Correcting Your Idol

Dennis Prager is the man.  No.  Dennis Prager is The Man.  I watched every episode of his short-lived television show fifteen years ago.  If you weren’t up at two in the morning, here’s how it worked:

Mr. Prager threw out a question.  Something simple, like “should charity begin at home?”  And then for an hour he’d talk and debate with a small (about twenty member) studio audience.

That’s it.  That was the show.  It was the most brilliant hour of television it’s ever been my honor to witness—and I watch Lost every week.

Dennis Prager is one of my idols.  If I were to count only living people, it’d be Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, and… I can’t think of a third.  Three is the traditional number, but I can’t dilute the Prager-Sowell dyad with a made-up third.

Okay?  You with me?

Yesterday, Dennis Prager wrote this essay:

(Link: When a Priest Denies the Holocaust)

It deals with the issue of one of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who have recently had their excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict.  As you’ve probably heard, one of  these bishops, Bishop Richard Williamson, has been exposed as a Holocaust denier.

Dennis Prager is Jewish.  He is a religious Jew who has been tireless in his efforts to forge alliances between Catholics and Jews.  He—understandably—feels betrayed.

He wrote:

Williamson is a truly bad man who disgraces the church. When one watches him spew his venom in the Swedish television interview while wearing a large cross, the cross is rendered ugly…

On the assumption that there [are] not only theological but also moral criteria to being reinstated in the Catholic Church, an excommunicated priest who denies the Holocaust should automatically remain excommunicated.

I urge you to click on the above link to read the entire article.  Not only will you read the full text of Mr. Prager’s essay (which is not as harsh as the quotes I’ve posted make it seem), but you’ll also be able to read the first comment on the essay by “Vasya,” who got all the facts right, but missed the point of Mr. Prager’s article.

Assuming you’ve read both the article and Vasya’s response, here’s the comment I posted:

This is the first time I’ve been moved to comment on one of Mr. Prager’s pieces—mainly because “I agree with Dennis” would not make an interesting addition to the conversation.

Vasya is correct about the particulars of the case, but I take issue with his characterization of Mr. Prager as irrational, or his essay as “poorly crafted, illogical drivel.” Mr. Prager is a religious Jew who seeks out every opportunity to strengthen the bonds between his people and the Catholic Church. That this scandal has outraged him doesn’t surprise me at all—I am Catholic, and I am outraged as well.

Mr. Prager, please believe that Pope Benedict is heartbroken over this turn of affairs, not least because there seems to be no way out of it. The bishops are no longer excommunicated. It is not possible to “take it back.” There is no basis for excommunicating this particular bishop on the basis of being a Holocaust denier. If excommunication were to be pronounced on everyone who was a sinner—no matter how vile—who would be left in the church?

Yesterday, it was announced that Bishop Williamson has been removed from his position as rector of the Argentinian seminary for the Society of St. Pius X. The Vatican has stated, “the four bishops, though liberated from the excommunication, have [no] canonical function in the Church and they do not licitly exercise a ministry in it.” In the case of Bishop Williamson, it should stay that way.

I hate that Dennis Prager got the mechanics of excommunication wrong, but then so do all too many Catholics.  I shouldn’t expect more from him in terms of understanding the Catholic faith than I should from Nancy Pelosi, right?

Well, he is a lot smarter than Pelosi, so yeah, I do expect more from him.

A Superbowl Question

Why on earth did Dan Rooney thank President Obama upon being presented with the Vince Lombardi trophy?

• The president called in a pivotal play a la Richard Nixon.
• Rooney was actually thanking the president for making him ambassador to Ireland.
• On January 29th, the president issued an Executive Order requiring that he be thanked first at all award ceremonies, public or private.
• It was an easy mistake to make: Rooney actually meant to thank not President Obama, but God.  (The other One from whom all good things come).  He regrets the error.

No wonder The New York Times is hurting

Take a look at the comments on this piece at The New York Times’ blog, and try to deduce the type of reader the newspaper appeals to.  Are they mainstream enough to support the massive newsgathering infrastructure of the Times?

The blog post was written about Reverend Rick Warren’s invocation at President Obama’s inauguration, and the reaction it drew around the blogosphere.  The comments quickly turn to critiques of Warren’s invocation versus Reverend Benjamin Lowery’s benediction.

For the record, here’s what Lowery said:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around… when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen…

Forget the implication that white people, strictly because of their skin color, currently embrace evil.  I can’t get past the line: ”When the red man can get ahead, man.”  Red man / ahead, man?  Is this a put-on?  And no, despite what you might assume, this prayer was not written by Nipsy Russell.

Warren, on the other hand, said the Lord’s Prayer.  (That’s the “Our Father” one.)  It was written by Jesus Christ.

Now, try to guess which comments refer to which prayer:

• “I was glad that emotion of the moment did not catch people up into a loud round of clapping.”
• “[It was an] exclusionary invocation. It was appalling and unnecessarily divisive, and I hope never to see him at another national event of this type. This country is full of [decent] religious leaders… One would hope Obama could find one.”
• “Thank God President Obama had the decency to say something more inclusive.”
• “On President Obama’s day celebrating new beginnings, [the reverend] chose to dwell upon past practices.”
• “Not the place for it.”
• “[President Obama should not] have chosen a…bigot to give the invocation.”
• “[It] was a disgrace to an event that might have been an opportunity for Obama to begin his presidency on a tone of true inclusion and reason… One can only hope that Obama will atone for this appalling lack of sensitivity during his presidency not just in words but also in deeds.”
• “[The reverend's] presence cast a shadow over an overwhelmingly affirmative ceremony… Sorry, it was a sour note in my judgement.”

 

Yeah, you guessed it.  Those comments were all made about Reverend Warren.

Oh, and what did they think of Reverend Lowery’s divisive bit of venom?

• “And I did enjoy Rev. Dr. Lowry schooling Mr. Warren…”
• “On the other hand, I thought that the Rev. Benjamin Lowery…was amazing. Less than 10 seconds into his benediction I (and most the people I was watching with)  had tears streaming down their face.” [sic]
• “Rev. Lowry should have done the invocation. His remarks were more appropriate.”
• “Rev. Lowry on the other hand, totally rocked!”

 

Then, of course, there were those who were upset—no, appalled—that there was any prayer at the ceremony at all.  After all, ubelievers are Americans, too.

Bear in mind that all these comments appeared on the first page—they’re all among the first 25 comments on the article.  I didn’t have to cherry-pick from among the hundreds more that follow.  Thank goodness; I didn’t have the stomach for it.

The question is, can a major newspaper depend so heavily upon a lunatic base—and survive?

[UPDATE 1/22/09:  It has come to my attention that the text of  Reverend Lowery's prayer I quoted above is incomplete.  The ellipsis in the quote elides the phrase "when yellow can be mellow."  I regret the error.  I strive to be inclusive here, and of course believe that we should pray for all races, including the yellow ones.]

Connecticut Supreme Court mandates marriage for homosexuals

The dude one on the left does not look happy.

In a 4-3 decision, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples do.

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.

They said the state’s marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

Any financial benefits to marriage had already been addressed by Governor Rell’s civil union law.  As for the social and emotional benefits of marriage, how can a court decision ever supply those?  In the eyes of a clear majority of Americans, homosexuals simply cannot ever be married.  That’s something that a court decision can never change.

What will change?  Look for the Catholic church to get out of facilitating adoptions in Connecticut.  They will never place children with homosexual couples, so they will be forced–as they have been in Massachussetts–to stop providing this service.

What else will change?  Well, I’m not sure what argument could ever satisfy the Connecticut Supreme Court that marriage should be limited to two people.  Any argument I can think of would be along the same lines as the arguments against homosexual marriages.  Within a generation, polygamy will be allowed.

What does our gutsy Governor have to say about all this?

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said in a statement. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success.”

In other words, shut up and take it.  How nice to have a ”Republican” in the governor’s mansion.

 

A (partial) retraction

Reader Brittany Marie makes a good point about my last post.

…[W]hile I understand that you are not happy, it does not seem very good of you to post half the story and then blame it on his scientific occupation. The interaction of science and religion is not that clear cut for you to make such an assumption.

She was the only commenter who mentioned this, and it’s the one part of my post I think I’d do differently.  I should have left out this part:

And scientists are always butting heads with the Church because the Church says things like, “Well yes, you can do things like cloning embryos but you shouldn’t, and here’s why…”  To which the enlightened scientists respond by screaming, falling down and kicking their heels against the floor.  Because they’re so smart and important and how dare you judge them?

Not good writing, and not clear thinking.

My problem is that I don’t have much patience for people who believe that science can prove anything about God.  (I’m thinking of Richard Dawkins, here.)  Or, for that matter, that the Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) can prove anything about the physical world.  (Feel free to discuss Gallileo below.)

However, while the Church has rightly backed off from overruling scientists’ findings, there are a number of scientists who show no such humility.  They seem to believe that science is capable of having anything to say on the subject of God, when science is only useful in understanding the material world.

In a way, it’s like the conflict between relativity theory and quantum theory.  They each work perfectly in the spheres for which they were designed, but if you try to use them both you get gibberish.  (That’s only an analogy.  The intersection of scientific research with correct moral teaching has resulted in the capability of producing stem cells without cloning humans.)

All that said, I shouldn’t have characterized scientists en masse as a bunch of babies who can’t bear to be told “no.”  That was not helpful to the discussion.

Further reading:

Why Science Cannot Address the Existence of God

Professor Paul Zachary Myers, Bigot

Recently, Paul Myers, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota had this to say about the Eucharist in a post entitled “It’s a Frackin’ Cracker!”

I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare… [I will]treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.

I’m not going to link to his blog, but it’s easily accessible through the university’s web site, here.  (Scroll down until you see Paul Myers, then click the link.)  [Update: the link has since been removed.  If you want to find the site, search for "paul myers frackin cracker" here.  His blog is called Pharyngula.]

Here are some of the comments from his fans:

Well, this is a community that believes that every sperm is sacred…

Those f——s worship an imaginary a—– who told his acolytes, “Eat me,” and his name wasn’t even Michael Valentine Smith. They give these gomers drivers licenses and guns, too.

It is certainly sacred when it gets pooped out…I’m sure I’ve Jesus in the toilet bowl more than once…

These are from the first twenty or so comments, and there are hundreds of comments.  I’m sure these comments are from people who normally congratulate themselves on their tolerance.  Why the hate?  Well, you see it’s a science blog.  And scientists are always butting heads with the Church because the Church says things like, “Well yes, you can do things like cloning embryos but you shouldn’t, and here’s why…”  To which the enlightened scientists respond by screaming, falling down and kicking their heels against the floor.  Because they’re so smart and important and how dare you judge them?

Apparently, Myers got some flack for this post from the Catholic League and he’s asking people to e-mail the university’s president to defend him.  Here’s the e-mail address.  The president’s name is Robert Bruininks.

Here’s mine:

Dear Mr. Bruininks:

 I am appalled at the bigotry of your professor, Paul Z. Myers.  His mockery of a religion’s most solemn beliefs–and threat to commit the most outrageous sacrilege–is a sorry statement on the quality of your faculty.  The man seems to be motivated by nothing but malicious cruelty and an overwhelming hatred of Christianity.  If you have any interest in ensuring that your students are taught not only information but morality, decency, and tolerance for the beliefs of others, please do the right thing and discipline him.

 Write your own if you feel like it.

New York Times doesn’t get Christianity

The headline reads “Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection.”  Apparently, a stone tablet has been found which describes a messiah who will die and rise again after three days.  The problem–according to the New York Times–is that the tablet predates Jesus Christ.

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” [Israel Knohl] said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University.  [Me: He is also selling a book on the subject.]  “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

In other words, the early Christians’ fanciful story of a “resurrection” was based upon a myth that had been current in the Middle East prior to the birth of Jesus.

There are four questions I would like to ask the author of the piece:

1. What tests have been done to ascertain the tablet’s age, and the age of the writing?  The article states that “its authenticity has so far faced no challenge,” which is ambiguous.  Does no one have any grounds on which to challenge it, or have its custodians not allowed any examination by critical eyes?  Also, we’re not talking about a traditional engraving, but words written in ink upon stone.  How common was this practice?  Has the ink been tested?
2. Has anyone except Mr. Israel Knohl been able to read the entire text?  One scholar, Moshe Bar-Asher, is quoted by the Times as saying: “In crucial places of the text there is lack of text. I understand Knohl’s tendency to find there keys to the pre-Christian period, but in two to three crucial lines of text there are a lot of missing words.”  This is reminiscent of The Da Vinci Code method of research.  Dan Brown made a lot of money off one missing word in a Gnostic text.
3. Were you aware that there are many myths concerning the death and resurrection of a god?  Those myths, like the one Mr. Knohl can read on this tablet, are irrelevant to the matter except insofar as they are pre-echoes of the actual event.  The New York Times apparently is unaware that Chrisitianity is based upon the assertion of a fact: the resurrection of a specific man at a specific time.  If that can be demonstrated to be false, then Christianity is a lie.  No amount of evidence of earlier resurrection traditions can prove Christ did not rise from the dead.

For Christians, this tablet–real or fake–is a non-issue.  But that doesn’t mean you won’t be hearing more about it in the months to come.

Oh, yes.  My fourth question: why are you running this story in July?  Don’t you normally save these for Easter?

Giving scandal

Last Sunday, Archbishop George Niederauer of the Diocese of San Francisco gave Communion to two members of the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” at the mass he was celebrating at Most Holy Redeemer parish.  (Story here.)

The “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence”, whose motto is “go and sin some more” and describes itself as a “leading-edge order of queer nuns,” planned to hold regular bingo games at Most Holy Redeemer Parish until Catholic activists reported the plans to the press.  A local homosexual newspaper, the San Francisco Bay Times, reported that the events at the parish included sexually explicit activities.  Prizes included porn DVDs and “sex toys” the paper said.

 A statement by Archbishop Niederauer sent to LifeSiteNews.com by Archdiocesan communications director Maurice Healy says that the Archbishop did not notice any “mock religious garb.” 

Well, here are the pictures.  Do you notice the mock religious garb?

If he didn’t notice that one of them was dressed as a nun, what did he notice?  Regardless of any “mock religious garb,” are these men dressed appropriately for church?  Are they demonstrating an appropriate humility when they approach the priest to receive the Body of Christ?

The Archbishop should remember that he was called to be in San Francisco, not of  San Francisco.

An update on the Muslim Episcopalian priest

I mentioned the case of the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding in a previous post.

Her local bishop was “excited” by her dual (duel?) faiths, but it turns out that she was ordained in the Diocese of Rhode Island, and it is that bishop’s successor who has authority over her.

From the Seattle Times:

The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, a local Episcopal priest who announced she is both Muslim and Christian, will not be able to serve as a priest for a year, according to her bishop.

During that year, Redding is expected to “reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam,” the Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, bishop of the Diocese of Rhode Island, wrote in an e-mail to Episcopal Church leaders.

Redding was ordained more than 20 years ago by the then-bishop of Rhode Island, and it is that diocese that has disciplinary authority over her.

During the next year, Redding “is not to exercise any of the responsibilities and privileges of an Episcopal priest or deacon,” Wolf wrote in her e-mail. Wolf could not be reached for immediate comment.

Redding is scheduled to start teaching part time as a visiting assistant professor at Jesuit-run Seattle University this fall. But she will not be able to teach, preach or work at any Episcopal church or institution during the next year, she said.

As a Catholic, I find that last paragraph troubling, but unfortunately not surprising.  She’s not orthodox enough to be an Episcopalian but can teach for the Jesuits.

The five pillars of Islam

Robert Spencer’s latest installment of Blogging the Qur’an is up.  It covers verses 141-210 of Sura 2.

The five pillars of Islam are:

1. The profession of faith (“There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is His prophet.”
2. The qibla (prayer several times a day facing Mecca)
3. Charity (ostensibly to the poor)
4. Fasting during Ramadan (the holy month)
5. The hajj (a trip to Mecca)

All but the profession of faith are introduced in these verses.  Also, and more importantly for non-Muslims, the concept of jihad is introduced:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.  (2:190-193)

This text can be read in more than one way, obviously.  I think that on the face of it, it teaches that jihad should be a defensive struggle, waged against enemies who oppress Muslims.  The question then becomes, “What constitutes oppression?”

Mr. Spencer answers :

Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers “until God alone is worshipped.” Says Bulandshahri: “The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah.”

[Spencer:] This conflict would be essentially defensive, against the aggressions of unbelief: if Muslims must fight until unbelief does not exist, the mere presence of unbelief constitutes sufficient aggression to allow for the beginning of hostilities. This is one of the foundations for the supremacist notion that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers until those unbelievers are either converted to Islam or subjugated under the rule of Islamic law, as 9:29 states explicitly. As the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, puts it: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Thus one may reasonably assume that if one does not accept him as a prophet, one’s blood and riches are not safe from those who read these words as the words of a messenger from the one true God.

What matters, of course, is the interpretation.  And without a teaching authority like the Church, Muslims fall prey to whichever local imam shouts down all opposition.  (Shouts them down if they’re lucky.)