Punditry

PETER JENNINGS REPORTING: JESUS AND PAUL � THE WORD AND THE WITNESS,� A THREE-HOUR PRIMETIME ABC NEWS SPECIAL, TELLS THE STORY OF THE FIRST CHRISTIANS AND TWO MEN WHO CHANGED THE WORLD, MONDAY, APRIL 5

The Monday before Easter, in a three-hour primetime event, ABC News will try to get at the real story of Jesus and Paul, two men who, against all odds, changed the course of human history. �Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul � The Word and the Witness� airs MONDAY, APRIL 5 (8:00-11:00 p.m., ET), on the ABC Television Network.

…No other network has demonstrated more commitment to covering issues of spirituality and religion than ABC News. From �Peter Jennings Reporting: The Search for Jesus,� which aired in June 2000, to the November 2003 special, �Jesus, Mary and da Vinci,� to last month�s �Mel Gibson�s Passion,� ABC News consistently focuses attention on the complex, often controversial issues surrounding religious history and personal faith that are at the heart of American culture.
[Press Release]

Actually I just wish ABC News would consistently ignore religion. The first two specials they mentioned were unadulterated crap. A parade of liberal scholars offset by some that believe it is just possible that Jesus might have really existed, or as ABC would call them – conservative scholars. Just another photo op for a collar less Fr. Richard P. McBrien and every other theologian who has appeared on A&E or the Discovery Channel in a special with “Truth” in its title. Maybe they can get the script writers from their Judas movie. At least then it would be funny.

An article on Holy Redeemer Church in Montrose. This church was recently dedicated by Cardinal Mahoney. This was a new church built to replace a mission church.

As with the trend in new churches this picture demonstrates a game you can play. Like the popular picture game Where’s Waldo? we now have a similar quest Where’s the Tabernacle?” This version of the game seems really difficult and I have not figured it out yet.

Maybe it is just me, but when I see this crucifix it looks like the nails fell out of his hands and Christ is falling off the Cross. I realize the trend in church art is to try to deemphasize the Crucifixion and to emphasize the resurrection. But I don’t think the artistic efforts that are halfway between these two events have been very successful. Maybe a bloodless Crucifixion fits our culture which see itselft as sinless.

I have received what I would consider to be the Mandatum of Catholic Orthodoxy in St. Blogs. I have been attacked in an article on St. Blogs in Commonweal. Oh happy day! Now I know I am on the right track.

St. Blog�s has an official proofreader, Nihil Obstat (�Don�t ask for the facts unless you want the truth�) who corrects both grammar and improperly formed Web addresses. There�s a resident humorist, the Curt Jester, whose parody of Amazon.com sells the Patriot Anti-Missalette Battery, �Guaranteed to not allow modern missalettes such as those published by Oregon Catholic Press within a thousand feet of your church…the ultimate in GIRM warfare protection��General Instruction on the Roman Missal, get it? Not all the Jester�s lines hit their target.

This is just awesome. It looks like out of the whole article the only person she took a pot shot at was me. Perhaps one of the targets I did hit was too close to her for comfort. Kind of like sitting in a submarine set for silent running while depth charges rain down. Well I can hope.

Also notice she feel that she has to explain to the readers of Commonweal what GIRM stands for. Well, maybe she’s right. I also enjoyed the “Get it?” the special emphasis to show how lame my humor is. Of course that same Avazon.com parody also drew about 10,000 hits in two days, somebody must “get it.”

A special thanks to Domenico Bettinelli for his reaction to this article and his more than kind comments about my humor.

Not surprisingly, there are several blogs by converts. The best of these are reverent with gratitude; most explain (sometimes with an unfortunate didacticism) what led the author to Catholicism.

What in the world does “unfortunate didacticism” mean. What is wrong with converts making “moral observations” about their path to Rome. I guess she must object to the moral part.

Curiously, women religious are absent from St. Blog�s. An absence explained by the conservative bent of many blogs, or just a function of statistics?

Notice her assumption that the women religious are automatically liberal. And how can the blogosphere prevent liberals of any stripe from opining, conservative bent or not? Now if I was going to write an article on St. Blogs, I would look at the blogs listed on the main list maintained by Gerard at praise of glory. From that I would notice that there are at least three blogs of women who are preparing to enter religious life. But I guess since these women are not progressives they don’t count as women religious. I would also notice that almost all of the priests that blog are diocesan priests except for Fr. Jeffrey Keyes C.PP.S. The same goes for religious brothers. Could perhaps the lack of access to computers and the time needed for blogging not fit with those living in religious communities? Whatever the answer is I doubt if it is the conservative bent or a function of statistics. Deacons also seem to be absent from St. Blogs. Why no comment on that?

One positive thing about the article is that there is an interesting sampling of Catholic blogs (but no links). Though how can you write a serious article on St. Blogs and not mention Mark Shea, Amy Welborn or the Catholic Blogger who started it all and penned the name St. Blogs; Kathy Shaidle?

The traditionalist blogs are one response to the weakening of Christian certainty�in this case, a negative response�one that often displays a judgmental attitude and a corrosive cynicism about the �secular� world.

This is really funny and ironic since she herself is judging us negatively by saying we have a “corrosive cynicism” and that we are a negative response. She also seemed to be upset that Commonweal was not held up as the standard for St. Blogs. Sorry, most of us are serious Catholics who don’t want the watered down Gospel portrayed in Commonweal. But she should be happy that we do not often mention articles from Commonweal. Just think of the words “fisk” and “Dale Price.”

She ends with:

I�ll let Flannery O�Connor have the last word: �To have the church be what you want it to be would require the continuous miraculous meddling of God in human affairs, whereas it is our dignity that we are allowed more or less to get on with those graces that come through faith and the sacraments and which work through our human nature�.We can�t understand this but we can�t reject it without rejecting life. Human nature is so faulty that it can resist any amount of grace and most of the time it does.� If only she�d had a blog.

If Flannery O’Connor had a blog I really doubt that anyone in Commonweal would be happy about its contents. I also think this is an odd quote for a progressive to use “To have the church be what you want it to be” is the very stamp of progressivism .

There is a parody web site called godhatesshrimp.com which I remember seeing before linked on Instapundit and I have seen it linked to on other sites. It contains the photoshopped image of protesters holding a sign that says God Hates Shrimp with a couple of Bible verses from Leviticus and Deuteronomy also on it.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says: 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you

The whole point is to show how stupid Christians are to use verses from the Levitical law to defend against homosexuality. When these laws also outlaw many other things we have no problem with. Now we are supposed to see this alleged hypocrisy and immediately embrace homosexually behavior being that we were just so dumb before. Like some Fundamentalists who take out one verse in exclusion to others or lack a proper understanding of the differences between Mosaic dietary laws and the natural law. Fundamentalist atheists do likewise.

Sometimes a Protestant Fundamentalist will argue against the Catholic and historic understanding of the Eucharist by using the Old Testament strictures against eating blood. If they were right this would prove too much and we would also have to start sacrificing to animals and following the other dietary and clothing laws contained in the Mosaic law.

Conversely if the Atheist Fundamentalist were right then we could kill them or steal from them or commit adultery with their wives. If the Mosaic law can be dismissed than by their argument the Ten Commandments must also be dismissed. I doubt they would go along with this reasoning.

These arguments show a total lack of understanding and they are akin to someone saying the world can’t be spinning or else we would fly off.

God used many of the Levitical ordinances not as moral absolutes but as a means to set the Jewish people apart from those around them. These laws were specifically made to prevent them from following countries around them and falling into pagan idolatry. In many cases the animals they were ordered to sacrifice were the ones that other cultures worshiped. As Scott Hahn had mentioned this was like God ordering an alcoholic to everyday pour down the contents of a whiskey bottle down the drain. With the coming of the Church, the new wine skin, these dietary and clothing laws were removed. But the Natural Law remains. When Jesus was asked “What must I do to be perfect?” his answer was “Follow the Commandments.”

I was also a Fundamentalist Atheist at one time. I remember telling my Mother when I was a teenager that a Crucifix was idolatry. I thought I had vast Bible knowledge even though I had never read the Bible. I knew this was a perfect gotcha line that should have made the Catholic Church collapse in it’s hypocrisy. I was not surprised to find after my conversion that some Fundamentalist Protestants used the same reasoning.

