• From Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis):
  The AP photo by Adam Butler records an 83-year-old Iraqi preparing to vote in London. The AP reports that "[t]his is the first time she has participated in an Iraqi election" (see other AP report). The faces and smiles tell the story of freedom. All eyes are on the Iraqi elections this weekend. We pray that God will protect the brave who dare to go and vote for a decent and dignified future for themselves and their families (see London Timesonline report, "Voting fever takes hold of a people finally free to choose"). Thanks to President Bush and our military for making this future possible. Since the picture speaks for itself, no further commentary is needed today.

• John Schultz (Catholic Light) passes along an email from Battalion Chaplain Lyle Shackelford delivering the voting machines and the ballots to villages and cities throughout Iraq, who asks for prayers on behalf of all who read:
  . . . There is unlimited potential for God's presence in this process but if we do not pray, then our enemy will prevail (See Ephesians 6:10-17). A prayer vigil prior to the end of the month may be an innovative opportunity for those within your sphere of influence to pray. This is a political battle that needs spiritual intervention. A powerful story about God's intervention in the lives of David's mighty men is recorded in 2 Samuel 23:8-33. David and his warriors were victorious because of God's intervention. We want to overcome those who would stand in the way of freedom. David's mighty men triumphed over incredible odds and stood their ground and were victorious over the enemies of Israel. (Iraqi insurgents' vs God's praying people). They don't stand a chance.

  I will pray with my soldiers before they leave on their convoys and move outside our installation gates here at Tallil. My soldiers are at the nerve center of the logistic operation to deliver the voting machines and election ballots. They will be driving to and entering the arena of the enemy.

  This is not a game for them. It is an historic mission that is extremely dangerous. No voting machines or ballots, No elections. Your prayer support and God's intervention are needed to give democracy a chance in this war torn country. Thank you for your prayer support for me and my family. Stand firm in your battles.

• Lane Core Jr. (Blog from the Core explains why our future hangs in the balance on January 30-31, 2005:
  If we do not succesfully plant the seeds of democratic government in the Middle East — beginning with Iraq, and expanding thence over the years & decades & generations -- our children and grandchildren will be condemned to live in a world where freedom of religion and conscience -- where the rule of law and respect for individual dignity -- won't even be memories because they will have been obliterated.

  The power of the United States of America — military, financial, diplomatic, and cultural — to project its force around the world, to remove despotic regimes and enforce the beginnings of freedom amongst peoples who have never known it, or have no living memory of it, is what stands between us and the Dark Ages of the Future.

  That, and the courage of Iraqi citizens — those who stand for office, and those who vote. Please keep them, and our soldiers in Iraq, in your prayers these days.

• Senator "No Blood for Oil" Kennedy took the opportunity to raise the spectre of Vietnam, calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops following the election. Belmont Club responds, marshalling the witness of Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk.

• The Daily Demarche has a special request
  For all the Bush haters out there, for all the pundits who think it is clever to spell Republican with a triple "k", I have a challenge for all of you. For one day, less probably by the time you hear of this, devote some of that energy to wishing success to the people of Iraq in this election. Forget for one day your raging anger and calls for us to abandon Iraq. It’s not going to happen, and for this single day we could use your support. You can resume your attacks on the Administration on Monday - because you live in a free land.

• Ali -- an Iraqi blogger in Baghdad:

  All my life like all Iraqis, I was not in control of my life. I started looking to myself as a humanist many years ago. Maybe it's because I lost belief in my government and even sometimes in my country and my people. My country was just a stupid large piece of dirt that meant nothing and offered nothing to me but suffering and humiliation. . . .

  Now, and thanks to other humans, not from my area, religion and who don't even speak my language, I and all Iraqis have the real chance to make the change. Now I OWN my home and I can decide who's going to run things in it and how and I won't waste that chance. Tomorrow as I cast my vote, I'll regain my home. I'll regain my humanity and my dignity, as I stand and fulfill part of my responsibilities to this part of the large brotherhood of humanity. Tomorrow I'll say I'M IRAQI AND I'M PROUD, as being Iraqi this time bears a different meaning in my mind. It's being an active and good part of humanity. Tomorrow I and the Iraqis that are going to vote will rule, not the politicians we're going to vote for, as it's our decision and they'll work for us this time and if we don't like them we'll kick them out! Tomorrow my heart will race my hand to the box. Tomorrow I'll race even the sun to the voting centre, my Ka'aba and my Mecca. I'm so excited and so happy that I can't even feel the fear I though I would have at this time. I can't wait until tomorrow.

• Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine has a roundup of quotes from Iraqi bloggers' as they anticipate the vote. "They all should be an inspiration -- and perhaps a shame -- to those of us who have become blase about democracy and freedom, who growl over our choices and don't even bother showing up at the polls. Democracy is fragile and precious; we forget that. These people don't." Here's a Iraqi bloggers covering the election, also courtesy of Jeff.
• FriendsofDemocracy.Org, another organization bringing you "ground-level election news from the Iraqi people."

• Radioblogger has a photo-blog of proud Iraqis voting in El Toro, California. Lots of smiling faces and an interesting story -- two Iraqis men "came to vote today, with their families, and recognized each other. They started talking and realized that they hadn't seen each other in fifty years. They were about ten years old in Iraq the last time they saw each other." What a reunion!

• How do you begin to contain the emotion of contributing to freedom for the very first time in over 50 years. And for many - the first time ever in their life?" -- Kevin McCullough captures the emotions of many Iraqis with another series of photos.

• Michelle Malkin shares a relevant question from a reader: "Why don't we see the human shields at the polls in Iraq? They were willing to protect Iraq from bombs before the war started. Why aren't they protecting Iraq now?"

• From BlogsofWar:

  Atheer Almudhafer, from Falls Church, Va., gives the Iraqi sign of victory after casting his absentee ballot at the New Carrollton, Md., voting station, Jan. 28, 2005. His finger is marked with indelible blue ink, intended to prevent double voting. "I give the sign of peace and voting. Together it is victory." [Defense LINK]
  

• A history lesson from Arthur Herman ("Sic Temper Tyrannis: 1649 and now" NRO, January 28, 2004):
  This election, which many hope will spark a democratic revolution for the Middle East, falls on the same day -- January 30 -- as the event which set in motion the modern West's first democratic revolution more than 365 years ago. It was on that day in 1649 that King Charles I of England was beheaded after his formal trial for treason and tyranny, an epoch-shattering event that destroyed the notion of divine right of kings forever, and gave birth to the principle that reverberates down to today, from President Bush's inaugural address last week to the Iraqi election this Sunday: that all political authority requires the consent of the people. Although few like to admit it now, it was Charles's execution, along with the civil war that preceded it and the political turmoil that followed, that established our modern notions of democracy, liberty, and freedom of speech. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he was thinking primarily of the legacy of the English civil war.

• Captain's Quarters relays this report from FoxNews
  Thousands of people are now walking a 13-mile stretch between Abu Ghraib and Gazaliyah to cast votes in the elections, military sources tell Fox News. The mass march has been caught by unmanned drones, and Fox says they will soon have pictures of the subtle demonstration of the Iraqi desire for liberty.

  More as it develops. Fox also reports long lines in most polling stations, with some even calling for more ballot materials as they run out of ballots faster than they anticipated.

• Arthur Chrenkoff has more reactions of Iraqi voters (E-Day & E-Day, Part II, including this from sometime Chrenkof correspondent:
  Haider Ajina: "I just called my father in Baghdad to see if he and the rest of my Iraqi family over there have voted yet. He said we were all just heading out the door, but we will wait and talk to you (chuckling). I heard a strength and joy in his voice and could hear the rest of my relatives in the back ground. It sounded like a family reunion. My 84 year old Iraqi Grandmother will be voting for the first time in her life. My father (a naturalized U.S. Citizen) said we are all getting ready to go vote in a school near by. This school was just being built when I left Iraq in the late 70's. I know where it is and I can picture my father, uncles aunties and cousins along with the rest of the family walking through my old neighborhood to that school and vote. My father said 'For the first time in my life I voted in the U.S. and now I can vote in Iraq. We want our voices to count, we want to decide our future and we want the world to know we have a voice in our future and in our government, this will give the Iraqi government true legitimacy, just like in America'.

  "I can now dream of the day when I can take my family to meet my extended family and the places were I played and grew up. They will also see what our men and women in our military fought for.

  "To all the men and women who have served and serving in Iraq, to all the families of those who have paid the ultimate price to all those who have suffered during their service in Iraq, my family’s and my deepest thanks, gratitude and pride both from the U.S. and Iraq for all the sacrifices, endurance and service for our great country and Iraq and the Iraqis. God bless all of you and keep you safe."

• Voices from the Revolution - Friends of Democracy interviews with citizens from the Zy Qar province and reports that the Election Goes Smoothly in Kirkuk ("During the elections the kids have nothing to do as everyone is busy voting").

• More photoblogging the election from Ryan in Baghdad ("Farmer by genetics, Lawyer by training, currently "vacationing" in Iraq and advising the Iraqi government on border security issue"). Ryan cites a pertinent quote from Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror:
  Any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

• Belmont Club asks: "Did we win?", comparing a number of MSM (mainstream media) reports on Iraqi voter turnout. Speaking to Reuters, University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole called the elections "a joke," and reinforces his prediction in a gloomy post to his own blog; however, eyewitness reports of an incredible voter turnout from BBC News Reporter's Log beg to differ.

• Jeff Jarvis (Buzzmachine) believes this is "Not an election, a revolution" and provides an additional roundup of news headlines. Jeff asks a question which every American should think about:
  This morning, I asked myself whether I would go to vote if I thought I could be bombed at the polling place or shot because of my blue finger. I don't think I'd have that courage. Most Americans would not (hell, most of us don't vote even in the lap of safety). Remember that every single Iraqi who came to vote today is a victory for democracy.

• Another roundup of Iraqi bloggers, also courtesy of Jeff.

• Captain's Quarters is reporting impressive turnout numbers by region; a change of heart at Reuters, and a welcome suprise from the Queen of Pessimistic Journalism: The New York Times acknowledges victory!

• More analysis of the MSM's change in temperament from Instapundit, along with a great picture of Iraqis displaying "the ink-stained finger of democracy."

Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets, by Dexter Filkins. New York Times January 30, 2005. Iraqis Express Pride, Hope at Election, by Ellen Knickmeyer. Associated Press. January 30, 2005. Iraq election declared 'success' BBC News. January 30, 2005.

• Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar @ Iraq The Model conclude: "The People have won"
  The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:< p>"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".

  This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street. The streets were completely empty except for the Iraqi and the coalition forces ' patrols, and of course kids seizing the chance to play soccer! . . .

  I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.

  I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".

• Iraqis fight a lonely battle for democracy, The Guardian January 30, 2005. Michael Ignatieff explains why "whatever your view of the war, you should embrace today's election":
  Just as depressing as the violence in Iraq is the indifference to it abroad. Americans and Europeans who have never lifted a finger to defend their own right to vote seem not to care that Iraqis are dying for the right to choose their own leaders. . . .

  The Bush administration has managed the nearly impossible: to turn democracy into a disreputable slogan.

  Liberals can't bring themselves to support freedom in Iraq lest they seem to collude with neo-conservative bombast. Anti-war ideologues can't support the Iraqis because that would require admitting that positive outcomes can result from bad policies. And then there are the ideological fools in the Arab world, and even a few in the West, who think the 'insurgents' are fighting a just war against US imperialism. This makes you wonder when the left forgot the proper name for people who bomb polling stations, kill election workers and assassinate candidates - fascists.

