The Divine Lamp

This is a slightly modified post which appeared briefly on my site a few days ago. It is in response to an article attacking the Pope.
Mister Neil Steinberg, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-times wrote a screed entitled VATICAN FIGHTS DIRTY: THREAT AGAINST PRO-CHOICE POLITICIANS IN MEXICO AMOUNTS TO BULLYING. It is one of the most poorly reasoned political columns I have ever read, and in an industry littered with intellectual pygmies that is saying something. Since the article is copyrighted I cannot quote it here in substance, the reader is asked to follow the links I provide to his column and read the referenced passages before reading my response.

I ‘ll start at the beginning and ask the reader to go here and read Steinbergs opening lines (up to the words “you wouldn’t hit a man in glasses, would you?”)

Is it just me, or does Mister Steinberg’s complaint sound like the whine of a certain petulant fifteen year old (who shall remain nameless:) whose mother has just told him he can’t do something stupid: “But moooom, that’s not faaaair. My friends are depending on meee.” Laws, moral teaching, and parental judgments impinge on other people. One can legitimately debate whether or not individual actions in a given situation are right or wrong, but to insist that no action ought to be taken merely because other people will be affected is nothing short of a recipe for anarchy.

Please read the next three paragraph (”the church, both fists bared…It isn’t right. It isn’t fair”)

Long on liberalism, short on brains. The first paragraph is simply amazing. Steinberg is angry that abortion- the cold-blooded killing of an innocent child- is outlawed, treated like a crime. Likewise he is angry that politicians who seek to legalize the murder of babies might be kicked out of their Church for doing so. The none-too-erudite moral/legal reasoning behind the “thought” (if I may be allowed the indecency of terming it such) of the paragraph is the same which led to the wholesale slaughter of 44 million innocent lives in this country. The “reasoning” went something like this: 1) Abortion is illegal because it is the unjustifiable taking of a human life; 2) a few woman each year die from illegal, back alley abortions, others are incarcerated; 3) because some woman die and others are incarcerated for breaking the law, the law should be done away with.

As the as the second and third paragraphs make clear, Mister Steinberg wants this issue seen only as a political issue. Why? So he can win his argument. Here he reminds me of the spoiled child who makes up rules to the game as he goes along. He does this so he can come out on top. Talk about bullying. The fact is that this is both a political and a religious issue. One does not need to be Catholic in order to be a politician, but one has to be a Catholic in good standing in order to receive communion. And he ought to be a Catholic in good standing in order to present himself as a visible member of the Church. If a politician attempts to continue to present himself for communion as a Catholic in good standing by hiding behind his status as a politician, is he not using his political status to infringe upon the rights of the Church? Since a politician doesn’t need to be Catholic in order to vote for or against anything, then how can the Church’s action in excommunicating a politician be an infringement upon his or anyones political rights, be they real or alleged?

Read the next two paragraph (”By focusing on leaders…for the White House janitor”)

A member of the secular media defining religion is a comic farce I’ll have to pass commenting on. Does Mister Steinberg really believe that all religions can be defined as, or subsumed under, the definition he offers. Once again he is the spoiled child making up rules as he goes along. As our blessed Lord once said, “From the one to whom much has been given, much will be expected.” And again, “The one who handed me over has the greater sin.” Did mister Steinberg never hear of Dante’s nine circles of hell? Mister Steinberg’s definition of religion might be applicable to Catholic teaching, but only if applied to men before being offered grace.

Read the next two paragraphs (”If the Church…their supposed salvation”)

Once again Mister Steinberg is dallying with his journalistic whore. Excommunication is excommunication, its effects are the same whether people do it to themselves by their sins done in secret or whether they are publicly pronounced excommunicated for their public sins. Joe six-pack helping his willing girlfriend procure an abortion is one thing; a politician who enacts and defends legislation making this possible is guilty of something far worse. Trying to hide the public sins of Catholic politicians behind the private sins of others shows Steinberg’s own moral rot.

His attempt at trying to define the effect of public excommunication of politicians as a humiliation is quite comic because, I dare say, the vast majority of people in this country know that the Catholic Church considers abortion an excommunicable offense. If a teacher strips in front of his class does he have the right to claim humiliation when it is announced that he is stripped of his teaching license? A Catholic politician who knows what his Church’s moral teaching is and what the penalties are for not abiding by it and still publicly flouts it in front of others- who also know these things- cannot logically claim to be humiliated since he’s brought upon himself a punishment he and others knew was a distinct an likely possibility.