Tom of A Thing Worth Doing also had some thoughts along this line, which is partly what lead me to write this post.

Update: The Curmudgeonly Clerk has some good thoughts on biblical criticism of this sort.

Tim Huegerich of Catholics for Dean emailed me and a couple other bloggers with this.

In posting on various Catholic blogs and forums over the past few months, I have been surprised to find strong resistance to Dean’s positions on almost every issue, not just his positions on abortion or GLBT issues. This is the first part in a series specifically addressed to the Christian Right concerning these “other” issues.

Part I: Children
The phrase I hear over and over again is “personal responsibility.” Dean’s policies are labeled socialism and denounced as discouraging personal responsibility (or as contrary to the Church’s understanding on subsidiarity–a charge I will examine at a later date).

The strongest answer to this is that the Right has forgotten about poor children. One in six American children live in poverty. Millions have no health insurance, to cite one specific disadvantage, which means they have to wait for hours and hours in the emergency room just to have their flu or sore throat checked out. Really try to imagine what that’s like for a child. In addition, these children usually must avoid playing sports to avoid the risk of injury, and they may have to forego treatment for more serious medical problems. Another urgent concern is the striking lack of quality education in poor communities throughout America, which perpetuates the cycle of poverty and denies children of hope for a better future.

Should we hold these children responsible for their parents’ poverty? The question of whether their parents are responsible for their own poverty becomes irrelevant (I will examine this issue at a later date). The question becomes whether to act to help these children–whether we, the people of the richest nation in history, care enough to ensure these “little ones” access to the mere basics of life: food, quality education, and health care, for starters. This is a moral question, not an ideological or political one.

While I am in no way a apologist for the GOP who Mark Shea accurately calls the Stupid Party, I will try to lay out some of what I believe to be the answers to the questions raised. The first part of this response will deal specifically with why I don’t think the Democratic Party has the answers for these problems. The second part deals with what I think the true solution is and it has nothing to do with donations to the GOP. I am also glad that Tim wonders at the negative response he has gotten in support of Dean’s agenda in these areas.

I support the general social conscience of most Democrats and their concern for the poor. Though I think that the very policies they advocate do more harm then good and in many cases it is like using water to put out an oil fire. Not only is the fire not put out but it spreads and causes even more damage.

The GOP errs when it places a total reliance on “personal responsibility” and the whole self-made man concept. I invite those who have not read what Chesterton had to say about self-made men in Orthodoxy to do so. The Democrats abandonment of “personal responsibility” and repercussions for actions is even worse. There are many times even when we are trying to be responsible that we need help from others. Conservatives often cite the saying about “giving a man a fish and teaching a man to fish” as an illustration of the difference between them and the Democratic Party. Unfortunately few Republicans are willing to give of their time to “teach a man to fish” and are against any government program that would do so.

Since I am not being very curt today I will place the rest of this in the Extended Entry.

A reader sent along this from a transcript of today’s Crossfire.

He further defended his view of having wealthy people paying higher taxes as a doctrine of Jesus, referring to a passage from the Gospel of St. Luke, stating, �to whom much has been given much is required.�

Citing a passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew, Begala stated that where one puts his or her treasure is where one�s heart is as well. He then referred to Bush�s budget, with �tax cuts for the rich� as well as the cutting of pensions and �flexibility for governors to cut Medicare and HeadStart.� �We can�t know where Bush�s heart is but we certainly can see where the treasure is,� Begala said.

Well how about John Kerry’s heart when one year he contributed a whopping $135 to charity? Or Al Gore who contributed around $300 dollars one year? It is no surprise that the “Red States” give more to charity then Democratic strongholds. If one were to go looking for where the heart of the Democratic Party they would probably need to look around in an abortion clinic somewhere. This just reminds me that the Devil also cited scripture.

He also maintained that redirecting tax money of the top one percent of the population to the lowest one percent would have much more impact in life or death situations for the lowest percent and would have virtually no effect on the highest.

