This Week's Show (Dec. 2, 2004)

It has come to my attention that not everyone reading the blog is necessarily familiar with my other apologetics work (to which the blog is really just a sidelight).

I’d like them to be.

To that end, I’ve decided to start cross-linking things I’ve done recently (or even longer ago) as they become available on the Catholic Answers web site.

Let’s start with yesterday’s edition of Catholic Answers Live, on which I was a guest. It’s in RealAudio format (which you may be able to listen to with Windows Media Player).

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • "Novus Ordo Saeculorum" vs. "Novus Ordo Mundi."
  • Can an Anglican be music director/cantor at Mass?
  • What does "sin unto death" mean?
  • Modes of expression in Job.
  • Can a non-Catholic be elected pope?
  • If angels in heaven fell, will we be able to fall from heaven?
  • Did Jesus have a human soul?
  • Will God compensate the innocent who suffer?
  • The New World Translation.
  • How can non-Catholics be saved without confession?
  • Peter & the Rock at Caesaria Philippi.

This Week’s Show (Dec. 2, 2004)

It has come to my attention that not everyone reading the blog is necessarily familiar with my other apologetics work (to which the blog is really just a sidelight).

I’d like them to be.

To that end, I’ve decided to start cross-linking things I’ve done recently (or even longer ago) as they become available on the Catholic Answers web site.

Let’s start with yesterday’s edition of Catholic Answers Live, on which I was a guest. It’s in RealAudio format (which you may be able to listen to with Windows Media Player).

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • "Novus Ordo Saeculorum" vs. "Novus Ordo Mundi."
  • Can an Anglican be music director/cantor at Mass?
  • What does "sin unto death" mean?
  • Modes of expression in Job.
  • Can a non-Catholic be elected pope?
  • If angels in heaven fell, will we be able to fall from heaven?
  • Did Jesus have a human soul?
  • Will God compensate the innocent who suffer?
  • The New World Translation.
  • How can non-Catholics be saved without confession?
  • Peter & the Rock at Caesaria Philippi.

Something Absolutely Horrendous

Today I was talking with one of the Catholic Answers apologists about a sacramental situation in a particular parish where a priest is performing a bizarre form of penance service. The apologist wanted to know if the absolutions the priest was performing on the laity were valid.

After carefully reviewing the facts of the case, I told the apologist that, although there was a manifest grave violation of Church law, the absolutions were nevertheless probably valid.

Elaborating, I went on to pose an analogy that I sometimes use. You know how kids have a tendency to break toys, especially boys? That’s why Tonka Trucks as made as tough as they are. They’re very hard for children to break accidentally, even when subjected to rough play. Something like that is the case with adults, too. God knows that if humans can foul something up, they will, and so in entrusting the sacraments to us as means of our salvation, he made the requirements for their valid celebration rather minimal.

Because of the importance of the sacraments, people often worry unnecessarily about whether minor defects in the celebration of the rites render them invalid, but the truth is that God made the sacraments hard to break. It takes something absolutely horrendous to truly invalidate a sacrament.

That’s not to say it can’t be done.

THIS PARISH IN AUSTRALIA HAS BEEN PERFORMING INVALID BAPTISM FOR YEARS.

Hundreds of them.

They’ve been baptizing people in the name of "the Creator, the Liberator, and the Sustainer," and that’s not a valid formula for baptism.

It is especially disastrous sacrament to get wrong, because baptism is the gateway to the remaining sacraments.

The criminal priests who were pastorally irresponsible enough to do a thing such as this, which is so abominable that it goes beyond the ability of polite language to adequately characterize, have created an enormous mess and deserve to be slapped with the most severe sanctions that canon law can provide. In fact, if I were one of the involved parties I would be inclined to slap them with more than ecclesiastical sanctions.

I would be inclined to slap them–repeatedly–with my hands and fists.

Moneychangers of this sort need to be driven from the Temple with whips. The desecration they have wrought on the sacraments and on hundreds of individuals is beyond belief.

CANONIST ED PETERS GIVES AN ANALYSIS OF JUST HOW HUGE A MESS THESE EXECRABLE VIPERS HAVE CREATED.

What amazes me is how the problem could go uncorrected for so long. It is hard to imagine that the Australian faithful are so abominably catechized that in all the years the desecration has been going on nobody would recognize such a grossly defective baptismal formula as problematic and report it.

No matter how bad things have been down there since Vatican II, I assume that at least some of the Australian faithful are old enough that they were learned on whatever their nation’s equivalent of the Baltimore Catechism was (perhaps the Penny Catechism) and thus knew enough to spot the problem at their grandchildren’s baptisms.

It seems that there are four options:

1) Australian Catholics really are such total ignoramuses that that nobody spotted the problem (and I don’t buy that for a second),

2) Australians Catholics are evil and like it when they knowingly witnessing sacrilege (that’s also a dog that won’t hunt),

3) Australian Catholics are so uncommonly pusillanimous that none of them had the chutzpah to report the problem (and I don’t buy that either, what with Australians being descended from folks courageous enough that they refused to stay within the bounds of the law), or

4) Some Australian Catholics did spot the problem and did disapprove of it and did report it and someone in a position of authority (possibly several someones) turned a deaf ear to their pleas.

My money is on option #4.

If that one’s the case, that person or those persons need to be outed for the pastoral good of the community and also slapped with severe ecclesiastical sanctions as willing co-conspirators covering up the canonical crimes of the abominable Judases who desecrated the sacrament of baptism hundreds of times and thus led to the other sacraments being desecrated thousands of times.

(There! And I managed to get through all that without using the word "b*st*rds.")

Most Popular International Googles

The following were the #1 Google searches in other countries last month (October):

  • UNITED KINGDOM: Halloween
  • CANADA: Halloween
  • GERMANY: Telefonbuch
  • SPAIN: Marca
  • FRANCE: France
  • ITALY: Grande fratello
  • THE NETHERLANDS: Britney Spears
  • AUSTRALIA: Australian Idol
  • JAPAN: Rakuten
  • KOREA: Pop singer Lee Hyori
  • CHINA: Cartoon download site
  • RUSSIA: Pet therapy
  • FINLAND: Irc-galleria
  • NORWAY: Nissan skyline
  • SWEDEN: Halloween
  • BRAZIL: Halloween
  • DENMARK: Pokemon

In other Google search news, dragons were less popular than dogs but more popular than cats, puppies, and horses.

SOURCE.

The Daily Planet reports that pet sellers expect a boom in dragon sales this Christmas. It also reports that the increase in pet therapy Googles in Russia was due to increased dragon sales there last Christmas, which led to many dogs, cats, puppies, and horses being in need of physical therapy due to dragon-related injuries.

Networks refuse to air offensive ad

SDG here with a story about an outrageously offensive TV spot produced by the United Church of Christ — and how CBS and NBC made the right decision in refusing to air it.

First, a word of clarification. The United Church of Christ (UCC) is a liberal-mainline denomination, not to be confused with a number of similar-sounding groups, including the Fundamentalist sect known as the Boston Movement Church of Christ, perhaps best known for their insistence that Christians outside their own fold cannot be saved.

The liberal-mainline UCC certainly doesn’t teach anything like that — in fact, they pride themselves on their non-exclusiveness, openness, and acceptance. For example, if you administer abortions for a living, or are in a committed same-sex relationship, the UCC wants you to know that you are welcomed and accepted, not judged, at their church.

In fact, the UCC takes such pride in their non-exclusiveness and acceptance that they recently produced a satiric 30-second TV spot lampooning other Christian churches that don’t share their openness, specifically on homosexuality.

That’s right: They’re so open and accepting, they want to go on national television and ridicule other believers and church communities who disagree with their beliefs.

You can view the ad in RealPlayer at the UCC website here. For those who can’t view it, here’s a description:

The 30-second spot opens with a shot of people converging on a gothic stone church as church bells peal. Among them we see a pair of stylish, urban-looking young men who are holding hands, making it clear that they are a gay couple. Then comes the kicker: They’re stopped at the door of the church by a pair of intimidating-looking bouncers with shaved heads and black T-shirts. “No. Step aside please,” one of the bouncers says commandingly, holding up an outstretched hand to stop the young men.

That’s  when we see that the entrance to the church is roped off, like the entrance to an exclusive club, and the bouncers open the rope for those they deem acceptable. These include a pair of conservative-looking women in pastel colors and skirts and a man in a suit accompanied by a woman one would assume is his wife. Others are also stopped, including a young Latino man (“No way. Not you”) and a very young black girl (“I don’t think so”), as the bouncers snap the rope back into place with a resounding click and the camera focuses on the hard face of the near bouncer.