• Liberty Marches Forward - Citizen Smash, aka. "Indepundit", has a another roundup of photos and stirring quotes:
  We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of Liberty." -- John F. Kennedy

  "The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." – George W. Bush

• Via Little Green Footballs, an email from Mike, a major stationed in the Sunni Triangle:
  The polls closed at 1700 (5PM) our time and 8AM CST but the initial reports are that 72% of the Iraqis voted. Folks we should be ashamed. We can’t get that many people to vote in the US and no one is trying to kill us.

• Via Michelle Malkin, a child's display of solidarity with Iraqi voters:
  10-year-old Billings girl, Shelby Dangerfield won't be going to the polls. But she will be will be showing her support by wearing ink on her finger - just like those Iraqis who have voted.

  "It will symbolize our support if we wear ink on our fingers," Shelby said. "We're not forcing them to vote, but they have a chance to do it and they should take that chance."

  "10-year-old supports vote of Iraqi people" Billings Gazette January 30, 2005 .

• President Congratulates Iraqis on Election The White House. January 30, 2005.

So that's the roundup for the weekend . . . stay tuned to the various blogs mentioned above for the results and the aftermath, and please keep the people of Iraq, together with our troops, in your prayers.

Labels: iraq

• Mystery Achievement (nearly a year old blog, but a recent discovery of mine) remembers the Wannsee Conference and the Liberation of Auschwitz, and the lessons it has for us today. (On a related note, reflections of mine on the movie Conspiracy from October 2003).

• "We're Sorry!" -- Agreeing that the United States needs to stop "playing Superman," Citizen Smash (the Indepundit) proceeds to issue a public apology to each of those nations that we have "liberated" by force of arms.

• I'd always thought that Ann Coulter was an embarassment to conservatives and was relieved when National Review gave her the boot. Glad to see Amy Ridenour agrees.

• I. Shawn McElHinney (Rerum Novarum) offers a Political Potpourri of his own.

• Chayyei Sarah - "Orthodox Jewish thirty-something from Jerusalem" -- blogs on the difficult quandary of working in the field of journalism and trying not to violate the laws of loshon hara:
  For those not-yet-in-the-know, "loshon hara" is the Hebrew term for (put very simply) any speech or writing that unjustifiably communicates negative information about another person, particularly another Jew. It's considered a terrible sin, and in fact has a reputation for being the most widely-committed terrible sin. It's said that to speak ill of another is on par with murdering them. And the excuse that "well, it's true, after all" doesn't hold water in Jewish law; the information being true is exactly what makes the speech loshon hara. If it were a lie, it would be "motzi shem rah"—libel or slander—which of course is even worse.

• Pontifications recommends "The Catholic Angler" - an interview with Thomas Howard (Touchstone Sept/Oct 1999), predominantly on the works and worldview of C.S. Lewis. When asked to provide his own "mere Christianity" reading list, Howard recommends, among others: Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton; Romano Guardini's The Lord ("his magnum opus, has very, very little that is explicitly or polemically Roman, so I would tell people to drop everything and read that"); and Karl Adam's The Spirit of Catholicism ("probably the best single book that a person can give to a thinking person who is looking at the Church and specifically the Roman Church") -- all excellent works, and definitely would be on the top of my reading list as well.

• Over at Scripture and Catholic Tradition, Dr. Blosser's been blogging on The Eastern [Orthodox] Schism; if you're just now tuning in, scroll down to "Petrine jurisdiction exercised in the ancient Church" (January 5, 2005) which started the ruckus. =)

• Benjamin (Ad Limina Apostolorum) has some reflections on Augustine & the Beatitudes in time for this Sunday's Gospel reading.

• For those suckers for punishment who are considering purchasing the sequel to The DaVinci Code, historian Danny Loss has compiled A list of errors in Angels and Demons. For an author who boasts "Because my novels are so research-intensive, they take a couple of years to write," I'd say it's time he went back to the library. (Via Carl Olson Ignatius Insight).

• Merton and Mere Christianity -- Loy Mershimer compares the trappist monk to a memorable quote by C.S. Lewis.

• "The Perfect Son and the Free Society", by Michael Christopher Toth. Winner of the 2004 Acton Essay Competition:
  Jesus' Parable of the Prodigal Son offers three models for living the reality of social and economic freedom: the prodigal son, the obedient son, and the perfect Son. Each, in turn, exemplifies a distinct social order: the libertarian, the authoritarian, and the free society. Building upon the work of Avery Cardinal Dulles, J. Budziszewski, and Vaclav Havel, this essay will explain why only the self-giving free society adequately values the human person. . . .

Labels: hereandthere

Another educational resource which I discovered as well: Dictionary of a History of Ideas.

As if you didn't have enough things to read.

• Just the Right Amount of God, Weekly Standard, Vol. 10, No. 19. Jodie Bottum thinks "George Bush delivered the most philosophical inaugural address ever" -- a refreshing dose of Catholic natural law philosophy countering "a triumphant emotive liberalism, on the one side, and a defensive emotive Evangelicalism, on the other." (Agree? Disagree? -- Join in the discussion at Open Book).

• Michael Novak talks about Bush's Bid for Greatness" in an interview with the Slovakian publication Tyzden (January 21, 2005):
  "With his second inaugural address, President Bush made certain that his name will be identified with every movement of liberty and democracy around the world for the rest of this century. . . . then 50 years from now men will look back and say that the man who first inspired that new turn in history was George W. Bush. His speech seemed very largely in tune with Natan Sharansky’s new book on democracy as the only real defense against terrorism. It is a noble vision for one nation to embrace — and all nations to embrace."

• "Noumenal Conservatives". "Someguy" from the blog Mystery Achievement responds to various critics of Bush's inaugeration address (". . . fascinating examples of what happens when thoughtful people with theoretically sound ideas keep those ideas in a realm that is hermetically sealed off from recent history").

• God-Talk in Presidential inaugural addresses, a historical compilation by ecumenical blogger Bill Cork.

• Arthur Chrenkoff wishes he was there. Not the event itself, "Anti-Bush rallies. They sound like tons of fun."

• And to end on a humorous note, check out Jib Jab's "Second Term", "poking fun at President Bush, conservatives, liberals, and just about anyone else vying for political power."

Labels: politics

From Modern Times: The World from the 20's to the 90's [Revised Edition, 1991].

• "Two Days Before My Birthday Prayer" January 13, 2005.
• "Thoughts for My Birthday", a "self-interview" based on a conversation with his friend Adrian.

Excerpt from Zenit's interview w. Fr. Neuhaus "On the Eucharist and Its Relationship to "Communio" January 23, 2005.

Questions for further reflection and discussion:

• To what extent have American Catholics understood the communion controversy in its proper light -- that is to say, a question of the individual's relationship with the Church and "in faithful adherence to the Church's magisterial teaching"?
• To what extent do American Catholics retain a distinctly Protestant attitude toward communion and their role in the Church? -- Exemplified, I think, by Senator Kerry during the presidential election: hopping from one denomination to the next, receiving communion from Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and appearing oblivious to the underlying meaning and implications of his doing so.
• How have the Bishops performed in taking the communion controversy of last year to educate Catholics in their diocese about the meaning of (and respect for) the Eucharist as a sign of one's communion with the Church?

Labels: politics

Read the article and judge for yourself. It's rather amazing how Tolkien's distinctly Catholic spirituality managed to survive (to some extent) on screen -- despite the fact that the director, screenwriters (and ja good portion of the cast) did not share Tolkien's religous worldview. In fact, judging from their comments below, Jackson and co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens can at best be described as espousing a rather lukewarm humanism:

I agree with Wright's assessment: "I think that you can find Tolkien's vision in these movies if you already know where to look. But if you don't understand Tolkien's vision on your own, you may or may not get it." I imagine a lot of kids who will see the films as pure and simple fantasy, a glorified Dungeons & Dragons adventure on the big screen, and nothing more -- certainly impressive, but quickly forgotten as they move on next summer's blockbuster. Of course one would hope they would be sufficiently enticed to read the books.

The issue of faithful translation are raised by Walt Disney Studios' production of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe -- part of what may become a film adaption of the entire Chronicles of Narnia.

C.S. Lewis' Christianity seems to me even more explicit in his writing than Tolkien's. Even as a first grader, it wasn't hard to discern the allegorical sense of the passion, "crucifixion" and resurrection of Aslan the Lion. So when I heard it was being produced by Disney Studios (in its latter days hardly a haven for Christian morality), and by the director of Shrek, who is reported to have said: "I don't want to make a movie based on the book. I want to make a movie based on my recollection of the book" (MoviesOnline.ca). Granted, the directors must be granted a certain amount of creative liberty filling in the details. But my initial thought was that the cinematic version of Narnia -- in the hands of Disney -- would only appear on screen after having undergone a drastic de-Christianization under the scrutiny of the Grand Enforcers of Political Correctness^tm.

However, my confidence is boosted by the discovery that C.S. Lewis' stepson Douglas Gresham is serving as co-producer, with the specific intent on seeing that the movies stay true to the stories of his father, as well as by this report from NarniaWeb.Com:

Richard Taylor and WETA Workshop -- chief special-effects, weapons and armor architects of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings -- is developing the creatures and the world of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. An impressive featurette on their handwork bringing Lewis' world to life is now online. The film is scheduled to be released on December 9, 2005.

Related Links:

• "The Catholic Imagination of J.R.R. Tolkien", a compilation of articles and resources.
• Narnia.com Official movie site.
• NarniaWeb.com
• VirtualNarnia.com: "The New Movie - What we know so far"
• YourDailyC.S.Lewis, (almost) daily quotations from one of Christianity's most beloved authors.

Labels: cinema

• A First-Hand Account of What Goes on Inside a Chula Vista Abortion Clinic, San Diego News Notes January 2005.

  Via Amy Welborn.

• Barbara Nicolosi reflects on what might have been in "Owning January 22":
  Before they could save anyone, the scientists who were supposed to cure AIDs and cancer and Parkinsons and Alzheimers, had their skin flayed off with our burning saline solution.

  We lost countless "alternate sources of energy when the genius who was going to free us from the tyranny of the combustion engine, had his ideas sucked into a vacuum along with his tiny body.

  The greatest soprano of human history never got past the silent scream as we pulled her arms and legs off one at a time and reassembled them on a sterile stainless silver tray. . . ."

• How lying marketers sold Roe v. Wade to America, by David Kupelian. World Net Daily January 20, 2005, on the marketing campaign devised by Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL:
  "I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical . . ."

  Nathanson is now a Catholic and pro-lifer, and has given an account of his conversion in The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind (Regnery Publishing, 1996).

• Redstate summarizes the situation as it appears today:
  The Republican Party is now in a difficult position: pro-lifers recognize that this battle has moved to the courts, and will accept no more partial measures. There are few if any remaining ways for the GOP to use legislative policy to finesse the issue, and it is clear that the coming cycle will make or break the party's status with the pro-life community. The movement whose influx dramatically changed the party in the 1970s now seeks nothing less than a reliably pro-life Supreme Court nominee to change the balance on Roe - and what they demand will not be politically easy to achieve.

  And reminds us of "the most passionate and eloquent understanding of the abortion issue, one that came from another Republican White House": Ronald Reagan's "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation".

• Photographs from the San-Francisco March for Life on FreeRepublic.

• RoevWade.org.

