over political power. This is spiritual warfare, as the Soloway piece makes plain for those with eyes to see. A political response is necessary, but a political response alone is radically insufficient, in part because it’s nothing but a delaying action. This Weimar America madness has to run its course. We religious conservatives had all better do everything we can to protect our institutions and our families from it. It’s not going to be easy, but it’s not going to get any easier as the years go by, no matter who sits in the White House, and we had better prepare ourselves.

[Hat tip to JM]

If sex can be sacred, is it possible to overdose? Could sushi be better than sex?

Dusty Gates, "Is Sexual Desire Holy" (Crisis, November 10, 2014)


Rachel Lu, "Can Married Couples Have Too Much Sex?" (Crisis, July 25, 2014)


Our underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard city that knows how to keep its secrets, Guy Noir - Private Eye, was provoked by these two Crisis magazine articles to wire me the following telegram:

Frankly, the hyperventilating Christopher West-ian strain of enthusiasm that currently embarrasses too many Catholic apologetic and devotional presentations attempts to meet the culture on its own terms and ends up stripping the faith of latent qualities of prudence and dignified circumspection. Certainly the suggestion that sex is "not secret but sacred" can backfire into a sanctimoniousness that tries to petrify passion or kill "the joy of sex." But hardly less problematic is this new conception of sex as a candy-coated sacrament best dispensed in bulk quantities, even by 55 year olds aping King Solomon. Here are two articles confirming what tend to forget: over-reactions are usually understandable, and rarely helpful.

I couldn't help remembering a good book on the subject that talked uncommon sense by Christopher Derrick, Sex and Sacredness: A Catholic Homage to Venus(Ignatius, 1982), about which Peter Kreeft says that when he used the book once as a text at Boston College, he concluded that his students knew everything about sex but nothing about sacredness. Another book of uncommon sense about the dangers of underestimating irreverence in intimate relations is the irrepressible Alice von Hildebrand's The Dark Night of the Body: Why Reverence Comes First in Intimate Relations(Roman Catholic Books, 2013).

Once when I was teaching students the basic principles of logic, I asked them to give me a major premise in order to help construct a syllogism. So I asked them what they thought was the most wonderful thing in the world. Almost unanimously, the wretched little libidinous pagans chimed in: Sex! Which gave me the perfect opportunity to have a little fun with their sophomoric presumption.

Okay, I replied, and wrote their major premise on the board: "Nothing is better than sex."

Next, I provided the minor premise: "Sushi is better than nothing" -- you know, I added, like if you were on a desert island and had nothing to eat (this was back when sushi was thought by most Americans to be something close to fish bait).

I then asked them to infer the conclusion. Which meant, of course, that for some minutes I could sit back enjoy their dumbfounded puzzlement.

Major premise: Nothing is better than sex.
Minor premise: Sushi is better than nothing.
Conclusion: Therefore, sushi is better than sex.

I wonder whether some of them have figured out yet exactly what happened there.

[Hat tip to G.N.]

How can a film be "too gay" for Hollywood?

Interesting point about how those most interested in promoting causes like gay pride an abortion rights are least interested in having exposed what their causes actually involve.

Is "gay" sex good for anyone? Brute facts

What would you think if a relative, friend, or colleague had a condition that is routinely, even if not always, associated with the following problems:

• A significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful marriage
• A five- to ten-year decrease in life expectancy
• Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease --hepatitis
• Inevitably fatal esophageal cancer
• Pneumonia
• Internal bleeding
• Serious mental disabilities, many of which are irreversible
• A much higher than usual incidence of suicide
• A very low likelihood that its adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is eliminated
• An only 30 percent likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected population of sufferers (although a very high success rate among highly motivated, carefully selected sufferers).

We can add four qualifications to this unnamed condition. First, even though its origins are influenced by genetics, the condition is, strictly speaking, rooted in behavior. Second, individuals who have this condition continue the behavior in spite of the destructive consequences of doing so. third, although some people with this condition perceive it as a problem and wish they could rid themselves of it, many others deny they have any problem at all and violently resist all attempts to "help" them. And fourth, these people who resist help tend to socialize with one another, sometimes exclusively and forma a kind of "subculture."