Fade to black. “Jesus didn’t turn people away,” a title announces as inspirational music rises in the background. “Neither do we.” Cut to a shot of a happy group of people standing together. “The United Church of Christ,” says an announcer, as quick close-up cuts emphasize the diversity and acceptance of the UCC. “No matter who you are, or where you are on life’s journey… you’re welcome here.”

The last of these close-ups is a shot of two women, one with her arm around the other, hand draped across her shoulder, as if in counterpoint to the hand-holding gay males stopped at the door of that Other Church.

The not-so-subtle message: “Churches that don’t accept homosexuality are unfriendly, exclusive clubs that are only for the few — and that goes against Jesus.”

What is so incredibly offensive and appalling about this ad is that it doesn’t just emphasize the UCC’s own “welcoming” stance toward same-sex couples, it actually directly ridicules churches that teach differently — like a political campaign ad lampooning the competition.

Had the UCC ad merely showed hand-holding, neck-embracing same-sex couples being welcomed and accepted at the UCC church, that in itself would be harmful enough, but it wouldn’t have been nearly as over-the-top offensive as the ad actually is. We expect satiric ads lampooning the competition from political candidates and burger chains, not from Christian communions.

Can you imagine an ad from, say, the Southern Baptists, ridiculing other churches and believers for taking positions contrary to those of the Southern Baptists? I’m not talking about positively emphasizing their own position, but specifically showing other churches that take a different view and making them look ridiculous or unattractive?

If the Southern Baptists produced a positive ad emphasizing, say, their pro-life values, I would support that. But what about a satiric commercial lampooning other churches that are pro-abortion?

Let’s imagine such an ad. Let’s say the Baptists produced an ad depicting a troubled young woman going to her pastor and his wife and intimating that she was pregnant out of wedlock. And let’s say (since the UCC ad satirizes coercive use of force) that, to her shock and increasing alarm, the pastor and his wife begin pressuring her to “do something about it,” eventually dragging her from the room.

Or suppose it wasn’t even that over the top. Suppose they only took a laughingly lackadaisical tone: “Hey girlfriend, do what makes you feel good! After all, that’s how you got here! Kill the kid, don’t kill the kid, it’s your choice!” (“Jesus didn’t excuse sin. Neither do we. The Southern Baptists.”)

Would that be an appropriate message for a TV spot? Absolutely not. To bring the smear-and-satirize tactics of mudslinging TV politics to the vital work of evangelization, apologetics, and religious argument is degrading and offensive — no matter what the issue is. That the UCC is in fact wrong in its stance on the particular subject at hand only compounds the problem.

There’s no getting around the fact that some people hold views that are offensive to other people. Our views offend them, and their views offend us. That’s a fact of life. But because it’s a fact of life, it’s also a fact of life that we observe certain rules in how we express and articulate those differences, so as not to give unnecessary offense.

The Mormons have been advertising on TV for years, and AFAIK they’ve always been careful to do it in a way that is positive and doesn’t come off like a swipe at anybody else. I’ve also seen Catholic poster ads in the NYC subway system that have likewise been positive and not satirized the defects of other churches as a way of enhancing the Church’s claims, because this kind of attack on the competition in media advertising is not the way to carry out dialogue about why we believe our own church is better than other churches.

Now for the good news. CBS and NBC executives recognized that these ads were far too inflammatory and refused to run them, citing the ongoing political discussion about same-sex unions as grounds for regarding the topic as too hot to approach in this manner.

Predictably, the UCC is shocked — shocked!  (Here’s their side of the story.)

If you’d like to let the networks know you appreciate their prudential judgment in this matter, here’s where to write:

CBS (click on “Feedback” link at the bottom)

NBC – Contact Us (under “Select Show,” choose “Other”)

If you’d like to let the UCC know why their spot is problematic, contact Barb Powell, press contact (216-736-2175).

Those Swingin' Catholics!

Back a little piece I blogged about the fact that Catholics are now a swing vote.

Not everybody buys this. Some pundits have argued that there simply "is no" Catholic vote (prescinding from the fact that some Catholics obviously do vote).