Labels: politics

Trust me, Ccaroline, I have no illusions about the dangers of militant Islam, or the threat it poses to the West. Neither, for that matter, does Fr. Cizik, who -- if you read his essay "Our Lady and Islam" -- writes his article fully conscious of the decades of historial conflict between Islam and Christianity, and actually points to the instrumental power of the rosary (at the behest of St. Pope Pius V) in driving back the Islamic hordes at the battle of Lepanto.

But here is my motivation for posting, in case you were wondering:

As you probably know by now, this week also witnessed the brutal murder of an Egyptian Christian family at the hands of Muslims in what, by initial appearances and reports, was a religiously-motivated crime of hatred -- not in the Middle East but on our home soil, in a New Jersey neighborhood.

There's been much discussion of this story by Christian bloggers -- on Open Book. Many took this as justification for their wholesale indictment of Islam as a religion, to portray all Muslims as inherently suspect. Catholic blogger El Camino Real took the incident as an occasion to call for religious discrimination against Islam in general:

As one commentator observed, "Being a lifelong Protestant who grew up in the Bible belt I thought it was ironic to see people on a Catholic website discussing Islam in the same terms I have heard Catholicism discussed."

As I had written in a previous post:

Of course I am not the only member of St. Blog's Parish to be disturbed by this inclination to engage in a wholesale condemnation of the Islamic faith. In July of 2004, Fr. Tucker (Dappled Things) took issue with

The present conflict with militant Islamic fundamentalism should not, in my opinion, preclude Christians from recognizing areas of mutual agreement and grounds for cooperation with fellow Muslims. If in asserting such I am guilty of sentimentality, so is Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Arinze, and many others -- and I would be honored to be among such company.

With regards to yesterday's post, I have no reason to impute devious "trojan horse" intentions in Mustafa Aykol's disgust with two French Catholic writers for abandoning their belief in the Virgin Mother. Rather, I take it as grounds for what I would hope to be a positive conversation -- something to consider precisely at this time when the predominant inclination is to invoke a general condemnation of Islam.

Recent arrivals to my blog can read my earlier posts on Islam here:

• Kreeft's "Ecumenical Jihad" and Two Perspectives of Islam Nov. 1, 2003.
• Catholics & Muslims - Mutual Concerns over Liberalism Nov. 2, 2003.
• Differing Interpretations of Jihad Nov. 4, 2003.
• Prince Karim Agha Khan and "The Other Islam" Nov. 8, 2003.
• The Muslim & The Passion May 1, 2004.
• Stratford Caldecott on the "Providential Role of Mohammad" Sept. 26, 2004.

And for those who are interested, a compilation of articles and essays (critical as well as appreciative) on Muslim-Christian Relations.

Labels: islam

I wonder if this Muslim has heard of Hans Kung or the Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong?

• Islam Sees Mary as a Model for All Believers, Archbishop Francesco Gioia. Zenit. May 29, 2003.
• "Our Lady and Islam: Heaven's Peace Plan", by Fr Ladis J. Cizik. Soul Magazine Sept/Oct 2001.
• How Mary Holds Muslims and Christians in Conversation, by Cardinal William Keeler. Origins. CNS Documentary Service, 25, 36 (February 29, 1996): 610-12.

Labels: islam

• Kevin Miller (Heart, Mind and Strength) defends another Catholic unfairly libeled by Catholic World News:
  I've actually been mostly ignoring CWN for some time now - I no longer have the time or inclination to try to be the theological police for the entire Catholic sector of the blogosphere - but a reader emailed yesterday to tell me that he was skeptical about one of "Diogenes'" latest posts on CWN's blog. Responding to a Tablet article, CWN's house cynic lumps the French Dominican theologian Yves Congar in with several others [] who are to be rejected as unoriginal leftist publicity hounds. . . .READ MORE

• "The Soul Is Not Just Some Metaphysical Idea". Jeff Miller (The Curt Jester) shares his conversion story in Catholic Answers October 2004.

• "Suprised by Canon Law: What every Catholic apologist should know about Canon Law", by Peter Vere. An essay for Envoy Magazine. Peter has just published a book of the same title, addressing "150 questions Catholics ask about canon law" (order it here from St. Anthony Messenger Press).

• Disputations is tackling the mystery of free will and predestination.

According to Keating:

While welcoming the general idea of a liason from Catholics to the Bush administration, Keating also wondered: "should the liaison be the head of a Catholic magazine that might need to editorialize against Administration policies?" As Keating expected, the move provoked accusations of partisanship and accusations that Crisis was merely "a Republican house organ" -- a charge that Crisis itself bolstered ("I can't recall anything in the magazine that criticized the Bush Administration but plenty that criticized its opponents").

The problem was compounded last year after the National Catholic Reporter ran an investigative report -- or what I thought to be a clear case of attack-dog journalism -- about Deal Hudson's involvement in a sexual affair as a professor at Fordham University. Although the incident occurred over a decade ago, the scandal it caused was enough to prompt Deal's resignation as liason to the White House and ultimately to relenquish his position at the magazine.

Keating goes on to voice his criticism of an article "Biting the Bullet: Military Conscription and the Price of Citizenship", by Francis X. Maier, former editor of the National Catholic Register. For Keating, Maier's assertion that "America was an empire in denial" was a poignant example of Crisis went wrong, and why he considers it now to be not so much a distinctly Catholic magazine as a kind of "National Review with a largely Catholic authorship":

Keating's criticisms of Crisis is appropriate and necessary, and there is much in Crisis's choice of articles that merit his remarks. On Amy Welborn's Open Book, several commentators expressed their suprise that Keating neglected to mention the cover story for Crisis October 2004: "The Case for American Empire", a bombastic article by H.W. Crocker III with the opening assertion that "every Catholic should by rights be an imperialist." (Readers might recognize Crocker as the author of Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church, which I read last year and gave a mixed review. I'm not really a fan of Crocker's writing and find it rather offputting. Fortunately, most contributions to Crisis are more substantial and consideraly less obnoxious).

While I like the idea of those in the White House reading Crisis alongside the National Review and The Weekly Standard, I share Keating's concern about the dangers raised by the chief liason between Catholics and the White House being at the same time the publisher of a prominent Catholic magazine. It's a very precarious position to be in -- especially if, like Hudson, you're involved in the "culture war" against sexual immorality with a skeleton in your closet.

Nevertheless, I'd dispute Keating's presentation of Crisis as a magazine overly preoccupied with politics. Despite it's occasionally questionable choice in articles, or one-sided presentation of positions which allow for a diversity of Catholic opinion (such as U.S. foreign policy), I find it to be overall a very well-rounded Catholic periodical with a broad selection of subjects and contributors -- politics and morality, yes, but a great deal more. Consider the chief stories over the past year alone:

• theology & religion - Alice von Hildebrand: "Who's Afraid of Feelngs" (February 2004) and "Debating Beauty: Jacques Maritain and Dietrich von Hildebrand" (July 2004); George Sim Johnston: "Why Vatican II Was Necessary" (March 2004), "After the Council: Living Vatican II" (July 2004); Edward T. Oakes, SJ "Reconciling Judas: Evangelizing the Theologians" (October 2004); Mark Shea: "The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion" (December 2004); Christopher West "The New Language: A Crash Course in the Theology of the Body" (December 2004).
• science - Duncan Maxwell Anderson on "global warming" (February 2004); Benjamin D. Walker, The Meaning-Full Universe (April 2004)
• history - Michael Hogan on "The Irish Soldiers of Mexico" (March 2004); Sandra Meisel "The Real History of the Holy Grail" (Sept. 2004);
• literature & art - Maria Stella Ceplecha: "Painting Angels: Saints and Their Symbols"; Robert R. Reilly: Jose Serebrier: A Double Muse (October 2004)

It is to be expected that Crisis will focus on subjects of a political and moral nature, especially at a time when the public's attention is focused on legislation concerning key moral issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and euthanasia.

Despite Keating's valid concerns, however, it seems to me that Crisis has nevertheless held to a pretty balanced diet of subjects. In fact, as much as I enjoy reading National Review, Weekly Standard and Commentary, I've found Crisis' diversity a welcome respite from the political chatter. And under the helm of newly-established editor Brian Saint-Paul, I hope that it will stay its course.

A good compliment to First Things (still my favorite), and a necessary counter to the decidely more liberal views of Commonweal.

• Further discussion by Amy Welborn's Commentariat

Christopher Dawson, "The Catholic Attitude to War," 1937

Last year George Weigel wrote a brief article on just war theory ("Force of law, law of force", The Catholic Difference April 2003), in which he stated that:

Fr. James Schall revisits this topic in "When War Must Be The Answer" (Policy Review No. 128., December 2004), in which he delivers a broadside to "war is not the answer" protestors in a substantial reflection on the justifiable use of armed force, just war theory, and the war on terrorism.

My recommmendation would to be read Schall's essay alongside just war scholar James Turner Johnson' latest piece in First Things: "Just War: As It Was and Is" (No. 149, January 2005).

For the sake of a counter-argument, see this essay on just war theory by brother John Raymond of the The Community of The Monks of Adoration, recommended by Fr. Jim Tucker.

As an intellectual/academic exercise, compare Brother Raymond's presentation of just war theory and his predisposition towards pacifism with the critiques of Father Schall and James Turner Johnson.

I was going to write an extended essay on this myself, but I find that between Schall and Johnson, there's very little that I could contribute to the debate.^*

Apparently Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli of the Milan newspaper Il Giornale tracked down the original document on which the allegations were based ("kept in the Centre National des Archives de l'Église de France, archive of the secretariat of the French episcopate, position "7 CE 131"). Further examination by Zenit revealed marked discrepancies between the initial account published by Il Corriere della Sera and the authentic document itself, which reveals that:

Source: "1946 Document on Jewish Children Tells a Different Story" Zenit.org. Jan 12, 2005.

Zenit goes on to provide further details as to the origination of the document. Suffice to say the document's history vindicates Pius XII, with all the hue and cry of Pius' detractors being for nought. A good lesson to take slanderous reports about the pope with a big grain of salt . . . until all the facts come out.

(Thanks Ben Yacchov for the update).

Labels: jcrelations

Together with some major projects at work that are keeping me occupied, I've also got some books I've been trying to finish, and a few others I'd really like to start on this year.

I will definitely be posting to this and my other blogs on occasion, including Catholics in the Public Square (featuring regular reporting on politics and key figures in Catholic public life by Earl E. Appleby, Jeff Miller, David Schrader, Oswald Sobrino). But should a week pass without any kind of blogging activity, there is no cause for concern.

In the meantime, feel free to explore my blogroll, and check out a new blog by an old friend of the Blosser family: Sapor Sapientiae, by Kirk Kanzelberger, and his first post: "Smart people and believing in God".

Thomas Merton
Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, 1968.

Conjectures is a compilation of Merton's notes and spiritual reflections during the 1960's, and was first published in 1968, the same year Merton had, according to Msgr. Michael J. Wrenn and Kenneth D. Whitehead, "drifted away from the faith" and had fled to Asia to become a Buddhist.

As Teófilo (Theophilus) (Vivificat) noted in his comments on my original post, "Theologically, though, one needs to read Merton's journals to get the feel on how conservative he really was. Again, the key is found in his journals."

On the subject of "Vindicating Thomas Merton," Teófilo posts another remarkable excerpt from Merton's journals (June 6, 1965), in which he specifically comments on his "interest in the East." What Merton says in response is in itself an affirmation of the 'Christo-centric' nature of his reflections, even in the very last months of his life.