No doubt you would care deeply for someone close to you who had such a condition. And whether or not society considered it undesirable or even an illness, you would want to help. Undoubtedly, you would also consider it worth "treating," that is, you would seek to help your relative, friend, or colleague by eliminating the condition entirely.

The condition we are speaking of is alcoholism. Alcoholism is clearly undesirable precisely because of all the adverse conditions directly associated with it, although not every alcoholic develops all the problems associated with it.

Alcoholism is a form of compulsive or addictive behavior that has volitional, family, psychological, social, and genetic "causes." Whether it can be considered an "illness" in the strict sense makes for an interesting philosophical discussion but a useless practical one -- as is true for all addictions. Nonetheless, and in spite of the relatively modest "cure" rate, it is still well worth treating, and treating as though it were an illness (as does organized psychiatry, which lists it as a disorder), because of the enormously serious personal and social consequences of not doing so. And now imagine another friend or colleague who had a condition associated with a similar list of problems:

• A significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful marriage
• A twenty-five to thirty-year decrease in life expectancy
• Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease -- infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer
• Frequently fatal rectal cancer
• Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases
• A much higher than usual incidence of suicide
• A very low likelihood that its adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is
• An at least 50 percent likelihood of being eliminated through lentghy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected group of sufferers (although a very high success rate, in some instances nearing 100 percent, for groups of highly motivated, carefully selected individuals)

As with alcoholism: First, even though its origins may be influenced by genetics, the condition is, strictly speaking, a pattern of behavior; second, individuals who have this condition continue in the behavior in spite of the destructive consequences of doing so; third, although some people with this condition perceive it as a problem and wish they could rid themselves of it, many others deny they have any problem at all and violently resist all attempts to "help" them; and fourth, some of the people with this condition -- especially those who deny it is a problem -- tend to socialize almost exclusively with one another and form a "subculture."

This condition is homosexuality. Yet despite the parallels between the two conditions, what is striking today are the sharply different responses to them....

Gay activists deliberately paint a picture of homosexual life, especially among men, that is the counterpart of heterosexual life. Their purpose is to avoid alienating support from sympathetic heterosexuals who constitute the vast majority of people. For example, one activist handbook [M. Kirk and H. Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays, 1989] advises: "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims.... Persons featured in the media campaign should be ... indistinguishable from the straights we'd like to reach." Another [M. Kirk and E. Pill, "The Overhauling of Straight America," Guide, November 1987, p. 24] advises: "The masses must not be repulsed by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself."

In spite of clear evidence that homosexual standards are strikingly different from the heterosexual norm, the general public impression has been created that gays are little different from straights. The above quotations show the keen awareness of some gay activists for the need for deceptive cover. But in many cases it seems as though many gays have bought this artificially constructed picture in all hopefulness.

Excerpted from Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth(Baker Books, 2004), pp. 49-52.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for more than twenty years. He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University and past William James Lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard University, and the University of Texas. He and his wife have three children.

Related:

• Joseph Nicolosi, "The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality" (Crisis, December 19, 2016)
• Austin Ruse, "A Good Gay Myth is a Terrible Thing to Waste" (March 9, 2018)
• Paul Kengor, "Shootings and Fatherlessness: A Clarification on the Data" (March 9, 2018)

"This video tracks one song across 800 years and multiple films"

"What do Star Wars, The Exorcist, and The Lion King all have in common?" asks William Hughes, in an article by the above title:

As demonstrated in this web video from CBC Music, presented by CBC Radio 2 host Tom Allen, they all have soundtracks that feature the Dies Irae, a 13th century Latin hymn that listeners probably know as “that one sad song you’ve heard a thousand times.” The video traces the song, a meditation on death and the ending of the world, from its medieval roots through just a few of the many, many soundtracks it’s appeared on, including The Lord Of The Rings, The Lion King, and “Tubular Bells,” the theme from The Exorcist.

[Hat tip to Nina Brhyn and Fr. David Bechill]

Beautiful! Michael Voris on the Catholic significance of Tolkien's Shire

Adventures in Odyssey Meets Smallville

"Anne Rice, call your office." Har!!