Read the last paragraph (Freedom of religion is a beautiful thing…”)

In a column littered with stupid comments his one about freedom of religion stopping at the church door is perhaps the dumbest. Mister Steinberg seems to think that freedom of religion means that religions and those who embrace them should be barely seen, and never heard. He is, in other words, a dime store Caesar

Is it just me, or does this read like a whose who of Congress?

Seriously, it is unsound theology to state dogmatically that all sports fans will be damned.Yes, all Yankee fans and devotees of European football (soccer) are assured of everlasting hellfire and justifiably so; but ALL sports fans?

Mister Gerald Augustinus of THE CAFETERIA IS CLOSED took this photo of a Lego crucifix in what he identifies as a Catholic Church in Austria. In fact, had Mister Augustinus been paying closer attention he would have found that such is not the case. True, the Church exterior does resemble a Catholic church in the Gothic tradition but, a more than superficial glance at its friezes and facades would have given Gerald pause, and perhaps clued him into the true owners of the site. Had he been more observant, he would have noticed that in place of the mythical, hideous, gargoyles that generally decorate the outside of European Catholic churches this building’s facade was decorated with wrecked AMC Gremlins; a sure sign that he was standing before a Hoffamite church.

The Hoffamite sect–more popularly and contemptuously known as “Holy Roaders”–was founded circa 1975 by elements of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters who were incensed at rumors that Jimmy Hoffa’s alleged death was part of an unholy alliance between traffic cops, smokeys, county mounties, and highway superintendents.

According to Hoffamite tradition on the afternoon of July 30, 1975, Mister Hoffa was crossing a railroad overpass which separated Bloomfield Hills from metropolitan Detroit when he was set upon by his enemies, including former friend and confidant J.D.S. Iscariot. This day is commemorated annually in the Hoffamite Legoturgical calender and is known as the Feast of Overpass, the most solemn day in the Hoffamite year.

The Hofamite legoturgy in some ways mirrors that of the Catholic liturgy, but there are differences. One such difference is that whereas Catholics celebrate “The Eucharist” believing they receive the body and blood of the risen Lord under the species of bread and wine, Hoffamites celebrate “The Rest Stop” by receiving a miniature cheeseburger and a sip of Java mixed with amphetamines. Reasons for this tradition vary. One version claims the celebration is typical trucker’s road fare and is taken to commemorate Hoffa’s humble beginnings as a trucker. Others claim that it commemorates the death of Hoffa who, it is alleged, was given spiked coffee, transported to a meat packing plant in Chicago and disposed of.

I just went to the Bloggers Choice Awards site and was relieved
to learn that I was not nominated for the only conceivable category I would have a chance of winning-THE WORST BLOG EVER.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all my non-supporters from the bottom of my heart. This may be the closest I will ever come to achieving success. It feels strangely ambiguous.

Update: I’ve been nominated.

Second update:  I now stand in a 12 way tie for one hundred twenty-second place.  At this rate a should break into the hot 120 sometime late next week!  Wooo-Hooo!  Out lof my way losers.

In TV land “spong” is the sound that is universally made whenever a cartoon character gets hit in the head with a rake handle: “SPONG!”  Not unrelated is the fact that this word is also the name of a retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, one of the foundering…umm, I mean founding fathers of the new and improved Episcopalians.  Who hit the unfortunate Spong in the head with a rake handle and when it happened is unknown to me, but that it did happen, and with tragic consequences, is all to clear.  The poor man still thinks he is a Christian; or at least some kind of Christian.  See “Spong’s non-theistic Christianity”  (A flick of the Bulb to Argent by the Tiber for this story be sure to check out the link she provides)

According to MSNBC news, which has a video of the announcement, “Slick” Willie’s wife, “Slicker” Hillary Clinton, has delclared her intention to run for President. The carpet -bagging New York senator from Arkansas has a abyssmal voting record when it comes to abortion. A thru and thru ultra-liberal who likes to portray herself as moderate (don’t they all?), “Slicker” has shown herself to be 1) anti-marriage, 2) anti-children, 3) anti-family:

After the first Clinton Presidential Election Charles Francis wrote this: “During the American Presidential election campaign last November, voters became aware that if they voted for Bill Clinton they would be getting Hillary Clinton too. It was never clear whether this was an inducement or a threat, but int the context of matters pertaining to children’s rights Hillary Clinton’s views would now appear to loom large. Although not a member of the executive branch, she may well be regarded as the most appropriate expert to advise the president in this area. Consequently in the American context her views on children’s rights are likely to prove vert significant.