Ramesh Ponnuru provides some analysis supporting my contention: There is indeed a Catholic vote, and it swings.

In fact, Ponnuru provides data to suggest, it tends to determine the winner of the presidential election and leads rather than follows social trends.

Now we just gotta get it trained even better on the five non-negotiables.

GET THE STORY.

Those Swingin’ Catholics!

Back a little piece I blogged about the fact that Catholics are now a swing vote.

Not everybody buys this. Some pundits have argued that there simply "is no" Catholic vote (prescinding from the fact that some Catholics obviously do vote).

Ramesh Ponnuru provides some analysis supporting my contention: There is indeed a Catholic vote, and it swings.

In fact, Ponnuru provides data to suggest, it tends to determine the winner of the presidential election and leads rather than follows social trends.

Now we just gotta get it trained even better on the five non-negotiables.

GET THE STORY.

Thursday Photo Caption

Angel_ukraine

[SOURCE.]

Starting captions:

1) "Archangel Gabriel Returns To Settle Disputed Ukraine Election . . . And Is He Ticked!!!"

2) "To Chagrin of Democrats, Gabriel Appears at Rally for Faith-Friendly Party"

3) "Damned by Hollywood: Last Generation Complains Apocalypse Can’t Compete with Summer Blockbuster Eye-Candy"

4) "Pyrotechnics Manufacturers Cash-In With Angel’s Appearance."

Red + Blue = Purple?

HERE’S AN ARTICLE BY HARVARD LAW PROFESSION WILLIAM J. STUNTZ.

He’s an Evangelical. And a professor at a way left school.

Favorite quotes from Stuntz:

A lot of my church friends think universities represent the
forces of darkness. Law schools — my corner of the academic world —
are particularly suspect. A fellow singer in a church choir once asked
me what I did for a living. When I told her, she said, "A Christian
lawyer? Isn’t that sort of like being a Christian prostitute? I mean,
you can’t really do that, right?" She wasn’t kidding. And if I had said
no, you don’t understand; I’m a law professor, not a lawyer, I’m pretty
sure that would not have helped matters. ("Oh, so you train people to
be prostitutes…")

You hear the same kinds of comments running in the other direction.
Some years ago a faculty colleague and I were talking about religion
and politics, and this colleague said "You know, I think you’re the
first Christian I’ve ever met who isn’t stupid." My professor friend
wasn’t kidding either. I’ve had other conversations like these —
albeit usually a little more tactful — on both sides, a dozen times
over the years. Maybe two dozen. People in each of these two worlds
find the other frightening, and appalling.

I’m an academic-type and a committed Christian as well, and I have some
of the same perceptions about how the two world talk past each other,
often in counter-productive ways. But some of what Stuntz suggests
strikes me as simply naive, particularly when it comes to the political
arena.

He suggests that redstaters and bluestaters can find common cause on a variety of issues, including principally helping the poor, which is a concern for both.

True.

But I find his "purple state" advocacy a little premature. For the foreseeable future, results will be very limited in making common cause between secular liberals and committed Christians for a whole host of reasons. Among them are these:

  1. However pressing the need for relieving poverty may be, committed Christians cannot ignore the blood of countless babies being shed in our land each day. The abortion issue superdominates the political map. Until that is settled on the pro-life side (such a settlement being a long, long way off), Christians cannot allow themselves to be distracted by lesser issues.
  2. There is frequently a fundamental disagreement about the best way to address the problem of poverty. Stuntz alludes to this, but I don’t think he’s got a practical solution. Just as you can’t wean committed Christians off abortion any time soon, I don’t think you can wean bluestaters off the idea of ending poverty via government handouts any time soon.
  3. The bluestaters have a worldview that is fundamentally hostile to Christianity. Until militant secularists stop trying to push religion out of public life and stop insulting the intelligence of Christians, not much reconciliation is possible.

This isn’t to say that Stuntz’s ideas aren’t worth considering (they are) or that there ain’t any common cause to be made (there is), I just think the amount for the foreseeable future is quite limited.

I understand that someone who works at such a bluestate institution as Harvard University and who attends such a redstate institution as an Evangelical church might want to get the two groups working together, but until points (1) and (3) above are addressed, it isn’t going to be possible to make much common cause on point (2).