"Fox Developing ‘Nazareth’, a Show about Jesus’ Early Life" (Relevant Magazine):

Fox is joining the list of networks creating new original programming centered on the life of Christ. The network has announced that they are developing a new series which will focus on the early life of Jesus. Nazareth will reportedly examine the years between ages 13 and 30, which are not referenced often in the Gospels. Following the massive success of The Bible miniseries, Lifetime, NBC and The History Channel also have new Jesus-centered shows in the works.

Why Fox did not name their show Boy Saves World is anyone's guess ...

First comment in: "Cause that what we need -- heartthrob, teenage Jesus." (Maria-Virginia Deliz)

Indeed.

[Hat tip to JM]

On Stephen Colbert replacing David Letterman

Billy Hallowell has an interesting piece, "Did You Know That Stephen Colbert Is a Devout Catholic Whose Childhood Was Impacted by a Very Traumatic Event?" (The Blaze, April 11, 2014), which, among other interesting bits, has this clip of Stephen Colbert being interviewed about his Christian Faith, God, Hell on NPR:


Guy Noir - Private Eye comments:

Arresting bit of news it is that Colbert is taking Letterman's place. I was always a fan of Carson, but not so much of Letterman, since I prefer my humor without much malice and my irony lite. Colbert is a bit sunnier, though I would nit-pick that he strikes me as a Fr. John Courtney Murray Catholic. A few years ago the Post reported on his effort along with John Stewart:

"Stewart named his march the "Rally to Restore Sanity" and called for everybody to come to Washington to show the 15 percent of America that drives the conversation that the rest of the country can get along. "A Million Moderate March ... a clarion call for rationality," Stewart called it. Colbert, who often takes the role of bombastic conservative host to Stewart's exasperated liberal, announced that he will sponsor a "March to Keep Fear Alive."

Funny thing, though, is that one of Fr. John Murray's big fans was actually Frank Sheed. I think of the following lines written by Frank Sheed's son, ones I imagine almost anyone in Hollywood who professes faith might identify with. And I also wonder: what would Sheed or Murray make of Colbert or Stewart -- or even, for that matter, the current incarnation of America magazine, the latter which both gentlemen can fairly be said to have inadvertently helped create...

Frank and Maisie were much too civilized to use social occasions to convert people. Yet they lived in —dread is too strong aword—mild apprehension that something silly would be said at a mixed gathering which would require a Catholic answer. Frank believed (and in this Maisie was a rubber stamp) that Catholics live in the real world and the rest don’t and that this has implications far beyond the religious. So every conversation was a mine field. And the danger faced both ways. Outsiders might admire Sheed/Ward from afar, but if they got too close to it or went too deep, they would have had to find it insane (as they would Dorothy Day or Mother Teresa). Those crazy claims must be symbolic, aren’t they? Virgin births? Resurrections? No, I’m afraid they’re not. If Rome was the true Church, and there was no if about it, Catholics were right and the others wrong, except insofar as they agreed with Catholics. Discussion is difficult on these terms. Wilfrid Sheed, Frand and Maisie: A Memoir with Parents, XX.

It will be interesting to witness how the culture at large warms to Colbert. He seems nice and sincere and, yes, Catholic! But I also wonder, in today's increasingly acerbic-to-fatih climate, how far can someone really get without soft-peddling faith. That is an honest question, not an accusation.

[Hat tip to JM]

Russell Crowe's Noah and Genesis in Space and Time

Steven D. Greydanus, "Everybody chill out about the ‘Noah’ movie" (NRC, February 19, 2014) rushes to instruct: "Get a grip, people ..." Emmm... okay. So what's the problem? He writes:

• Let’s begin by recognizing that most Christians are familiar with a strictly Sunday school version of the Noah story....
• It has been recognized for some time that the early chapters of Genesis, i.e., Genesis 1–11 (the pre-Abrahamic primeval history), represent a literary form quite different from later, historical texts ... ...it is not beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy, and defined Catholic teaching in particular, to classify the Flood narrative in Genesis as divinely inspired mythology. ....
• Biblical narratives, particularly in the Old Testament, don’t always neatly dovetail with developed Christian belief regarding God, angels and other spiritual realities. ....
• Tensions between biblical imagination and developed Christian doctrine extend to varying approaches to imagining or picturing God's own attributes and character throughout the Old Testament.
• The flood story, which has a rich, diverse history in ancient Near Eastern mythology, has been variously developed and glossed in Jewish tradition as well as Christian thought.