Labels: merton

Father Jim Tucker concurs:

Turner Classic Movies brought in the New Year with some classic concert films, including Elvis on Tour and Elvis: That's The Way It Is. The latter chronicles Elvis' 1970 concert series in Las Vegas, following the show's genesis from rehearsal to stage. While the performance is very impressive, the highlight of this movie was the intimate footage of Elvis' rehearsals with his bandmates, backup singers and orchestra, capturing his genuine charm and character.

The Curt Jester offers two amusing posts in honor of what would be Elvis' 70th birthday (Janary 8). And on that note, here's a post of mine from last year: "Remembering The King", with a look at Elvis' roots in gospel music.

My response was that a comment like that is such a gross distortion (actually, outright falsehood) of Novak and Neuhaus that I wonder if Buchanan -- like certain members of the Catholic left -- had actually read their books.

When I was in college I was a bit of a radical lefty anarchist sort -- anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, heavy imbiber of Chomsky & Howard Zinn, little bit of Marx, Nietzschian nihilism thrown in for good measure. You might be familiar with the type.

I read a lot of criticism about conservative thinkers (or neoconservatives) in those days, but as far as I can recall, didn't find much time to actually READ them. It wasn't until after college that I actually picked up Novak's books from the library, along with Fr. Neuhaus, and what I encountered hardly compared to the crude little caricatures I'd fashioned in my mind.

If you're interested in what the "First Things crowd" has to say on this topic, I'd personally recommend Doing Well & Doing Good: The Challenge to the Christian Capitalist, by Fr. Neuhaus, which I'm presently re-reading -- his reflections on the topic occasioned by Pope John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus and The Catholic Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism, by Michael Novak -- if you don't mind reading used books, you can find both for affordable prices at Amazon.com. Read them and judge for yourself, but don't let the spurious rantings of disgruntled critics prejudice your opinion.

Lastly, on the popular conception (or slur, rather) of Novak as apologist for "unbridled capitalist greed," it has always been Novak's contention, as far as I read him, that the very success of the free market and liberal democracy is contingent on the degree to which it embodies the moral virtues of Christianity. Regarding Buchanan's charge of material utopianism, consider the following:

From "Wealth & Virtue: The Moral Case for Capitalism", National Review Feb. 18, 2004.

See also:

• The Novak Achievement, by Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 36 (October 1993): 60-70.
  
• Capitalism, Rightly Understood: The View of Christian Humanism. Faith & Reason, April 1991 -- a reading of John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus.

Kung's animus towards the Cardinal is nothing compared to the Holy Father, however. Early on in his autobiography, Kung characterizes the young Karol Wojtyla [Pope John Paul II] as a third-rate theologian with "a very thin theological foundation -- not to mention a lack of modern exegesis, the history of dogmas and the church," and alleges that the Holy Father's motive for aligning his papacy with Opus Dei rather than the Jesuits is to get personal revenge for being rejected at the Gregorian (p. 79).

For one who back in April 1998 "said he would no longer defend some of his past criticisms of Pope John Paul II, and that he is hoping for a 'conciliation' with the Holy Father" [Source: Adoremus Bulletin], it sounds like he's still got some anger-management issues to work through.

A final point of amusement: the focus of Ratzinger's memoirs (Milestones) and Kung's (My Struggle for Freedom) is approximately the same period: their childhood and early years in the priesthood, culminating in their participation as periti (theological advisors) in the Second Vatican Council.

Covering the years 1927-1977, Ratzinger says what needs to be said in a mere 156 pages. It's a nice and refreshing read and you can polish it off in an afternoon.

By contrast, the first -- wait, there's more? -- volume of Kung's autobiography covers four decades to Ratzinger's five . . . and clocks in just shy of 500 pages (464, not counting the index).

I'm not sure what Cardinal Ratzinger's succinctness reveals about his personality. However, after wading into My Struggle for Freedom, I get the impression that Kung is a man who derives great pleasure in talking about himself.

Thank God he hasn't taken up blogging!

Labels: kung, ratzinger

Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar

Barth was reputedly described by Pope Pius XII as "the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas" -- a quote I've seen before, usually in Protestant circles, but entirely absent of context. In any case, Hans Kung was not the only one to investigate his works. Fr. Kung's interest in Barth was actually spurred by his doctrinal advisor Louis Bouyer (who advised Kung to read Luther and Calvin on connection with Kung's study of justification), as well as Hans urs Von Balthasar, who had given a series of lecture son Barth in the Winter of 1948-49, later compiled as The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation. According to Barth's biographer Eberhard Busch, Barth attended Balthasar's lectures when he could "to learn more about myself," and considered Balthasar's work "incomparably more powerful than most of the books which have clustered about me."

Balthasar and Kung ultimately ended up in different camps, the former joining Ratzinger and De Lubac in launching Communio, and opposing those who would distort the Council to further the dismantling of orthodoxy; Kung placing himself decidely in opposition to the Magisterium and going on to adopt more and more controversial ("progressive") stances on a number of issues in Catholic theology and morality.

Balthasar had his own reasons for studying (and dialoguing with) Barth. These are examined by Edward T. Oakes in the second chapter of Pattern of Redemption), which focuses on Balthasar's critique of Barth's commentary on The Epistle to the Romans -- a text for which The Old Oligarch has little love: "I grit my teeth all the way through Epistle to the Romans. Can you say, 'Radical hatred of the creation?' Why the incarnation isn't obscene to him is beyond me"

Balthasar saw something similar in Barth as our fellow blogger, although he didn't put it quite in those terms. According to Balthasar, Barth's emphasis on the complete distinction/opposition between God and man, Creator and creature, when taken to its logical conclusions leads to a parodoxical adoption of pantheism (or precisely theopanism) which abolishes the distinction between creature as creature, and undermines Barth's original position (Oakes, pp. 55-60). Oakes quotes Balthasar:

According to Oakes, Balthasar's devastating critique of Barth's early thought led him to "an ever greater recognition of the inherent rationality in theology . . . [and the acknowledgement of] the place of analogy in thelogical language." This in fact, says Oakes, is the single most important reason why Barth abandoned his first draft of a dogmatics and started it anew: he realized he was still too influenced by dialectics, and so he still saw God and creation too much as contrasting, even contradictory terms." [Oakes, p. 61]

That's enough Barth for one week. (Do check out Oakes if you're interested, however).

Labels: hans urs von balthasar

The problem with Hans Kung is that, like the rest of that part of the post-Christian world that has been reluctant to let go of its sentimental attachment to Christianity, he wants to change the meaning of Christianity to conform to his post-Christian commitments rather than to admit that his beliefs are no longer, in any traditionally recognizable sense of the term, Christian.

Regarding Hans Kung's fascination with the Protestant theologian Karl Barth, Blosser makes an interesting point that may take some by suprise:

[Kung's] Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection shows that he was already interested in drawing converging lines between Catholic and the secularized Protestant theologian, Karl Barth. I realize that many Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, hold Barth in high esteem, viewing him as a champion of "Neo-Orthodoxy" in contrast to the "Liberalism" of demythologizing thinkers such as Rudolf Bultmann, and I realize that they might find my labeling of him as a "secular Protestant" offensive. Yet I make my remarks advisedly. Barth is deceptive. He writes and talks as if he believes in the traditional Christian doctrines. But he doesn't. As University of Edinburgh Professor J.C. O'Neill writes in his chapter on Barth in The Bible's Authority:

Barth begins from from the starting-point that none of the miracles in the Bible actually happened. . . . Opponents of Barth like Bultmann were infuriated by Barth's seeming to say that he believed that the resurrection happened (in the normal sense, by which he grave became empty and the transformed body of Jesus left this universe) when he did not believe anything of the sort--but Barth never really concealed his actual position from those who took care to read carefully what he wrote. (p. 273)

Karl Barth on History and the Truth of the Gospel

Dr. Blosser's description of Barth as a "secularized Protestant" is indeed suprising, given portrayal as a champion of God's revelation and the objectivity of theology against the liberal subjectivism of Bultmann and 19th century liberal Protestantism. My theology professors in college portrayed him (and praised him) in exactly those terms. But in researching Barth further, I found much to back the credibility of Dr. Blosser's assertion

In a survey of "Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views", Avery Dulles describes Barth's view of scripture as follows (Theology Today Vol. 37, No. 1. 1980):

The period between the two world wars was marked by a return to the authority of the Bible without the dogmatic rigidities of classical orthodoxy. The prevailing mood was best expressed by the neoorthodoxy of Karl Barth and his associates, who developed a highly Christocentric view of revelation. According to this school, the word of God was to be identified with Jesus Christ and him alone. The Bible was not itself the word of God but a witness to that word. Christ, however, could address the community through the word of Scripture, and when he did so the Bible became, in a genuine sense, the word of God. The believing community could encounter Christ personally through that word.

In Barthian neo-orthodoxy the classical theses of Protestant orthodoxy were notably modified. Inspiration was no longer a property of the biblical authors or of the books taken in themselves. Rather, it was "the promise of God and the Holy Spirit to be present among the faithful when these writings are used in the common life of the church." Inerrancy, as a property of the texts, was vigorously denied, yet a genuine authority was ascribed to the Bible insofar as it became, on occasion, the word of God. In spite of the errors of the human writers, God acts with sovereign efficacy to lead the believing reader to an authentic faith-encounter.

But it's one thing to say that Barth held to a view of scripture unlike that of his fellow Protestants, quite another to charge that he did not believe in the resurrection in the traditional sense of the term. Consequently, I'd like to devote this post to exploring 1) Karl Barth's thought of the Resurrection itself (as a literal event); 2) Barth's understanding of the resurrection as an event in history; 3) the possible consequences of Barth's views on this subject.

Did Barth believe in the Resurrection?

Writing in First Things, Ralph C. Wood tells of an evangelical reporter who is alleged "to have asked Karl Barth, when he was visiting this country in 1962, whether he had ever been saved. "Yes," Barth is rumored to have replied. "Then tell us about your salvation experience," the reporter eagerly requested. "It happened in a.d. 34, when Jesus was crucified and God raised him from the dead." ("In Defense of Disbelief" First Things 86 (October 1998): 28-33).

In a passionate sermon "Threatened by the Resurrection," Karl Barth describes the resurrection of Christ as

not a miracle, but the miracle, the miracle of God - God's incomprehensible, saving intervention and mercy, the all-inclusive renewal that leads from death to life that comes from him, God's life-word, resurrection from the dead!

Resurrection - not progress, not evolution, not enlightenment, but a call from heaven to us: "Rise up! You are dead, but I will give you life." That is what is proclaimed here, and it is the only way that the world can be saved. Take away this summons, and make something else of it, something smaller, less than the absolute ultimate, or less than the absolutely powerful, and you have taken away all, the unique, the last hope there is for us on earth.

In the same sermon, Barth goes on to challenge those who would reduce this fundamental doctrine of Christianity to something other than it is, interpreting it "not in its literal sense, but . . . a symbol or a human idea":

We may be satisfied with this sort of resurrection. We may get along very well for some time with the comfort that death is not so terrible: "One must just not lose one's courage!" We may be satisfied for a long time with the romantic reappearing of the blossoms and the rejuvenation of spring, and thus forget the bitterness of present reality. It may be that, even as we stand beside the graves of loved ones, we find contentment in the thought of a spiritual continuation of this life. But the remarkable thing about it is that the real truth of the resurrection seems to be too strong for us, because it will not suffer itself to be hidden or concealed in these harmless clothes. It always breaks forth; it rises up and shouts at us, asking: "Do you really think that is all I have to say to you? Do you really believe that is why Jesus came to earth, why he agonized and suffered, why he was crucified and rose again on the third day, to become merely a symbol for the truth - which really is no truth - that eventually everything will be all right?"