Begala then addressed the absurdity of Bush�s campaign to end affirmative action as he got into Yale by way of affirmative action. �Why should poor blacks and Hispanics not be permitted when non-studying, heavy-drinking Bush is?� Begala said.

With regard to abortion, Begala said that he does not like when fellow Catholics reduce all sanctity of life issues to simply the abortion issue. �What about the injustices in the death penalty, health care and lack of housing � Why have people never chastised a Catholic politician for supporting the death penalty or war?� Begala said.

Why do I cringe when Begala says “fellow Catholics?” I wonder if there was a murder in progress and Paul Begala informed a policeman of this fact and the policemen replied “Not right now, I am writing a ticket on this substandard housing.” Would Paul Begala not see that these two things were not equal? But with someone like Begala it is no use arguing over distinctions about something that is intrinsically wrong in every case and something in the realm of a prudential decision.

Here is another article on Begala’s views on faith.

In a foreign policy speech at a Washington think tank, Sen. Hillary Clinton chided President Bush for not thanking her husband for handing the current administration such a strong military.
[Full Story]

And while we are at it let’s also thank Mr. Clinton for the CIA he built up during his eight years and it’s analytical abilities. Another bravo goes to the recession he passed down to us late in his last term.

Sorry Mrs. Clinton, I was part of that military serving under your husband and we were sent off willy-nilly all over the world and then not supported by his administration. We are a strong military despite what Mr. Clinton did, but we could have been stronger. The Navy fleet almost cut in half is not a sign of strength. Longer deployments due to less assets and more commitments is not a sign of strength. When the military had to spend the money on all of the support and fuel costs for sorties flown in support of his agenda they were not replaced. To maintain operations, funds were taken from other needed programs and weapon stockpiles as they were used were also not replaced. Cruise missiles truly became fire-and-forget, they forgot to order more and at the start of the Bush administration they had to rush to get production going again. I know many of the aircraft in Navy on shore bases become Non-Operational or not ready for combat action due to the crunch on money for parts and fuel. But to be fair, the Clinton administration did try to remove the urinals from Navy Carriers as a sign of gender equality.

I did so much enjoy being experimented on with the endless social programs forced down on the military. We were ordered to constant sexual harassment training programs while at the same time the actions occurring in the Oval Office were what was called “red light” behavior in our training manuals. The Clinton administration loved heaping paperwork on us. In our service records there is something called a page 13 where other entries can be added. We actually had to sign statements acknowledging following the buddy system. Where we signed that we would only go out on liberty only in the company of someone else. This and many other absurd agreements filled the page 13s. While the Clinton administration was doing everything in it’s power to stop logging, they were also assuring the continuous need for dead tree products in the form of millions of Page 13s.

Oh and another thanks goes to the Clinton administration for Jean-Bertrand Aristide who they helped to install. I am sure the Haitians are really giving out a shout out for this action. I was on the U.S.S Eisenhower (CVN-69) at the time and we flew off all of our jets and when we came back to Norfolk we loaded hundreds of Army Helicopters onboard the carrier. While this was a rare opportunity to be able to work side-by-side with our brother soldiers, this was hardly efficient use of an Aircraft Carrier. While Jimmy Carter was negotiating in Haiti we were the bat used to make sure the Haitians accepted the deal he brokered. Why is it in recent days I have heard no mention of either ex-presidents Carter or Clinton in regard to the mess in Haiti? At the time there was plenty of punditry on the assessment of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, we already knew exactly what kind of president he would become. An easy way to become a political prophet is to look at the nations that Mr. Carter has negotiated a deal with and know that they will become a trouble spot. Nicaragua, North Korea, Haiti led to a Nobel Peace Prize. No wonder the Holy Father hasn’t received the prize. He mistakenly thought that you had to bring about lasting peace and has worked tirelessly towards that end.

As I sometimes drive around and hear the various talk shows on the radio I have noticed the lack of understanding of conservative talk show hosts in defending marriage. They seem to totally be missing the basic grounding of the the natural law or at least unable to make an argument based on that appeal. Their main thrust is the belief that marriage between one man and one women is the traditional understanding, a time honored arrangement and definition. While in many cases something becomes traditional because it conforms to the natural law, to only go back as far as the historical argument is insufficient. The argument based chiefly on traditional understanding and definition of marriage fail to be persuasive in this culture. Talk show hosts are not the only ones lacking in the understanding of what the natural law is, but so is the majority of the country. Relativism has made many at least agnostic if not downright hostile to natural law theory.