Okay, okay. That's enough. Call me a stick in the mud, but I'll take Francis A. Schaeffer's Genesis in Space and Time any day. "Demythologize" Genesis 1-11, and you've got Crème de New Age served up for your dinner entrée. More interesting, however, are the comments of our underground correspondent we keep on retainer, Guy Noir - Private Eye, who writes:

Fascinating commentary here. Also annoying in its predictability, and that from a consistently astute film critic at the NCR. I guess people can overreact, but he calls all the conjecture "pure garbage" and his only real defense is, "At this point, of course, very few people have seen Noah. I haven’t seen it myself, but I’m intrigued by what I’ve read. There’s a lot of room in the biblical story for interpretation and imagination, and anyone who’s been thinking about this story as long as Aronofsky has is likely to have some interesting insights into it."

You have got to be kidding me. Once again, people who try to maintain a faithful and traditional Catholic perspective are seen as a problem. People who may want to overturn traditions... interesting insights. I have read only a little bit about the movie, and it does sound, er, interesting, but... Really, how could any modern NOT mess up a story like that of Noah unless he or she had lots of Christian influence? The story is difficult enough for Christians! And what today more impacts peoples' long term ideas and impressions than the medium of film. "JFK" anyone?

This all goes back to one of my beefs with modern Catholics. The entire structure of Catholicism is built on an old-fashioned, traditional reading of the New Testament. The authority of the Pope comes from a literal reading of the Gospels and Tradition. But now, literal Scripture reading AND Tradition are challenged at every point, and the recourse is that the only thing binding is whatever a modern Pope says. Talk about circular reasoning that leaves us with a papal fan club. Hence, "I HEART PAPA ________________," but please, no hard saints of the Gospels or talk of Original Sin. The film critic here, unsurprisingly is studying for ordination, so I am certain he is being exposed to Biblical criticism and scholarship of a certain sort. I am not a Young or Old Earth Creationist. I have no idea how things actually played out. But I do know this: the allegorical approach to Scripture, the big push for "Myth," is pretty catastrophic. Just look at the result in Catholicism. I forget who said that the beginning of France's secularization and the flight from Catholicism was sparked by the debunking of Genesis. I believe it.

Alan Jacobs, a teacher of literature, incidentally, has this old piece worth quoting:

From one who belongs to a covenant community, then, the appropriation of the biblical narrative must be done by historical rather than what Kass would call philosophical means. Our task is not to find a conceptual vocabulary that will allow us to build analogical bridges between the biblical text and our experience; rather, we must understand that we dwell in the same history that the people of Israel relate in the Pentateuch, a history that even the Law itself is but a part of. (As David Damrosch has written, “In its presentation of the Law within this vision of the redemptive potential of exile, Leviticus is the very heart of pentateuchal narrative.”) Genesis is not analogous to our experience; it is our experience, in its historical aspect.

It is very, very easy to retreat to the "It's all a series of well-meant Myths." It's also very, very unsatisfactory. Everyone knows that if a foundation is seen as sketchy, it is quite difficult to build on. Genesis' earliest chapters remain an achilles heel of modern theology. But the only people convinced by teases like Ratzinger's In the Beginning are those that already are determined to believe faith and 'modern science' can be easily reconciled. As we are seeing again in the arena of sexuality, they simply can't. There is a primitive simplicity to parts of religion that erudite minds chaff at. Mabe the Noah movie will actually get some aspects of that right. But in that case, I imagine Steven Greydanus will probably after all have a bit of a problem with it!

[Hat tip to JM]

Insanity: "Half of adults polled think Harry Potter and Hunger Games could be Biblical"

This from Fr. Z, who is at the Detroit Institute of Art today. He writes:

It often seems that, these days, the odds are never in our favor.

I take time out from my furious conference preparation (on art coming up in Detroit) to present something that only confirms the great fruits of Vatican II and the magnificent benefits we have gained from decades of liberal Left domination of Catholic education, the breakdown of clear preaching, the erosion of the family, timid clerical oversight, shabby liturgical worship unworthy of the name....

First on display, this (biretta tip Pewsitter) comes from WND:

POLL: ‘HUNGER GAMES,’ ‘HARRY POTTER’ ARE BIBLICAL

Stunning results also reveal 1 in 3 don’t know Nativity is in Scripture

A new poll conducted by the Bible Society reveals that more than half of the adults who responded believe “The Hunger Games” are biblical and one in three say “Harry Potter” could be a storyline from the sacred text.

“While these statistics may appear surprising at first glance, they are symptomatic of the fact that many children indicate they have never read, seen or even heard these stories,” the poll of respondents from the United Kingdom explained.

Very hard to believe this. But Fr. Z's article goes on with other sources and other, just as bizarre examples.

[Hat tip to GN]

Fundamentalist insights on "Hollywood muck"

Fundamentalists have traditionally held an Amish-like view of the world of culture, arts and entertainment, which is to say that they have basically shunned it. Contemporary Evangelicals may represent a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction. A writer from a Fundamentalist background offers some interesting insights in Trevin Wax, "Evangelicals and Hollywood Muck" (TGC, January 6, 2014).

[Hat tip to JM]

Humani Generis and Downton Abbey

The underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic Seaboard city that knows how to keep its secrets, Guy Noir - Private Eye, wired me this really excellent and intriguing set of reflections:

Interesting piece here by a priest writer I have found quite on target in the past: Fr. Brian van Hove, S.J., "Looking Back at 'Humani Generis'" (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, December 23, 2013)

I tacked on a comment at the end. [See below]

But really, to you I'd coment, what are we really reading here? I find it an an exercise in wishful thinking or maybe an unintentional whitewash.

I wonder if you asked seminary students to read Humani Generis and summarize each section in easy to understand modern phraseology, and then asked them to parallel that with modern Catholic parish attitudes towards language, evolution and Scripture... Would any one of them would say the general advice of the Pope was still given credence today?

And does anyone retain a remote appreciation for the perceived attacks that prompted the encyclical? I ask this since it amuses me that it is perceived as an artifact when it is dealing with the exact same challenges being posed today. That's why Mohler asks of TV's hit "'Downton Abbey' and the Modern Age—What Are We Really Watching?" That show is a story of what unfolded in the same period that Wilfrid Ward knew men like Belloc and palled around with guys like Huxley and von Hugel.

Guy Noir's comment on the linked piece by Fr. Brian van Hove, S.J. on Humani Generis

A fascinating article, but for me it begs a question. Why is it that the revival brought about by the New Theology finds its exponents doing things like defending de Chardin? Why did these same defenders seem so unconcerned about the erosion of Biblical authority and so naively surprised by the liturgical hijinxs that followed? They met Modernism by changing rhetoric, but not by directly answering its challenges. That is what the Papal Office sought to do.

Honestly, not many of the masses who were put off by Latin syllogisms were much more helped by DeLubac’s or HvB’s cerebral works in the vernacular. A guy like Frank Sheed welcomed the lifting of the manualist straightjacket, but he also found the cummulative result of the progressive reforms he helped initiate so disturbing he had to ask, “Is It the Same Church?” Meanwhile, we now have Popes quoting De Chardin! Yes, Garrigou Lagrange and Merry del Val advocated an exactitude that was self-defeating, but within that advocacy there was an appreciation for the necessity of precision, clarity and plain-speaking in doctrine that would go a long way towards eliminating the confusion that now is constant. Evolution is a prime example. Check out the CCCs comment that Genesis relates a historical reality against the mantra assumed to be doctrine that is quoted by priests at the parish level based on JPIIs comments. The later cannot be squared with HG, but it can be squared with the soft edges of Nouvelle theology.

Harshness in doctrine kills, absolutely, but so does a fuzziness that reduces everything to vagaries that are suffocated in an avalanche of footnotes. That is somehow where the New Theology helped to take us, albeit unintentionally. I think it was right to point out the deficiencies of Scholasticism, but we now also need to appreciate the problems in the Nouvelle school that are very real as well. I am glad to see the reputation of Garrigou Lagrange being gradually rehabilitated (It is fascinating that he and Maritain were good friends.)