No cultural education, no art, no evolutionary development helps us beyond our sins. We must receive assistance from the ground up. Then the steep walls of our security are broken to bits, and we are forced to become humble, poor, pleading. Thus we are driven more and more to surrender and give up all that we have, surrender and give up those things which we formerly used to protect and defend and hold to ourselves against the voice of the resurrection's truth.

Those who would allege that Barth did not believe in the truth of the resurrection, as a physical event, as the bodily resurrection of Jesus the Christ, will have to wrestle with these words and this sermon -- it seems to me that the burden of proof is on them. However, it is with respect to the resurrection as an event in history that we encounter the problem raised by Dr. Blosser.

The Resurrection - a Historical Event?

In Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection, William Lane Craig briefly describes Barth's view of the subject:

. . . Liberal theology could not survive World War I, but its demise brought no renewed interest in the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, for the two schools that succeeded it were united in their devaluation of the historical with regard to Jesus. Thus, dialectical theology, propounded by Karl Barth, championed the doctrine of the resurrection, but would have nothing to do with the resurrection as an event of history. In his commentary on the book of Romans (1919), the early Barth declared, "The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle -- that is, without really touching it."

What were Barth's motivations for such a radical claim? According to Gregory W. Dawes (The Historical Jesus Quest Revisited"), Barth's intentions in defending the resurrection as a suprahistorical event -- outside the grasp of historical investigation -- were, to say the least, honorable. Barth's intention was "to undo the damage brought about by historical criticism. . . . [to] reject the idea that a theology could be built on the results of historical research." In particular, says Dawes, Barth was reacting to the claims of liberal theologians like Ernst Troeltsch, that, as simply one religion among others, one cannot take Christianity's claims to authority for granted but must rather submit them to modern historical criticism.

Barth and Bultmann, on the other hand, regarded Troeltsch's approach as a betrayal of the properly theological task. They also realized that it was doomed to failure: once Christianity came to be seen as merely one religion among others, its claims to authority would soon be undermined. They, therefore, opposed this development from the very outset. Theologians, they argued, were faced not with "a religion," to be understood in historical terms, but with a divine revelation. Just as there is an "infinite qualitative distinction" between God and the world, so there is an infinite distance between Christianity as a religion and the revelation of which it is a vehicle. The historian might understand the religion, but he or she has no access to the revelation. Revelation can be expressed and understood only in the terms that God himself has provided.

What Barth thought of the resurrection can be gleaned further from "Conversational Theology: The Wit and Wisdom of Karl Barth", by George Hunsinger:

. . . Barth's understanding of Christ's resurrection was a recurring topic of interest. An especially interesting exchange took place in an extensive conversation with theology students from Tübingen (pp. 33-52). Curiously, however, one theme never surfaced, even though for Barth it was perhaps the matter of greatest "objective" significance. Unencumbered by modernist arguments about "historicity" (whether pro or con), Barth proposed that, ontically, the significant matter was not so much that the resurrection event was "historical" as that Christ had been elevated from time into an eternal mode of existence without losing his essential temporality. Consequently, the risen Christ, in his saving significance, was able to be the Contemporary of each and every human being, in all times and places. In and through the living Christ, crucified and risen, God related to the entire human race. God's affirmation and judgment of the human race in the life-history of Jesus Christ was the beginning and end of all things.

When the question of "historicity" took center stage, however, as it did with the Tübingen students, then, in effect, Barth would advance the proposition that Christ's resurrection was indeed a historical event, and yet it was unlike any historical event that we know. Over against theologians like Bultmann and Ebeling, Barth affirmed that, yes, Christ's resurrection was really a bodily event. It was really "spatio-temporal:" "somatic, visible, audible, tangible" (p. 34). "It was a matter of the same human being, Jesus of Nazareth, who had previously been among them, and who was now seen in his glory" (p. 35). Over against theologians like Pannenberg, on the other hand, Barth contended that, no, modern critical methods of investigation are not germane to this event in its essential uniqueness (p. 45). Poetic or even mythic elements are ineffaceable from the biblical depiction, precisely because this event is, by definition, a mysterious conjunction of historicity and transcendence (pp. 46-47).

Barth rejected the search for the historical Jesus, because he did not believe him to have been lost. "As if there were any other life of Jesus than that of him who was raised at Easter!" (p. 36). The Easter Jesus, as attested by the apostles, was the only Jesus there has ever been.

We can judge by Hunsinger's account (and by the words of Barth himself) that Barth did believe in the resurrection, that it was indeed a historical event, but that in light of its utter uniqueness as a "conjunction of historicity and transcendence" it was rendered impervious to subsequent historical investigation. Barth's intent was to counter the negative effects of historical criticism and a liberal Protestant theology that demeaned the truth of the gospel.

Perhaps Barth did not anticipate the full implications of his view, or the damaging consequences it was bound to have in succeeding generations of Christian thought. Nevertheless, as Gregory Dawes contends:

The work of Karl Barth in particular represents an extraordinary theological synthesis. But its effect on religious thought has been almost entirely pernicious. For Barthian theology has encouraged a "retreat to commitment", a style of thinking which is prepared to defy even the most minimal standards of rationality, standards on which the entire academic enterprise depends. Even on theological grounds, its defiance of historical claims seems untenable, if belief in the incarnation is to be taken seriously. The Jesus of history matters, not just to the historian, but also to the believer.

Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus - Shades of Karl Barth?

The Barthian perception of history and what Dawes describes as a "retreat to commitment" bears a remarkable similarity to the conclusions of Luke Timothy Johnson regarding the gospels and historical research, as expressed in The Real Jesus (Harper, 1996) - subtitled: "The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels":

. . . if the resurrection means, as defined here, the passage of the human Jesus into the power of God, then by definition it is not "historical" as regards Jesus, in the sense of a "human event in time and space." By definition, the resurrection elevates Jesus beyond the merely human; he is no longer defined by time and space -- although available to human beings in time and space. The Christian claim in the strong sense is simply not "historical." The problem in this case is, however, not with the reality of the resurrection. The problem lies in history's limited mode of knowing. Yet, to make one final turn, the resurrection of Jesus in this strong sense can be said to be historical as the experience and claim of human beings, then and today, that organizes their lives and generates their activities. That is the resurrection has a historical dimension as part of the "resurrection community" that is the Church.

Johnson proceeds from his observation regarding the limits of historical knowledge to the striking conclusion that history itself can be dismissed in proving the claims of Christianity:

Christianity has never been able to "prove" its claims except by appeal to the experiences and convictions of those already convinced. The only real validation for the claim that Christ is what the creed claims him to be, that is, light from light, true God from true God, is to be found in the quality of life demonstrated by those who make this confession. . . . the claims of the Gospel cannot be demonstrated logically, they cannot be proved historically. They can be validated only existentially by the witness of authentic Christian discipleship.

I first read Johnson's book in college, and it was a welcome find just at the time I was taking some courses on New Testament biblical scholarship and studying (or being force-fed) the findings of "The Jesus Seminar." As it stands, The Real Jesus provides an excellent critique of scholars like Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan and Bishop Spong who promote a "historical Jesus" completely divorced from the traditional gospel account.

At the same time, I found myself utterly disappointed by Johnson's conclusion pertaining to history and the demonstratable truth of the Gospel. Johnson's emphasis on Christian action is laudable, as is his insistence that one cannnot investigate the veracity of the gospel accounts exclusive of the creedal claims of the Church. However, Johnson's explicit dismissal of history and identification of gospel truth with "the experiences and convictions of those already convinced" -- a blatant retreat into subjective experience as the sole arbiter of religious truth -- must be questioned and firmly rejected.

I could be going out on a limb here in noting the similarity between Johnson and Barth, although I expect Johnson was certainly acquainted with his writings. In any case, I was pleased to read that Richard B. Hays expressed similar reservations about Johnson's conclusions in his review for First Things June/July '96).

The Heresy of Modernism and the Resurrection

While researching this topic I came across the Catholic Enyclopedia's entry on "The Resurrection", the last section of which addresses the resurrection in light of the heresy of Modernism,associated in part with the French theologian and biblical scholar Fr. Alfred Loisy (1857-1940). The underlying propositions of modernism were summarized and condemned by Pius X in the 1907 decree Lamentabili Sane, and in greater depth in Pascendi Dominici Gregis). Among the condemned propositions was the assertion that "[t]he Resurrection of our Saviour is not properly a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order neither proved nor provable, which Christian consciousness has little by little inferred from other facts." According to the Catholic Enyclopedia:

This statement agrees with, and is further explained by the words of Loisy . . . [according to whom], firstly, the entrance into life immortal of one risen from the dead is not subject to observation; it is a supernatural, hyper-historical fact, not capable of historical proof. . . . This faith of the Apostles is concerned not so much with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as with His immortal life; being based on the apparitions, which are unsatisfactory evidence from an historical point of view, its force is appreciated only by faith itself . . ."

Loisy's beliefs were criticized by the Catholic Enyclopedia, which maintains that:

the denial of the historical certainty of Christ's Resurrection involves several historical blunders: it questions the objective reality of the apparitions without any historical grounds for such a doubt; it denies the fact of the empty sepulchre in spite of solid historical evidence to the contrary; it questions even the fact of Christ's burial in Joseph's sepulchre, though this fact is based on the clear and simply unimpeachable testimony of history.

Of course, one cannot lump together Modernism with Liberal Protestantism. John L. Murpy points out in Modernism and the Teaching of Schleiermacher (The American Ecclesiastical Review July, 1961), while the propositions condemned in Lamentabili are rooted in Liberal Protestantism, there remains an important difference between the two movements:

The Modernist attempted to bring into harmony both the traditional Catholic faith and these principles of Liberalism; this would naturally result in a rather distinct system. Obviously, because of the opposite directions taken by the underlying philosophical principles of both systems, this attempt could not possibly have succeeded. It was in reality an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable, and it could only have ended by the abandonment of one or the other element: either accept the condemnation of Pius X or forsake the Catholic Church.

Modernism predates Barth, and the whole of Barth's work is typically depicted as an effort to combat the principles of theological liberalism. Nevertheless, I find it interesting how Loisy's "flight from history" -- denying the relevance of historical investigation in testifying to the truth of the gospel -- is repeated to some degree by Karl Barth, and how Barth's theology has contributed to what Dawes criticizes as a "retreat to commitment," such that even Luke Timothy Johnson ends up soundling a lot like Barth himself.

The Postmodern Appropriation of Karl Barth

A further sign of concern is the fact that some Protestant scholars have revived (should I say resurrected?) an interest in Karl Barth, not as a defender of traditional Christianity, but as a foundation for "postmodern" theology.

In Barth and beyond" (Christian Century May 2, 2001), William Stacy Johnson explores the work of various Protestant authors who have appropriated Barth, announcing:

A number of theologians of late, myself included, have been arguing that Barth inaugurates a theological movement that has some affinities with the intellectual currents running through postmodernity. With the revision and republication of the second edition of his Epistle to the Romans in 1922, Barth sounded with piercing clarity the theme that God is simply greater than all the attempts of theologians -- whether liberal or conservative, whether modern, premodern or postmodern -- to capture God within the confines of a single, self-contained framework of linguistic meaning.