“Writing in HARPER’S MAGAZINE in October 1992, Christopher Lasch, professor of history at the University of Rochester, pointed out that Hillary Clinton’s writings exemplify the view of families that so many working people find objectionable. He says, ‘from her perspective the traditional family is, for the most part, an institution in need of therapy, an institution that stands in the way of children’s rights–and an obstacle to enlightened progress.’

“During her professional career Mrs. Clinton has played an active part in the movement for children’s rights, a movement she saw as a logical extension of the earlier movements through which civil rights were extended to slaves and women. From 1986 to 1991 she chaired the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) and was succeeded in that post by her friend Donna Shalala (now Secretary of Health and Human Services). In CHILDREN UNDER THE LAW Hillary Clinton wrote that children should no longer be considered legally incompent. She spoke of the ‘pretense that childrens’ issues are somehow above or beyond politics’ and complained that the pretense was reinforced by the belief that families are private, non-political units, whose interests subsume those of children. She contends that since children have interests demonstratably independent of their parents they cannot be represented by anyone other than themselves. However, it would seem implicit in this contention that children will need state advisers to assist them in the excercise of their rights, so that almost inevitably, the state bureaucracy will invade family life.” [continue reading]

Oh, and if all of this isn’t enough to cause you concern, keep in mind that “slicker” would like to redefine Christianity’s Gospel of Life by turning it into a quality of life platform for herself and fellow deathocrats. (SEE HERE)

Dyspeptic Mutterings post a funny take-down of one of the dumbest columns to come from Commonweal (brother, that’s saying something) in a long time. Exhibiting all the theological acumen of Mick Jaegger, the author of the Commom Squeal piece defends Islam and Paganism (yes, you read that right, paganism) from the “brusque” Pope Benedict XVI. His advice? “Have some courtesy, have some sympathy, and some taste.”
Dyspeptic Mutterings
Via Insight Scoop, a revealing essay at Commonweal by a practitioner of interfaith dialogue expressing his frustration with “brusque” Benedict. Timely, as the rhetorical cricket bat had started to collect dust.

Holy Lord, it’s a trainwreck, in all its fascinating, jack-knifed, twisted metal glory. Bullet-pointing:

I. Its touchstone is the Regensburg address, but the critic (Fr. Francis Clooney) specializes in Hinduism. Under the circumstances, it would have been nice had the magazine come up with a Catholic expert on Islam. Throughout, one gets the distinct impression of a baker offering advice on plumbing problems. It also results in the essay having some serious structural weaknesses, as will be noted below.

II. Though the year is yet young, the following is a certain medalist in the Silliest Catholic Quote of 2007 competition [emphasis added]:

While few sensible Christians would be so brusque today, the question of the meaning of Islam for Christians is still with us, particularly if (by tradition, habit, or conviction) many Christian leaders avoid speaking of the Qur’an as revelation or of Mohammed as a true prophet.

Uh…

Despite a yeoman’s effort to infuse the passage with tuchus-covering ambiguity, the bolded section is still a humdinger, as we Michigan fundies are wont to say. Rub your eyes all you want, but it’s still there–he’s tsk-tsking at Christians who refuse to speak of the Muslim holy book as “revelation” and Muhammad as “a true prophet.”

That’s because (1) it’s not and (2) he isn’t. For “Christians” to believe otherwise is to worship a god who at his best meanders pointlessly like Grandpa Simpson and at his worst gibbers like a patient suffering from end-stage dementia. There’s no sane way to harmonize the make-or-break claims of each religion. As an aside: Not that that daunts the dominant fruitbat wing of Piskiedom.

III. Somewhat nitnoid, but perhaps not, given that it provides insight into his arguments: Manuel II Paleologus lived from 1350-1425, not 1234-84 as Fr. Clooney claims. This reveals considerable ignorance about the historical background of the life and times of the Emperor and his writings, and a complete lack of awareness concerning the relentless Muslim Turkish war machine he battled against his entire adult life. These facts shed essential light on Manuel’s “brusqueness.” (To read the rest click the link )