There are also a couple of good comments by John Lamont.

[Hat tip to JM]

Pope Francis: Let moms breastfeed in Church

"Pope Francis: Let Moms Breastfeed in Church" (Gleanings, January 14, 2014).

Really, you have to smile or laugh.

The reader who sent this link told me that he was compelled to create a Twitter account today, which was quite eye-opening. Within two hours, he said, he had 50 "followers."

"So all these people are BOMBARDED by one liners all day long? A torrent of thought blasts? It does not take a curmudgeon to point out that people so pelted really can't have much deep thought going on, since they are simply plastered with platitudes and messaging. It's sort of patently obvious," he writes; then adds:

Reading the breast feeding thing, I simply think the Vatican right now is probably perfectly in sync with the Twitter generation. It all seems a comical episode of majoring on minors. "Let them drink milk!" We ... could ... not ... script a better SL skit if we tried! Really, I am simply now laughing. And for once, I think maybe we are actually AHEAD of the silly Protestants. I await the Episcopal Church's suggestion we hold a joint synod on thew Plight of Breastfeeding Mothers, and the resultant appeal for a government grant to launch a educational initiative to help!

[Hat tip to JM]

American Anti-Americanism, Catholic Anti-Catholicism?

I recently read a bit of an online article by Maureen Scott. One sentence -- a question she asked -- made me think: "Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings?" she asked.

This question may deserve some pondering in its own right -- particularly the increasing anti-Americanism of Americans, and the wholesale disdain for America and its traditions that we see throughout the country, from the highest political offices down to popular culture. But it also got me thinking about something else.

One could just as well ask: "How often have we head our pope, bishops, and priests, or rank-and-file Catholics, speak lovingly of Mother Church, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our traditions, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings?"

Now here is an irony every bit as deep as that of American anti-Americanism, namely, Catholic anti-Catholicism.

One of the first puzzles I faced upon being received into the Church on that blessed Holy Week exactly twenty years ago, was the bizarre spectacle of Catholics who despised their own traditions. What was more, they often seemed to despise these traditions in direct proportion to their ignorance of them. It was the Church's historical credentials that first commended themselves to my mind, just as it was her traditional devotions that first commended themselves to my heart. How then could Catholics despise their own historical credentials and religious traditions? I was intrigued and perplexed by the perverse irony of it.

While it may have been a long time coming, there is something deeply twisted about the turn our society took some half-century ago in the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. Even in the most superficial terms of popular culture there is something of this to be found, I think, in the euphemisms, memes, and metaphors we hear used in common speech these days.

When a pianist is exceptionally good, someone may remark, "He plays a WICKED piano." When someone wants to describe himself as very good at something, he may say, with a grin, "Hey, I'm BAD, man!" When some vulgar philistine sees an attractive woman, he may say "She's the SH__!" What's up with this? Since when did it become uncool to describe anything as "good," "true," or "beautiful"?

But back to the Americans and Catholics. It may be easy enough to dismiss American anti-Americanism by observing that this set of Americans has broken faith with the principles of the American founding fathers, that it represents a post-modern and post-Christian people.

But what about Catholic anti-Catholics? What can we say of them?

How to eat Ramen

The noble art of the noodle, demonstrated by an old Master:


... from the old classic movie "Tampopo"

How to keep Millennials in the church? Let’s keep church un-cool.

April 22, 2011 - Amid the tsunami devastation in northern Japan, a wooden cross stands where there was
once a church in Kesennuma, Miyagi prefecture. Yasuyoshi Chiba / AFP/Getty Images Brett McCracken, "How to keep Millennials in the church? Let’s keep church un-cool" (Washington Post, July 31, 2013) - excerpt:

Millennials: why don’t we take our pastors, parents, and older Christian brothers and sisters out to coffee and listen to them? Perhaps instead of perpetuating our sense of entitlement and Twitter/blog/Instagram-fueled obsession with hearing ourselves speak, we could just shut up for a minute and listen to the wisdom of those who have gone before?

[Hat tip to JM]