The arguments on the side of homosexual marriage are just as shallow. Sometimes I think I woke up in the bearded Spock universe. We have a Republican President expanding government programs and liberals are all of a sudden advocates for state rights. Though this new found respect for state laws doesn’t seem to expand to California where the same people are jumping for joy at the San Francisco’s mayor thumbing his nose at state laws. Another argument I heard against the Federal Marriage Amendment was that Constitutional amendments historically were trending towards expanding rights to people. Though I am not sure how outlawing slavery, creating an income tax, and limiting presidential terms is an expansion. The whole idea of considering the merits of an amendment based on trends is silly. Another argument I heard was that if you don’t like same-sex marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex. I guess if you didn’t like slave ownership you should just not buy one. What passes for rational arguments in societal debates is truly sad.

Here is a piece from another of those endless articles on “The Passion of the Christ.” I always know that seeing the words “Jesus Scholars” will have something in it especially dumb.

“He has a long-haired Jesus…Jesus didn’t have long hair,” said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem. “Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair.”

“The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek,” said New York University’s Lawrence Schiffman.

Along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on Rome’s Arch of Titus, erected after Jerusalem was captured in AD 70 to celebrate the victory, which shows Jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.

Erroneous depictions of Jesus in Western art have often misled film makers in their portrayal of Jesus, experts said.

Lets see, you just watched a movie that from most accounts is a gripping visual portrayal of the last hours of Christ and you walk away complaining about the hair styles? Right off the bat I can think of good reason why a frieze might have shown Jewish men with short hair. That can be the sign of a slave and not making them equal with their capture. From what I have read previously I think the actual practice of Jewish men at that time was to wear their hair in a pony tail. The earliest images of Christ like the Pantocrator show this and if the Shroud of Turin is indeed Jesus’ burial cloth then this also showed Jesus having a pony tail. But I am not going to wig out on this subject and will get to the root of the matter. It truly does not matter what his length of hair or style of it was, though I guarantee that the God-man did not have a mullet. He died for our sins he did not have his hair dyed for our sins.

And speaking of mullets you can go to Ratemymullet.com to rate mullets such as this one.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Couples will no longer be able to exchange wedding vows at one Kansas City Methodist church, which has decided to stop performing traditional marriage ceremonies because a church rule prohibits such services for gay and lesbians.

The last traditional wedding at the Trinity United Methodist Church in midtown Kansas City is scheduled for spring and will take place as planned.

Instead of traditional marriage ceremonies, the church will offer special worship celebrations for couples that do not include wedding vows, Rev. Sally Haynes, the church’s senior pastor, said. Couples will be free to recite their vows elsewhere.

Trinity’s policy, which was approved by 92 percent of the congregation in a vote, will allow the church to treat all its members equally and still remain a part of the United Methodist Church, Haynes said. About one-third of Trinity’s 275 members are gay or lesbian, Haynes said.
[Full Story]

I don’t seem to recall Jesus boycotting the wedding at Cana since cultural prejudices did not allow same-sex marriages. How insensitive Jesus was to even supply and support this wedding by turning water into wine when elsewhere same-sex couple who were in love and in deeply committed relationships would could not be married in a Jewish ceremony. Modern society is trying to do the even more miraculous event of turning same-sex unions into marriage.

I am really getting tired of all the sound bite theology in the media in support of same-sex marriage. The main reason because they are in love. I wonder how many spouses when they heard that their spouse was now in love with someone else accepted this reasoning. Sorry to leave you and the kids behind because I am in love with someone else. I wonder how many same-sex couples will accept this same reasoning when it happens to them. We have been conditioned to this emotionally fuzzy concept of what love is. We will accept such mistaken statement as I am no longer in love with you. Love is an act of the will not something that can ebb and flow like a vitamin deficiency. If you no longer love someone it is because you have chosen not to. Love is willing the good for the other not a feel good aftermath of an infatuation.