Thursday, August 30, 2007

On a proposed Muslim state school in New York City
My comment


We were crunchy when crunchy wasn’t cool
Catholic Action and environmentalism in the 1930s
Well before the Second Vatican Council, there were efforts being made to develop an amazing array of ideas on social thought. In my opinion, a lot of the good and orthodox efforts got hijacked by some rather outlandish ideas. From time to time, it is interesting to take a look back and see what we can about those earlier efforts. What do you think?
That in many cases they had the Catholic answers for modern man and so there was no need for the council and the destruction it caused. (Jeff Culbreath is right: people are better off ignoring Vatican II.) Any needed fine-tuning — translating services and changing policy (this is not doctrine) on religious liberty and ecumenism — could have been done better without it.

As for Fr John Rawe’s economics and suchlike, like with the socialism of the Anglo-Catholic slum priests or Dorothy Day’s pacifism I honour the good intentions but as a libertarian think some of this is politically and/or economically naïve. The sciences and economics are autonomous (for example there’s no such thing as ‘Catholic physics’ opposed to the laws of physics everywhere else). We are sacerdotalists not clericalists, which means a priest has no more competence because of his orders to tell a farmer or anybody else how best to run his business than he would to operate on my shoulder trying to do a nerve graft!

Fulton Sheen on Mary and Islam
He who does not believe in the Mother of God does not believe in God.
Archimandrite Anastassy (Newcomb)

Yes, that’s hyperbole. What it really means:
As those who lose devotion to Mary lose belief in the Divinity of Christ, so those who intensify devotion to her gradually acquire that belief.
From Per Christum.

On Modernism from the ageing ‘silent’ and ‘boomer’ generations
A generational divide from the younger people I’ve written about too. True of more than one church. My comment.

Jonathan from Per Christum on when ‘listening process’ means ‘shut up and listen’ (like what Joan Rivers really means when she says ‘Can we talk?’):
I’m not against having an honest discussion on these issues. I’m convinced that sound Catholic theology based on Scripture and tradition* would easily win the day. However, in all my years of theological training and practice, “having a discussion” usually means “keep listening until you see it my way.” The Church does not need that kind of discussion.
Charley on labelling generations

From Drell’s Descants.

*The Orthodox are right: scripture is part of tradition.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment