30 thoughts on “Breviarium”

1. Tom Smith Monday, June 13, 2005 at 5:35 pm

   “A ludicrous statement from the Pope is referenced. You make no serious effort to defend it. Then you decry people for not adhering to Papal decrees.”

   Whose ludicrous statement have I referenced, John? The author’s. I criticized his idea that art apart from religion is not actually art. And when did I “decry” anyone for not adhering to Papal decrees? I merely stated that the percentage of Catholics who make an effort to folow the Pope’s directives is very low. Take a look at the number of Catholics who believe in trasubstantiation. Last I heard, it was about 17%. Also, one hears, somewhat frequently, that 98% of Catholics in the U.S. utilize artificial contraception. I merely state facts. I did not “decry” anything. Please.

   Theomorph: All I was getting at by the “3%” comment was that, simply because the Pope says it, doesn’t mean it’ll happen, as your “rank and file” comment indicated it would. You seemed to indicate that you think Catholics hang on the Pope’s every word. I merely pointed out that that is nowhere near the case. This is not a judgment, but merely a statement of fact.
2. John Sunday, June 12, 2005 at 1:20 am

   “If condoms aren’t helping Japan, how are they supposed to help the nations of Africa?”

   The article goes on to say that although it percieves itself as being a nation that practices safe sex, there is actually widespread unprotected sex that is responsible for the spread in AIDS.

   You’re once again seeking out data to prove your prejudice rather than seeking data to form a theory.
3. Jerry Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 10:07 pm

   “Medicine? Protestant.”

   Medicine as we know it has Greco-Roman roots, with many Hebrew and Arab influences. Since many of the greatest physicians hailed from France, I beg to differ.

   Democracy came from the Greeks, and while it was most popularized by Protestant England, might I point out that Venice had a republic, and when people say democracy, they really are pointing to republics? The problem that the Church has had is that democracy seems to be a sort of symbol for everything wrong in modernism. I daresay that our favorite schismatic, Le Febvre, went that way. (And if one cannot distinguish between republican government and the first French Revolution, as Archbishop Le Febvre seemed incapable of, I can’t quite blame ’em for being so anti-democratic!)

   A republic may embrace our own system of government, or that of constitutional monarchies like Canada (yep, they’re still a monarchy!), Britain, Spain, Japan, etc. This anti-democrat stuff strikes me as being a straw man that makes Catholics seem like political cavemen without any meaningful payback. It’s an earthly institution, so of course it won’t work like we want it too. If people paint us as cavement, at least it should be things that we can make difference about, such as the defense of innocent life or the dignity of the family.

   The popes evidently disliked democracy, but what of everyone from John XXIII on up? (Unless you became a sedevacantist when nobody was looking, Tom. ;)) Again, I think many popes were fixing very particular (unhealthy) ideologies upon the term democracy, and that was crippling the Church’s dialogue with the matter.
4. Jerry Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 6:55 pm

   “One other thing that annoys me: why is that good Catholics just have to be pro-democracy?”

   They don’t have to be, I just think you’re barking up the wrong tree.

   “I’m sure that, if you pushed any of the aforementioned Successors of Peter, they’d tell you that relativism, radical individualism, and many of the other ills of modern society can take as their proximate causes democratic reform.”

   I’m not so sure, especially since this issue did not really come up in full force till the 19th Century, hence why you never seem to cite a Pope from before that time. Those bad things you listed above are recipes for anarchy, which a pure democracy would lead to. Hence checks and balances. I think a constitutional monarchy, which helps protect a nation from any congenital madness (e.g., ol’ King George) or budding Caligulas in its dynasty, is quite reasonable, and think it’s even advisable for a country to retain its monarchs, to help keep a continuity of authority and cultural identity.

   The sins you mentioned have racked humanity before, including the Roman Empire, which was more centralized than the Republic, and there have been similar upheavals in Confucian China and elsewhere. It’s a basic fact of humanity, and a political structure won’t cure it. Some obviously make it easier for that human weakness to come out: unlimited democracy and autocracy do so, but a legitimate government will have checks on humanity, and order our freedom in a more fruitful way. Perhaps our differences are more a matter of rhetoric.
5. Jerry Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 8:20 pm

   “They don’t have to be, I just think you’re barking up the wrong tree.”

   I did not word that well. I do not think a good Catholic need be in favor of a republican type government. However, we are in a republic now. How do your monarchic leanings shape what you think we should do to help our country? Would you seriously propose becoming a monarchy? Unless a ready plan for that seems availabe, I’m not sure how much time we should spend on this issue, at least insofar as we’re diagnosing our own country and trying to think of solutions. (This is the “wrong tree”–I think this post is much clearer and comes off more charitably as well.)

   Quite frankly, I think elites are the source of many of our problems, from the indoctrination people face in universities, to the black-robed ones who gave us Roe v. Wade and the relativistic horsemanure that Kennedy regaled us with in the Casey decision. I’m also concerned with the refusal of many scientists to listen to public concerns about the ethics of many biological technologies. (While quite pro-science myself, it is not an end unto itself to the exclusion of all other goods.)

   Those issues do not seem to be quite easily relegated to democracy, which is why I think the monarchy/democracy debate is misguided. I also recall how Christians are in this world, but not of it, and fear that the Church, in identifying too strongly with particular types of government, will lose its evangelical character.

   Truth is not a matter of democracy, and I’m all for the papacy. I have become steadily more papal with time. However, “render unto Caeasar” and all that. The Church investigates and celebrates the truth in a matter peculiarly her own; the State’s duties are different, and so a different structure is quite licit. I hope that those people running the state are guided by sound morals, and the Church has an evangelical role in that regard, but I don’t think the Chruch should put so much stock in monarchy.
6. Steve Nicoloso Saturday, June 11, 2005 at 4:00 pm

   30 also. Hey, Funky, maybe we were twins separated at birth? This actually surprised me. I’ve always felt I was rather empathetic. Apparently I’m almost high-functioning autistic… sticks-n-stones…
7. Funky Dung Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 6:21 pm

   “I’ve still not met a Christian (of any stripe, be it liberal, conservative, or otherwise) who hasn’t bought the church propaganda that everything good in Western culture can be credited solely to the church, and that non-Christians have not made any substantial positive contributions to anything, or that any contributions they’ve made were simply recapitulations of forgotten Christian contributions, so they were just unwitting servants of the church.”

   Bull feathers. You know me.
8. John Monday, June 13, 2005 at 5:19 am

   A ludicrous statement from the Pope is referenced. You make no serious effort to defend it. Then you decry people for not adhering to Papal decrees.
9. Steve Nicoloso Saturday, June 11, 2005 at 4:09 pm

   Ack that last one was my Empathy Quotient: 30/80.

   My Systamatizing Quotient is 40, borderline high, which is a bit surprising for an engineer, but I’m rather disorganized as engineers do.

   Cheers!
10. Stuff Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 5:30 am

    btw – my EQ is 54 – must be a chick thing.
11. Funky Dung Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 6:31 pm

    BTW, I agree with 80-90% of your “refreshing” statement.

    There are lots of humble Christians. Get off your high horse. You’re far more interesting when you’re not pretending to be “more objective than thou”.
12. Jerry Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 10:09 pm

    But to address Theo’s point, along with Funky, I find the historians’ attempts to give Christianity credit for everything short of fresh, minty breath irritating. I’d rather evangelize the here and now (the part of history I CAN influence, however infinitesimally) than reinterpret the past.

    Of course, when people try to pin all the evil things in the world on the Church, I also see the need to critique them, and generally find Rodney Stark to have a fairly good take on how the Church influenced things.
13. Stuff Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 5:22 am

    dude – i am such a crunchy conservative. did i mention we were thinking about getting chickens? i’m also planning on making my own strawberry jelly. i like fresh vegetables.
14. Stuff Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 6:15 am

    for completeness I have taken the SQ test and have earned a whopping 24. i guess i am an average female, after all.
15. theomorph Sunday, June 12, 2005 at 11:07 pm

    From the article about Ratzinger on liturgical music:

    “In the absence of religion, art becomes groundless aestheticism with neither direction nor purpose.“

    Huh? That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard a Christian say. Once again, non-religious people (this time artists) are slammed as being incapable of having direction or purpose. Gawd this crap pisses me off.

    Beethoven was a pantheist; Berlioz often wrote in his private letters that he was an atheist (e.g., “I believe nothing”); Bizet said that in Christian writers “I find only system, egoism, intolerance, and a complete lack of artistic taste”; Brahms wrote in letters that he was an agnostic; Debussy called himself a “neo-Pagan”; two biographers of Mozart established his non-Christianity; Paganini was an atheist; Schubert left no discernible trace of relationship to the Church (and is even quoted to have said “Not a word of it is true”); and I don’t think Wagner needs any explanation at all. (All these and more are explained here.)

    Never mind, either, people like Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Ingmar Bergman, Danny Elfman, Jodie Foster, Jean Luc Godard, Billy Joel, Ian McEwan, Arthur Miller, Randy Newman, Gene Roddenberry, Salman Rushdie, Steven Soderbergh, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., and scads more, all of whom would (or would have, when alive) probably consider(ed) themselves artists with direction and purpose in their work.

    Who cares, though? So long as “leadership” Christians keep spouting this B.S. in publication, the rank and file will swallow it whole. Doesn’t matter what the facts are; if the Catholic church claims it, it must be true. ARGH.
16. theomorph Sunday, June 12, 2005 at 7:21 pm

    Hmm…

    EQ = 39 . . . “average”
    SQ = 56 . . . “high”

    And my blog has a readability index (11.85) comparable to the Wall Street Journal.

    Interesting.
17. Tom Smith Monday, June 13, 2005 at 4:16 am

    I agree that calling non-religious music baseless and without point is a major oversimplification on the part of the author (Miller).

    “So long as ‘leadership’ Christians keep spouting this B.S. in publication, the rank and file will swallow it whole.”

    Are you kidding? Maybe three percent of Catholics in the U.S. actually hold to Catholic beliefs. Maybe.
18. theomorph Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 6:11 pm

    I didn’t mean in the “rank and file” comment that “Catholics hang on the Pope’s every word.” Rather, I specifically did not mention the Pope, but “‘leadership’ Christians,” which would include people like the author of that article, among many others. There is a huge authority structure in the church (Protestants, too, not just Catholics) that spins out doctrines and commentaries and propaganda, and the “rank and file”—ordinary Christians who read these things—are not particularly renowned for thinking critically about it. (As one of my professors once put it, the Protestants may think the Catholics are the only ones who practice censorship, but the Protestants have their own publishing houses, too, and they know which publishers aren’t “safe.”)

    Christian publishing is full of people who tell history with an incredible bias, present culture with an incredible bias, teach “science” with an incredible bias, and dupe the “rank and file” into replicating that bias in their own “worldview.” I’ve still not met a Christian (of any stripe, be it liberal, conservative, or otherwise) who hasn’t bought the church propaganda that everything good in Western culture can be credited solely to the church, and that non-Christians have not made any substantial positive contributions to anything, or that any contributions they’ve made were simply recapitulations of forgotten Christian contributions, so they were just unwitting servants of the church.

    The Christian appropriation of history makes the efforts of homosexuals to declare every famous historical figure one of their own look decidedly half-assed. According to the church, everything good happened because of Christian conviction, not because of social pressure, economics, legal or political exigencies, or any other mundane force. Look at all the stuff the church claims:

    Rule of law? Christian.
    Democracy? Christian.
    Ending slavery? Christian.
    Equality for women? Christian.
    Science? Christian.
    Great art? Christian.
    Medicine? Christian.
    Overthrowing Communism? Christian.

    The list goes on and on. Pure B.S. You have to read history with one squinting eye and your head turned sideways (and a one-track imagination) to see the singular power of the Christian influence that the church alleges in history. It’s dishonest and disgusting, but very few people bother to get up and say so because Christians have won the rhetorical war by labeling such criticism as “persecution” or “anti-Catholicism” or even “hate speech” (and then they’d probably claim that they invented the idea of “hate speech,” too).

    This “rank and file” swallowing of Christian propaganda goes so deep that most Christians don’t even realize it’s there. They’re completely blind to the failures, shortcomings, abuses, and atrocities of their religion. Or, if they’re aware of such things, they’ve got some bizarre explanation for them. (E.g., those bad deeds were committed by someone other than your select, elect 3%, which can’t actually be found anywhere.) To hear the Christians tell it, they’ve been the only stable, clear-eyed, intelligent people for the last couple thousand years, while the rest of us have just been unruly children needing their benevolent guidance.

    It would be refreshing to hear a Christian get honest: “We haven’t done all the good things in the world. In fact, we’ve done embarrassingly little good for all the divine chosen-ness that we claim. Our culture, even the best parts of it, have been created by all kinds of forces throughout history, of which Christian influence was only one among many, and sometimes it has been a negative influence. But I’ll own up to that, because the God I believe in is bigger than the pettiness and parochialism that characterize many, if not most, of his most vocal followers, and I don’t need my tradition to be spotless for it to nevertheless represent something I believe to be true, because traditions, of course, are only as noble as the people who carry them, and the human race has never been very noble on the whole. We Christians might be wrong, our scriptures might be wrong, our cosmology might be wrong, our story of Jesus might be wrong—and we can admit that possibility openly—but the purpose of our religion is not to be right about everything, or to be in charge of everything, but to seek the kingdom of God, the nature of which, let’s face it, has been debated since the very beginning. I know that many people question Christian beliefs, and doubt Christian doctrines—even many Christians themselves—so the most sensible thing to do is not to hammer those beliefs and doctrines into people while denying or ignoring those questions, doubts, and debates, but to admit that questioners, doubters, and debaters have a real and legitimate perspective, that we must be patient with them, that we must not act superior to them, that we must recognize that the way we see things may not actually be the way things really are.”

    Yeah right. Christians who are humble about their religion? Ha!
19. Funky Dung Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 6:21 am

    I guess my kids’ll be screwed with an “insensitive clod” such as me for a father. I guess it’s a good thing wifey has an EQ of 42 (her SQ is only 21, though). 😉
20. Jerry Friday, June 17, 2005 at 7:54 pm

    I’d be glad to discuss it further. I’d be cautious about harmonious imperial relations, especially when if an iconoclast takes the reigns! 😉
21. Tom Smith Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 8:44 pm

    If what you meant was that people will take their ideas from what they read, then I agree. That seems obvious enough. Look at how many people take the New York Times, Fox News, or CNN as gospel. Obviously, the same principle applies to religion-themed articles such as this.

    And I still think that you’re not really understanding the “three percent” comment. All I meant was that very few pew-sitting Catholics actually make an effort to believe in/practice Catholicism, due mostly to ignorance, I’d say. I was not setting up a value judgment of anything or anyone. I’m not saying that three percent of religious folks are perfect. I’m not denigrating anyone, or unfairly raising anyone.

    As to your litany of things the church claims, read just about any Church historian worth their salt and you’ll hear:

    Rule of law? Ancient Roman. The rule of law left Western Europe when Constantine did.

    Democracy? Protestant. The Popes have hated democracy.

    Ending slavery? Not a Christian movement until the mid-19th century. See Apostolic Constitutions Inter Caetera (1493) and In Supremo (1839) for the reversal of position on the issue.

    Equality for women? Feminist, with a little Christian groundwork.

    Science? Ancient Greek.

    Great art? Christian.

    Medicine? Protestant.

    Overthrowing Communism? Christian.

    Okay, so we’re left with what? Great art and overthrowing Communism? Come on. Obviously I don’t credit Catholicism with everything good in European history and culture. That’s simply untenable.

    And the statement you give is almost completely agreeable to me.
22. Stuff Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 2:27 am

    Jerry – thanks for the link – she is very cool.
23. gbm3 Friday, June 17, 2005 at 4:28 pm

    Jerry and Tom, sorry that this is interrupting your conversation. I read the following late and had to comment.

    —

    I would like to meet some of those 3%, and see if they are good enough representatives of their religion that the truth of their gospel is so apparent that even I would have to submit. Or would they be like everyone else, and I could criticize something they’ve said or done, only to have them say “Don’t judge me by my behaviors” and then point to some invisible ideal of Christianity that can’t actually be found anywhere in the real world, except in the minds of the people who think it exists somewhere. Sort of like unicorns.
    -theomorph 06.13.05 – 12:32 am

    Are you sure that if you “[met] some of [the] 3%, [sic] and [saw that] they [were] good enough representatives of their religion that the truth of their gospel [was] so apparent that even [you] would have to submit”?

    Then Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.”
    Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”
    Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains. John 9:39-41

    (“These verses spell out the symbolic meaning of the cure; the Pharisees are not the innocent blind, willing to accept the testimony of others.” http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john9.htm)

    Do the other 97% unconvince you? Are we to be perfect to convince you?

    The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him,
    but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
    So to them he addressed this parable.
    “What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it?
    And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy
    and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’
    I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance. Luke 15:1-7

    I believe Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous or self-righteous. Have you heard of this favorite tale of Christians (abridged):

    A congregation was gathered into church for their mass/service/sacred liturgy. At once, someone came in firing a machine gun into the air while shouting, “Those who believe in Jesus stay!” Much of the assembly left screaming but some remained including the pastor/Priest. The armed person said, “Now you can continue your mass/service.”

    I really dislike this story. Those that sit in mass/service are at different levels of faith. No one should reject them from the mass/service because of any lack of faith. They should even be given the title of Christian if they desire it. Maybe imperfect Christian, but one nonetheless.

    It’s too bad that non-believers (vis Christianity) believe that one has to act/follow/believe in everything that a Church does in order for them to be convinced of its truth especially if the Church’s mission is to reach out to the sinner, in reality all of us, not just 97%. Maybe some (non-believers) are just blind.

    —
24. Tom Smith Friday, June 17, 2005 at 6:31 pm

    Jerry,

    The reason I can’t come up with anybody before the 19th century is because it wasn’t an issue, like you say.

    “Would you seriously propose becoming a monarchy?”

    Probably not. As is probably obvious, I have not thought the matter over very thoroughly.

    And you’re completely right that the Church and the state dwell in two different realms. But I tend to think that political systems can be structured in such a way that they guide people into disharmony with the Church. Or maybe that’s a purely social problem, rather than a result of political system; I don’t know. I guess what I mean by saying that democracy fits much better with Protestantism than with Catholicism is that it is a far better reflection of the Protestant faith(s), because of the “hey, whatever, man! to each his own!” attitude it engenders. Again, that might be more a general societal problem than one of political system.

    I guess I tend to look wistfully back to simpler Byzantine days, when Patriarch and Emperor worked side by side to promote the Orthodox faith, promote truth, and protect the Imperial citizens and people. It’s a good model, except when issues of religious freedom come up.

    Despite how my previous post sounded, I really don’t know everything when it comes to this topic, and I’d like to discuss it further.
25. Tom Smith Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 5:59 pm

    Jerry, my point was simply to underline that it’s silly to think that each of Western society’s highlights are religious in nature, although I do hold that modern medicine can thank the Reformation more than the ancient world. I’d say the reason France, the least Catholic of the Catholic nations, had so many leading medical practitioners had more to do with France’s laissez-faire social attitudes, as well as the high amounts of non-Catholic Huguenot and Jansenist influence.

    As for democracy and the Popes, take a look at Pius XI’s Quas Primas, which instituted the feast of Christ the King. Although I haven’t read it since Christ the King last year, I recall being struck at how relevant it was. And I well understand that “democracy,” in common parlance, refers not to actual democratic rule, but some sort of indirect, representative democracy. I doubt the Popes failed to understand that fact as well. It’s simply that democracy is a poor fit for any of the Apostolic faiths. Seriously, the Orthodox are still built on an imperial model. Catholicism is built for autocratic monarchies. Protestantism, on the other hand, with private judgment, personal revelation, and an emphasis on individual relationships with God, fits well with democracy. Also, I don’t think that too many of the post-Pius XII Popes were really all that pro-democracy. Failing to criticize it directly is simply not the same as celebrating it. I’m sure that, if you pushed any of the aforementioned Successors of Peter, they’d tell you that relativism, radical individualism, and many of the other ills of modern society can take as their proximate causes democratic reform.

    One other thing that annoys me: why is that good Catholics just have to be pro-democracy? Are our American sensibilities overriding our Catholic ones? Where does Catholicism teach that democracy is some great good? Where is this in Scripture? Because it isn’t in Tradition or Magisterium. In fact, those two, I would argue, are dead set against democracy.
26. theomorph Monday, June 13, 2005 at 5:27 am

    John– It wasn’t a statement from the Pope; it was from the author of the article, this Miller fellow.

    But I agree with your criticism of Tom’s comments, which fall into the old pattern of “Don’t judge Christians by their behaviors; most Christians aren’t real Christians anyway.”

    I would like to meet some of those 3%, and see if they are good enough representatives of their religion that the truth of their gospel is so apparent that even I would have to submit. Or would they be like everyone else, and I could criticize something they’ve said or done, only to have them say “Don’t judge me by my behaviors” and then point to some invisible ideal of Christianity that can’t actually be found anywhere in the real world, except in the minds of the people who think it exists somewhere. Sort of like unicorns.
27. Scott Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 5:51 am

    Just took the SQ. 57. Looks like I’m hanging with the functioning autistics.
28. Scott Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 5:36 am

    My EQ is 62. What’s wrong with you people? Ya bunch of insensative clods! That goes for you too, Stuff. Sorry, honey, but 54 just won’t cut it raising our kids 😛
29. Jerry Tuesday, November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    Steph, check out http://www.daniellebean.com. She’s a home-schoolin’, chicken-raisin’ Catholic mom in the sticks (New Hampshire, that is). I think you’d like her.
30. John Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 3:24 am

    You have no idea how happy it makes me to hear an ardent Christian admitting that the Bible is not the origin of our legal system.

    Also, within the United States, various Christian groups really do deserve a great measure of credit for the abolition movement. Want to be sure they get there due. Think of the line from the Battle Hymn of the Republic “As he died to make men holy let us die to make them free.”