And in an earlier article, The 'postmodern' Barth? The Word of God as true myth (Christian Century, April 2, 1997), Gary J. Dorrien goes into detail how once the "outdated" ["neo-orthodox"] categorization has been discarded, certain elements of Barth's theology can then be used to bolster a postmodern Christianity:

Long after he relinquished the expressionist tropes of his "crisis theology" period, Barth's theology remained a rhetoric of freedom. He refused to reduce God to one element of a system; he rejected every kind of philosophical foundationalism; and his theology blended too many patterns to be reducible to any single theme. . . . Though his massive Church Dogmatics took on the appearance of an old-style dogmatism, his theological vision throughout this epochal work remained distinctively pluralistic and open-ended.

Barth insisted that Christian theology can be healthy and free only if it remains open to a multiplicity of philosophies, worldviews and forms of language. Nor is there any hierarchy among theological topics, he argued; there is no reason why a dogmatics should not begin with the Holy Spirit or salvation or eschatology: "There is only one truth, one reality, but different views, different aspects: just like the sun shines on different places."

By resisting the colonization of theology by philosophy or any other discourse, Barth prefigured the postmodern critique of all universalizing or "totalizing" discourses. The recognition of real differences is obliterated by universalist claims . . .

"Open-ended", "pluralistic", anti-hierarchical and anti-dogmatic -- such terms are obvious warning signs of entry into a quagmire of postmodernism which eschews a traditional understanding of religious truth. Dorrien made his case for a postmodern reading of Barth in The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology Without Weapons, which in turn received a brief mention in First Things:

"This is the significance of the "theology without weapons" in his subtitle, which refers to an autopistia or faith that stands on its own without support from philosophy, natural theology, historical demonstration, or ecclesial authority. The upshot, according to Dorrien, is that Karl Barth is in fact a fellow–traveler with the anti–foundationalists of contemporary postmodernism."

The reviewer counters Dorrien by appealing to "students of Barth such as Wolfhart Pannenberg and Robert Jenson . . . [who] interpret and react to his work with quite different intentions" -- but one must nevertheless wonder: is there something in the theology of Karl Barth itself that contributes to this dangerously postmodern reading?

I admit that since my conversion I have made little effort to keep up with Karl Barth or subsequent Lutheran theology, this post being a rather novel venture into such territory. However, Karl Barth once said "I cannot say that I consider it "cricket" when people talk about something without having properly studied it." And fearing I may be precisely such a person in these circumstances, it is out of deference to Mr. Barth (God bless his soul) that I bring this to a close.

This post was originally conceived as a supplement to (and spinoff from) Dr. Blosser's "The Problem with Hans Kung", and I hope his readers might find these further notes helpful. Given the nature of the topic, I would certainly be delighted if perhaps one of our Lutheran (or former Lutheran) bloggers weighed in on this discussion as well -- or even corrected me, if it happens that I erred in my understanding of Barth.

I leave you with this amusing fictional dialogue I came across: "How Historical is the Resurrection?", by Daniel L. Migliore (Theology Today Vol. 33, No. 1, April 1976 -- thank God for online archives), beginning:

BARTH: Have I ever told you my joke about modern theologians? Bonhoeffer is good beer; Tillich is beer; Bultmann is foam. . . .

(In my next post I'll briefly look at Barth's friendship with another Catholic scholar, not Kung, but von Balthasar).

• Secret Agent Man applies a good fisking to what -- in the very loose sense of the term -- is described as the "Christmas Message" of President Bush. Looks like our Commander in Chief just lost his spine to the PC Police.

• Dappled Things on "'Just Try Harder' vs. Christian morality'" (and moral anthropology).

• Also recommmended by Fr. Tucker: Mary, Mother of God, by Fr. William Saunders. Arlington Catholic Herald, Dec. 22, 1994. A brief but informative commentary on the theological issues behind the solemnity of Mary (January 1st).

• Jimmy Akin asks "What Would Frodo Do?" -- presenting a nifty idea for a D&D (Dungeons & Dragons) campaign. I don't think there's another member of St. Blog's parish that boasts more knowledge and familiarity with role-playing gaming. I dabbled a bit in my teens, but was mostly engrossed in the computer-game equivalent. Of course, I can only wonder what fundamentalists must think of Jimmy, given their penchant for denouncing fantasy role-playing games as a training ground for "budding necromancers"!

• Get Religion on "Celebrity Sacraments" (or the latest fad of celebrities: "celebrity-party christenings":
  This may also be a major boon for the Church of England, which needs all the good photo opportunities it can get in these days of global strife over moral theology. After all, Anglican rites give most media stars precisely what they need, which is Catholic visuals with liturgical and doctrinal flexibility that resembles a trip to Starbucks.

• Winds of Change's Joe Katzman on why 2004 was the "Year of the Blog". (Like Joe, I'm presently sick as a dog . . . "[feeling] a lot like some members of the mainstream media in 2004." Heh. By the way, the goal of Winds of Change is to provide "one power-packed briefing of insights, news and trends from the global War on Terror that leaves you stimulated, informed, and occasionally amused" every Monday & Thursday. If you're not tuning in already, check it out.

• Illustrating precisely why 2004 is "The Year of the Blog", here's Powerline fact-checking New York Times' journalist Thomas Friedman and shredding him in the process. (As demonstrated time and time again over the course of the past year, taking the MSM (mainstream media) to task has become common-practice among political bloggers).

• Did you know that Fr. Bryce Sibley A Saintly Salmagundi went rabbit hunting? With hawks? With the Master Falconer of his state? -- Check out this photo of the father with his bird-of-prey!

• Every once in a while, the prolific I. Shawn McElhinney (Rerum Novarum) organizes his blog and provides a list of recent posts conveniently arranged by subject -- a good practice to emulate, if I had the time. Click here for Rerum Novarum's Final Update for 2004.

• Congratulations to The Head Heeb, who has garnered a nomination for the Islamic blogosphere's first annual Brass Crescent Award ("best non-muslim blog") and is likely to be nominated in IsraellyCool's JIB awards.

Labels: hereandthere

• Reflections on the Tsunami disaser, from A Penitent Blogger.

• Making Sense Out of Suffering, by Peter Kreeft. (via Just Bein' Frank).

• From Donald Sensing (One Hand Clapping), a Salvation Army officer in Sri Lanka finds reason to give thanks to God.

• Patrick (Oxblog) provides an extensive list of organizations assisting in the tsunami relief effort.

• Indepundit reflects on the indifference of nature:
  NATURE HAPPENS – She doesn’t care whether you are an environmentalist or an industrialist, rich or poor, good or evil, black or white, Right or Left. She is neither vengeful nor forgiving. Elections, wars, and treaties do not constrain her. . . . Nature is neither benevolent nor malevolent. Nature simply is."

• Vivificat cautions those who would indulge in eschatalogical speculation:
  The Lord doesn't have to impress his power on us by cutting massive amounts of human life to prove His point. We serve a Bloodied God indeed, the one that shed His Blood on the Cross, not a bloodthirsty one that requires wanton death for propitiation. So, I'm hesitant to tie to this event to His Coming.

  What the earthquake-tsunami portends is clear and more down-to-earth: we need love each other, we need to reach out and fix what's broken and heal the wounded. This natural disaster is not call to retrench into our churches or into our fears: it is a call to Love.

• On Nov. 1, 1755, a great earthquake struck offshore of Lisbon, and became the occasion for the philosopher Voltaire's rational attack on God and Christianity. Eastern Orthodox theologian David B. Hart revisits Voltair's argument, asking What kind of God would allow a deadly tsunami?:
  When confronted by the sheer savage immensity of worldly suffering--when we see the entire littoral rim of the Indian Ocean strewn with tens of thousands of corpses, a third of them children's--no Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God's inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God's good ends. We are permitted only to hate death and waste and the imbecile forces of chance that shatter living souls, to believe that creation is in agony in its bonds, to see this world as divided between two kingdoms--knowing all the while that it is only charity that can sustain us against "fate," and that must do so until the end of days.

  (Via Amy Welborn).

• A good discussion of Hart's WSJ article going on over at Apologia (with William Luse).

I'm a little bit skeptical, to say the least. Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have twice handed in his resignation as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, "only to be asked by the Pope to stay on" (source). I can't lay claim to inside sources from the Vatican, but I suspect that if the Cardinal had his druthers, he'd like to retire in peace, spending his waning years writing theology texts, playing the piano, enjoying the solitude of the Bavarian Alps.

Meanwhile, the Cardinal had previously given his preference that the next Pope "be from Africa", which was interpreted as a support for Cardinal Arinze. Who, I agree, would also be ideal given his firsthand experience dealing with Islam, the liturgy (he currently heads Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) and interreligious relations (former head of Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue) -- good experience to have, especially in this era.

If called to serve the Church in yet another capacity, I'm sure Ratzinger would be up to the task, and I'd personally be delighted by the election of either Cardinal to the office, but I try not to speculate too much. I trust the Holy Spirit to guide our Cardinals in their decision.

Hat tip: Bill Cork.

• "Who's Your Papa?", good commentary from Fr. Stephen Hamilton ("Catholic Ragemonkey") on this.

Labels: ratzinger

The question of whether Pius XII was right in issuing such a directive is debatable. Nathan is incorrect in characterizing me as "taking up" Pius XII's position -- I did so only in demonstrating how the absence of attention to the theological rationale perpetuates The Guardian's blatant slander that Pius XII was anti-semitic. (I said as much in my post).

A lot of over-the-top rhetoric is to be expected in discussing this issue, but I would encourage Nathan to partake in a closer reading of Amy Welborn's blog. I've read through the exchange on Open Book twice and it seems Pius XII's "defenders" are motivated not by a loyal desire to 'defend the Pope at all costs" but rather a nostalgic appreciation for a time when Catholics gave greater weight to what baptism really meant (assuming the baptisms were valid), and the importance of a Catholic education in the salvation of one's soul. Certainly that much can be appreciated, regardless of whether Nathan or I agree with Pius XII's decision.

Likewise, I agree with those who find the consequences of such a decision -- the deprivation of children from their parents, or the literal kidnapping of a child in the case . In such cases, the primary mission of the Church ("to save souls" does not, in the words of one commentator, "mean that saving souls is an end to which anything becomes a proper means. Saving souls may be an end without which the Church loses its earthly meaning, without being a licence to make decisions for others that are not given to us to make. St. Thomas might help here on such things as formal and final causes."

If you can look past the heated rhetoric and verbal abuse, there is actually a really good discussion of this topic going on by commentators Amy Welborn's blog, with arguments by both sides worthy of consideration and reasoned discussion. Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. It's a tough issue with no easy answer, and I agree with Mark Shea's comment:

Fulfilling the desired ends of The Guardian's article, Nathan goes on to indulge in some unwarranted speculation of the true intentions of Pius XII and those who baptized Jewish children:

I'll try to be charitable in assuming that Nathan has written this post in an impassioned state and will think otherwise when his temper subsides. But let's look at the reasons why we can refrain from speculating (as Nathan does) that Pius XII's directive was motivated by "true feelings" of hatred toward "the perfidious Jews":

We can credit the Church's repudiation of the 'teaching of contempt' which fostered anti-semitism to a Jewish-French professor named Jules Isaac. You can find a summary of how he did so here. Those who have studied the topic will recognize that such a reform could not have occured without the initial help and collaboration of Pope Pius XII. It was by papal authorization in 1949 to translate the Good Friday prayer for the Jews, pro perfidis judaeis with the milder translation "unfaithful" or "unbelieving" that prompted Isaac to obtain an audience with Pius XII, in which:

At the papal audience, Dr. Isaac presented the pope with his scholarship and his Eighteen Points (specific recommendations for the purification of Christian teaching regarding the Jews). He petitioned the pontiff for further changes, and these in turn were addressed by Pius XII's successor, Pope John XXIII. In his book The Hidden Pope, Darcy O'Brien expresses his belief that Pius XII's meeting with Jules Isaac "may even have affected the pontiff's preference for a true reformer, John XXIII, as his successor. Cardinal Deskur, for one, believes this is so." And as Dave Kubiak pointed out (commenting @ Open Book): "it may be useful to recall that on 29 October 1953 at Castelgandolfo, Pius XII held the scarlet galero over the head of Archbishop Roncalli, whom he named Patriarch of Venice."

The belief that Pius XII "paved the way for Vatican II" was also held by Jewish convert Msgr. John M. Oesterreicher (1904-1993), a close friend of Cardinal Willebrands and participant in the drafting of Nostra Aetate (His book The New Encounter Between Christians and Jews contains a behind-the-scenes history of the document). Msgr. Oesterreicher describes the revolutionary attitude Pope Pius XII took in the preface to his encyclical on Holy Scripture Divino Afflante Spiritu (my brother Jamie will get a kick out of this, considering it "the greatest papal encyclical ever written"):

We know very little from the newspaper accounts of the specific circumstances under which the baptisms in question occured, so I believe it would be imprudent to speculate on the motives of the foster parents. We do know, however, what Pius XII thought of "forced conversions." Commenting on Open Book, Steve H. says:

Finally, Nathan ends his post by praising the actions of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II as models of dissent from papal authority:

I hope the events I've described above will call into question those who seek to portray Pius XII and John XXIII as simple adverseries with respect to the Jews. Likewise, Nathan should recognize that Fr. Wojtyla was dealing with a different kind of situation, parents who were intending to baptize the child. He wasn't "disobeying" Pius XII in doing so. Nor can one presume he was aware of the directive to retain childrenn who were already baptized -- or that Pius XII would have necessarily disagreed with Wojtyla's actions.

The secular media is already having a field day by using this latest story to slander Pius XII as an anti-semite. No sense for Catholic liberal bloggers, whatever their beef is with the Vatican, to join them in doing so.

Update:

• It Didn't Happen, by Nathan Nelson. "Fides, Spes, Caritas" January 13, 2005.

Labels: jcrelations

. . . we now turn immediately to the very first "story" in Part 1, Chapter 1, of the draft NAC, and we find that, incredibly, the supposed "exemplary Catholic" featured in this first story is none other than that lapsed monk, Thomas Merton, a one-time professed Catholic religious, who later left his monastery, and, at the end of his life, was actually off wandering in the East, seeking the consolations, apparently, of non-Christian, Eastern spirituality. Now it is true that Thomas Merton was a gifted writer, which in part explains why he continues to have votaries today; he wrote beautiful words about the needs of the human heart in its search for truth and grace. Some of these words are quoted here, and apparently were the pretext for featuring Merton in this chapter. The chapter is actually richer than that, though, and features at the end some wonderful quotations from St. Augustine.

But Thomas Merton was no St. Augustine. The latter, though he had sinned greatly, nevertheless devoted the rest of his life to the strict practice and promotion of the Christian faith. He was all the more effective in that he understood what the lack of faith entailed. Thomas Merton, on the other hand, converted when he was fairly young and only later, after he had incurred the solemn responsibilities that accompany religious vows, did he apparently give in to "itching ears" and went off "searching" in the manner of those modern seekers who will not be tied down by concrete demands of genuine religious faith -- especially the moral demands.

This chapter actually speaks about "those who have drifted away from the faith," yet does not see the irony inherent in the fact that Thomas Merton was himself apparently one of these. We do not take notice of this in order to judge him, but only in order to indicate that he can scarcely be considered an "exemplary Catholic." The very fact that the editors of the this text could have included him as such in their very first chapter immediately casts doubt on their understanding of Catholic teaching and practice and the needs of contemporary Catholics, especially in the wake of the scandals of other priests unfaithful to their vows. The choice of Merton here surely resembles the recent choice of the pro-abortion Leon Panetta as a member of the bishops' National Review Board on clerical sex abuse -- one of those mistakes that ought not to have been made. And this will undoubtedly be the reaction of many Catholics if this particular story is retained in the final NAC draft; it will likely be taken as one more piece of evidence that the American bishops still don't "get it."

Blogger and fellow member of St. Blog's Parish Bill Cork has recently defended Merton against the slander that he had "left the Church", pointing out that:

Merton was not a "lapsed monk," nor a "one-time professed Catholic religious," nor did he ever leave his monastery. He remained a faithful Catholic and a faithful member of the Trappists until he died; he is buried at Gethsemane as "Fr. Louis." He was not "actually off wandering in the East," but went to Thailand for a conference of Christian and Eastern monks, and had other dialogues with leaders of Eastern religions along the way; he died at the Thailand conference when he accidentally pulled an electric fan onto himself. This is simple history known to anyone who knows anything about Merton.

Unfortunately, Wrenn & Whitehead's critical article is now suspected as having contributed to the decision of the U.S. Bishops to replace the profile of Merton with American Catholic Elizabeth Ann Seton (the rationale being: "to provide more gender balance, because most of the other profiles [included in the catechism] are of men"). Merton's rejection has sparked protest of hundreds of Catholics, as reported by the Louisville Courier ("Hundreds want Merton back in Catholic guide" January 1, 2005) and monitered by Dan Phillips, who runs a popular website on all things Merton).

The International Merton Society has released open letter to Bishop Donald Wuerl, chair of the committee charged with writing the catechism, and USCCB president Bishop William Skylstad, questioning Donald Wuerl's claim that "we don't know all the details of the searching at the end of his life":

As for the "secondary" consideration ". . . we are aware of no reputable Merton scholars or even of careful readers of Merton who think that his interest in Eastern religions toward the end of his life, which led to his Asian journey and his untimely death, in any way compromised his commitment to the Catholic Christianity that he had embraced thirty years before. On the contrary, a reading of the major biographies by James Forest, Michael Mott and William Shannon, of The Other Side of the Mountain, the final volume of his journals, of his retreat conferences in Thomas Merton in Alaska, given immediately before leaving for Asia, and of his final talk on the day of his death, published in The Asian Journal, confirm that it was because of the deep grounding in his own Catholic, Cistercian, contemplative tradition that he was able to enter into meaningful dialogue with representatives of other religious traditions like the Dalai Lama, who has repeatedly said that it was his encounter with Merton that first allowed him to recognize the beauty and authentic spiritual depths of Christianity.

As Merton himself said in a classic passage in his Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander (published two years before his death):

"I will be a better Catholic, not if I can refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and still go further. So, too, with the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot 'affirm' and 'accept,' but first one must say 'yes' where one really can. If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it."

If that wasn't enough to persuade Wrenn & Whitehead, let's hear a refutation from Jim Forest himself [photo, left], from a lecture given at Boston College (Nov. 13, 1995):

Because Merton was drawn to develop relationships with non-Christians -- Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists -- casual readers occasionally form the impression that Merton's bond with Christianity was wearing thin during the latter years of his life and that he was window-shopping for something else. It is not unusual to meet people who think that, had he only lived longer, he would have become a Buddhist. But as you get to know Merton's life and writing more intimately, you come to understand that his particular door to communion with others was Christ Himself. Apart from times of illness, he celebrated Mass nearly every day of his life from the time of his ordination in 1949 until he died in Thailand 19 years later. Even while visiting the Dalai Lama in the Himalayas, he found time to recite the usual Trappist monastic offices. One of the great joys in the last years of his life was his abbot permitting the construction of a chapel adjacent to the cider block house that became Merton's hermitage -- he was blessed to celebrate the Liturgy where he lived. If there were any items of personal property to which he had a special attachment, they were the several hand-written icons that had been given to him, one of which traveled with him on his final journey. Few people lived so Christ-centered a life. But his Christianity was spacious. The Dalai Lama has remarked, "When I think of the word Christian, immediately I think -- Thomas Merton!"

Merton - Conventional Catholic and Otherwise

Whatever position one takes in the present debate, it must be recognized that Merton was anything but a conventional Trappist monk.

On one hand, Merton very much catered to such a portrayal as a "traditional" Catholic -- he wrote a spiritual biography heralded as one of the most influential religious works of the twentieth century (The Seven Storey Mountain, 1948); he produced lengthy meditations on traditional Catholic subjects like the Eucharist (The Living Bread, 1956), the Carmelite spirituality of St. John of the Cross (The Ascent to Truth, 1951) and the monastic calling (The Silent Life, 1957).

On the other hand, the latter period of Merton's relatively brief life did everything to call his portrayal as a "traditional Catholic" into question: he ventered into political activism in the 1960's (protesting the Vietnam war, racial segregation and the nuclear arms race); displayed a genuine interest in other religions and engaged in dialogue with their practicioners (including D.T. Suzuki, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Dalai Lhama) in a spirit that anticipated Vatican II's Nostra Aetate, and journeyed to Japan and India to attend conferences on Buddhist-Christian dialogue.

There is no denying that the later Merton had changed to some degree in his thought and attitude toward the Catholic Church. In fact, according to Merton's friend Edward Rice, he went on to say

I have become very different than what I used to be. The man who began this journal [The Sign of Jonas] is dead, just as the man who finished The Seven Storey Mountain when this journal began is also dead, and what is more, the man who was the central figure in The Seven Story Mountain was dead over and over . . . The Seven Story Mountain is the work of a man I had never even heard of." [The Man in a Sycamore Tree, p 101].

The remark can be interpreted on a number of levels. Rice interprets it as a sign of Merton's disappointment with Trappist life, that it did not bring the peace and contentment he had envisioned when initially becoming a monk. But perhaps Merton's statement can be read as well as a sign of his personal exasperation with Seven Storey Mountain, which propelled him into the public eye and branded him as a kind of "poster boy for American Catholicism" sought after by thousands of adoring readers -- not an easy situation for a Trappist monk attempting to live a life of solitude, seeking to relenquish his ego in the quest for God.

However much we may appreciate Seven Storey Mountain, one can also recognize an underlying current of pious revulsion at the secular world, a distinct attitude which laid the groundwork for further change -- as can be seen by Merton's account of his spiritual epiphany en route to the city of Louisville in The Sign of Jonas:The Sign of Jonas:

I wondered how I would react at meeting once again, face to face, the wicked world. I met the world and found it no longer so wicked after all. Perhaps the things I resented about the world when I left it were defects of my own that I had projected upon it. Now, on the contrary, I found that everything stirred me with a deep and mute sense of compassion . . . I seemed to have lost an eye for merely exterior detail and to have discovered, instead, a deep sense of respect and love and pity for the souls that such details never fully reveal. I went through the city, realizing for the first time in my life how good are all the people in the world and how much value they have in the sight of God."

The Universal Appeal of Thomas Merton

Jim Knight and Edward Rice, two of Merton's close friends, published an online recollections of their memories of Merton -- The Real Merton -- resisting the characterization of their friend as a triumphant Catholic ("a portrait that was unrecognizable, that of a plastic saint, a monk interested mainly in pulling nonbelievers, and believers in other faiths, into the one true religion"). According to Knight and Rice:

The Merton we knew, who is still in the lives of both of us, was a different man, and monk, from the saintly person of pre-fabricated purity that has become his image these days. He was a real person, not a saint; he was a mystic searching for God, but a God that crossed the boundaries of all religions; his was not a purely Christian soul. He developed closer spiritual ties than Church authorities will ever admit to the Eastern religions, Hinduism as well as Buddhism. In fact just before his appalling accidental death in December 1968, he was saying openly that Christianity could be greatly improved by a strong dose of Buddhism and Hinduism into its faith. These are things the record needs.

For us Merton was one of the seminal figures of our time. He was deeply curious about all religions, all areas of thought and philosophy. Rice says: "The Church has not done right by him. In fact, the Church has wronged him, and continues to wrong him, by glossing over, by evading the universality of his thought. The Church wants to obscure his basic human nature, his reaching out to other people in a desire to create a common bond, not necessarily based on religion."

Edward Rice, who sponsored Merton's conversion, goes on to challenge what he calls the "Thomas Merton Cult":

"['The Thomas Merton cult'] presents Merton as a plastic saint," Rice says, "a contemporary Little Flower, a sweet, sinless individual who has a direct line to God. But the God some people see Merton communicating with is not the God that I think Merton would have been praying to. I am not comfortable with the plastic saint image of Merton; he was no such thing. I see Merton as an individual in the grand scheme, and it makes no difference whether he is approached as a Roman Catholic monk or a Buddhist lama. He was Merton, and he has his influence as Merton."

Granted, Rice's vision of salvation may be deemed more universalistic and non-traditional than most Catholics ("in Paradise with Merton, Rice says, are Lao Tse, Isaac the Blind, Ibn el Arab[i], Confucius, Thomas Aquinas, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Charles de Foucau[l]d, . . . "an endless number, hundreds, thousands of saints of all faiths, some with no faith at all"), and I am not altogether certain where such a "Thomas Merton Cult" is to be found (the appreciations I've read of Merton readily acknowledge his defects in character), but I believe he is nevertheless correct in challenging those who seek to claim Merton entirely as Catholic, who could only be appreciated in the context of Catholicism and denying his universal appeal by other religious, or even non-religious folk.

Merton's Interest in Other Religions - Two Closing Observations

It would be mistaken to assume that Merton's interest in other religions was a post-conversion manifestation of his disappointment with Catholicism, as alleged by Msgr. Michael J. Wrenn and Kenneth D. Whitehead. I question this because Merton displayed an interest in the other religions (especially those of the East) from the time he was a college student at Columbia University.

For one thing, the young Merton was impressed by the spiritual conversion of Alduous Huxley (from materialism to mysticism recognizing "a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds . . . [as can be found] among the traditionary lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions"), and who was fascinated by Huxley's investigation of mysticism in the world's religions The Perennial Philosophy.

Likewise, it was at Columbia University, that Merton met a Hindu spiritual pilgrim -- Bramachari -- who first encouraged him to read St. Augustine's Confessions and The Imitation of Christ, and thus played a part in his journey to Catholicism. Both Merton's encounters with Huxley and Bramachari are described in The Seven Storey Mountain). According to Alexander Lipski (Thomas Merton and Asia: His Quest for Utopia), around the same time he met Bramachari Merton also was reading the Hindu scholar Ananda K. Coomaraswamy (initially in connection with his M.A. thesis on William Blake).

Again, to borrow from Bill Cork, much of this is common knowledge to anybody who has studied Merton or has read Merton's biography. I suppose the real question here is not when did Merton begin to study Eastern religions, but rather to what degree did Merton's Catholicism inform and influence his post-Christian exploration of Eastern religions? -- Write and Wrenn have their own conclusions, but so do Robert Forest, Jim Knight, Edward Rice and a number of Merton scholars worldwide.

That said, Merton's later writings on other religions -- particularly those on Buddhism -- should nevertheless be read with great care and critical judgement by the laity. Raymond Bailey (curiously, a Southern Baptist minister who became Director of the Thomas Merton Studies Center at Bellannine College in the early 80s) goes into detail as to why this caution is necessary in his study Thomas Merton on Mysticism (Doubleday Image, 1975). It's a little long, but worth repeating in full:

Merton's writings on Eastern mysticism are tempered by repeated allusions to traditional Christian symbols. His diaries written in the last months he spent at the hermitage record his preferences for the Fathers for reading in the cottage and for the works of the Zen masters in the fields. However, his published works are not always instructive as to how the Zen experience can contribute to the Christian experience or how the study of Eastern religions or the practice of oriental techniques engender or complement the Christian experience. Some of his published works might well be interpeted as syncretistic and might leave the reader with the im pression that it does not matter what religious expression one's spirituality takes as long as it has broken through the facade of the illusionary self.

Published discourses excerpted from continuing dialogue between or among two spiritual masters do not always mean the same thing to the general reader as to the dialogue participants. Few Westerners are endowed with the ability to think "oriental" or to translate their Western experience into Eastern modes. Some are deluded by teachers who interpet oriental an occidental religious concepts as univocal when in fact the differences are profound [emphasis mine]. The casual reader might overlook the fact that Merton spent half his life disciplining himself and reaching a level where he could think and write in terms of the "universal" man and transculturation. Even then, he considered himself a beginnner who had much to learn.

The ease with which he accepted the potential worth of Eastern spirituality at this stage was undoubtedly due to his "Augustinian bent." Augustine refused to differentiate "truth," contending that all truth is of God, and th erefore, revelatory. An accurate impression of Merton or understanding of his thought cannnot be gained from any single work bearing his name. He is open to abuse and distortion by one using his writings as prooftexts for a position on almost any theological question. Because of the revelatory nature of his work, i.e, the record of personal dialectic, there is a certain danger in isolating any one work or phase of his work as definitive of him or his philosophy.

Should Merton be recognized in the new American Catechism?

When it comes to Merton, I find myself agreeing with Robert Royal, on why -- despite his apparent flaws -- we may regard Merton as worthy of praise:

Merton's true greatness lies in having engaged in person the whole range of challenges and trials of life in the late twentieth century and yet remaining essentially faithful to his Catholic inspiration. Many of those issues we still confront: poverty and war, the relationship of Eastern and Western thought, and especially how a deep religious life may be lived in contemporary conditions. As we near the end of the century, religion-even contemplative practices-have had a tremendous resurgence. Many of the paths religious people took during the 1960s are coming more and more to look like a dead end. But the attempt to bring a deeper spirituality to the public realm-to say nothing of recovering authentic spirituality-remains a burning necessity.

Merton is beyond doubt one of the great spiritual masters of our century. His personal turmoil and the misjudgments in his social thought notwithstanding, he is a forceful reminder that what may appear the most rarefied of contemplative speculations have powerful and concrete implications for the world. God dealt Thomas Merton a difficult hand. His greatness as a man lies not only in that he was able, more or less, to keep several different persons together in difficult times under the banner of "Thomas Merton," but that he provides an enduring witness to all of us much less gifted seekers who have to shore up our own fragmentary lives in quest for the "hidden wholeness." Requiscat in pace.

Does Merton deserve placement in the USCCB's Catechism for adult American Catholics? -- I'm inclined to think that Robert Royal might say yes for the reasons stated above, even with due respect to the concerns raised by Merton's interest in Eastern religions. I would answer in the affirmative as well, although I admit here to being a little biased in the matter, since it was through reading Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day that I discovered and was led to the Catholic faith in the first place.

I would also question (if the Louisville Courier-Journal is correct) Bishop Wuerl's justification that young people "had no idea" who Merton was -- as if he were an eclectic relic of the early 20th century better swept underneath the rug, whose life and thought simply had no relevance for Catholics of today. Judging by the staying power of Merton in bookstores and conferences on Merton attended by those interested in "the silent life" of contemplation, perhaps Bishop Wuerl underestimates the prevalence Merton has in the hearts of the laity, and his influence (even today) in leading souls to the Catholic faith.

Related Readings (Online and In Print):

• The Real Merton, recollections by Edward Rice and James Knight, two close and lifelong friends of Thomas Merton.
• The Seven Storey Mountain remains a classic story of one man's journey to the Catholic Faith, and while you're at it, check out Mark Gauvreau Judge's appraisal of recent editions which parodixically use the novel as a means to bash the "pre-Vatican II" Catholicism: Strangers in the House: When Catholics in the Media Turned Against the Church", Crisis Nov. 4, 2003.
• The Thomas Merton Foundation draws attention to Merton's writings and contemplative practices.
• The Fons Vitate Publishing House as several books on Merton's dialogue with other traditions. I've read the first in the series, Merton & Sufism: The Untold Story (on Merton's little-publicized friendship and correspondence w/ various Muslims as well as his study of the Catholic mystic and Islamic scholar Louis Massignon); two more follow: Merton and Hesychasm: The Prayer of the Heart (Eastern Christianity) and Merton & Judaism: Recognition, Repentence, and Renewal.
• Thomas Merton's Dialogue with Buddhism, as seen by Alan Altany, professor of religious studies at Marshall University in Huntington.
• The Several-Storied Thomas Merton by Robert Royal. First Things 70 (February 1997): 34-3. A good, honest appraisal of the multi-faceted Thomas Merton from a conservative perspective.
• Thomas Merton and Asia: His Quest for Utopia, by Alexander Lipski (Cistercian Publications, 1984). A critical study of Merton's Asian interest in general, and examination of "the extent to which Merton's idealistic presuppositions colored his image of Asia and his interpretation of Asian religions."
• The Seven Mountains of Thomas Merton, by Michael Mott. The official biography sanctioned by the Thomas Merton Legacy Trust, written with access to Merton's private journals which were not made public until 25 years after his death.
• Thomas Merton on Mysticism, by Raymond Bailey. Originally published in 1974, it is an exhaustively researched study of Merton's writings on the topic. Definitely worth reading.

Labels: converts, merton

Not all died because of their faith -- some apparently lost their lives for the most vulgar of motives (murdered for a cellphone?). But some appear to be martyrs in the traditional sense of the word, losing their lives because of their proclamation of the Gospel.

How casually we take our practice of the Catholic faith for granted; how often we forget those in other parts of the world who risk -- and lose -- their life in service to the Savior. Sometimes I wonder if I could do the same.

May God grant that each and every Christian would have this kind of courage if we found ourselves in such circumstances.

For all of our missionaries who died this year: Eternal rest grant unto them, 0 Lord. And let perpetual light shine upon them.

LRS ponders: "I wonder if this includes pipes and cigars?" So do I. And what would Chesterton think? (He to whom the quote is attributed: "The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine, and a good cigar.")

And why does the United Press see fit to announce this as "breaking news"?

Leave it to the Pontificator to open a can of worms on New Year's Eve. =)

Update: "Is it a safe church to die in?" - Further reflections by the Pontificator, regarding Cardinal Newman's consideration of the matter.

And check out Round 2 for more of the same (Go Ashli!).

Read Ashli's smackdown to Carlin, and then be sure to read this story of a child she saved.

There is no more hard hitting and persuasive criticism of abortion than that coming from the unfortunate woman (and, at one time, adamant pro-choicer) who now writes about the devastating consequences of her choice. When I read bloggers like After Abortion and The S.I.C.L.E. Cell, I can only marvel at their courage and honesty -- may their testimony enncourage others to do the same, and win the hearts and minds of young mothers contemplating such a dreadful "choice."

Read more about "The Consequences of Bad Theology" as discussed by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. at Ignatius Insight.

Mohammed, Iraq The Model

Labels: iraq