The Black Madonna

Then again...

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Eminem winamp 3

Charles Krauthammer is a man I greatly respect. So, is it my respect for him or is it his excellent writing skills turning the issue in a slightly different way that creates real self-doubt for the first time since The Passion business all came up?

The Wonderful Lie

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I've come to a conclusion regarding The Passion: what anti-semitism is there can be a backhanded force for good.

At first, I didn't see any anti-Semitism in it at all. But after reading Krauthammer and now Claudia Rosett, I think Andrew Sullivan may have come closest to defining the film by calling it "pornography" - because like the old Supreme Court ruling-turned-joke, you know the anti-Semitism in the movie when you see it. But just because I don't see it does not mean I can't see where others could.

But that's not just the end of this. Where those who see hate in the film end their commentary (like Rosett, unable to return to the discussion after digressing to Auschwitz), I see yet more to say. Where they see nothing but hate for Jews, I see solidarity with Jews: in the blood-drenched cloth clenched in Mary's fingers, when Satan is passing through the crowds - but mirrored by Mary who is also passing through the same crowds, and the impassive face of Caiphas before the cross turns anguished when the temple is torn asunder.

The same goes for the reviewers. Most of those critical of the film say "anti-Semitism" as if Gibson is laying cement for the ovens at the next Auschwitz. But at a time when so many in the media and politics (and even in the Jewish community) are too ready to accept the idea of Israel giving land for peace, I see an invitation for more death and torment. But just when it becomes most inconvenient for the Palestinians to see Jewish spines stiffen, Mel Gibson produces a movie that allows everyone to discuss the Holocaust anew.

Jewish friends take heart: The Passion causes anti-Semites to go on defense, while giving Christians the opportunity to restate their solidarity with God's Chosen People. How we get the idea from a source that you find offensive will remain a mystery to you - but not to us.

Enslavement Theology

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Just yesterday I confused Steve for an entire lunch by trying to describe the contradictions of Liberation Theology. I should have waited a day and sent him to the Wall Street Journal.

And yes Steve, I see that "Father Aristide" was a Silesian, not a Jesuit. How could I tell with the hammer and sickle over his vestment? For the record, Fr. Sirico, the author of the op-ed, is apparently a Franciscan.

"The Prince-As Bride"

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Shelby Steele eloquently lays out the case against the homosexual agenda as a civil rights struggle...

The civil rights movement argued that it was precisely the utter innocuousness of racial difference that made segregation an injustice. Racism was evil because it projected a profound difference where there was none--white supremacy, black inferiority--for the sole purpose of exploiting blacks. But there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly--not innocuously--different.

...right before he falls off the Cliffs of Insanity.

Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists.

If there is a "true and firm difference", is it not at least possible that someone could disagree with the endorsement of the other side of that difference without "reactive prejudice"? Why is it that anyone who disagrees with homosexual conduct (or rather, the complete lack of a moral and ethical rationale for it) is always prejudged "homophobic" sans psychotherapy? How is it that in a few short years the stigma has completely reversed itself, and opposition to this "lifestyle choice" is now the mental disorder, and not the pathology itself?

It's absolutely true that "racism projects a false difference in order to exploit". But it is equally true that the desire to impose an acceptance of homosexuality is just as much of a moral stricture as opposition to it. And stating otherwise is just as much of a false difference in order to exploit as is racism - only now the prejudice comes from those who want to deprive certain people of their religious freedom, and their right to cite their religious beliefs when they petition the government of a state to define its own standards.

From there, Steele continues to bounce his way down the cliffside:

The stigmatization of homosexuals is wrong and makes no contribution to the moral health of our society. I was never worried for my children because they grew up knowing a gay couple that lived across the street, or because several family friends were gay. They learned early what we all know: that homosexuality is as permanent a feature of the human condition as heterosexuality. Nothing is gained in denying this.

Nothing, of course, except the one thing in our overly licentious age that we are no longer allowed to regulate: morality itself.

UPDATE: A couple of letters to the Baltimore Sun speak clearly in support of my position. As Mik Megary points out:

The majority of Americans are against homosexual marriage. They make a moral statement that marriage is between a man and a woman. Our laws reflect these morals, as all our laws reflect our morals....

But this is unacceptable to some homosexuals. They want to be labeled as "married," as if that will force the rest of society to accept their actions as morally right....

(N)o right exists for all behavior to be morally accepted by society....

The struggle of a people to be accepted for who they are is just not the same as the effort by a people to be justified in what they do. (my emphasis - Chris)

(I should openly disclose my Dowdification^® of Mr. Megary, who in several places not noted above accepts the notion of civil unions. My editing in no way is meant to detract from his opinion or embolden my own (civil unions are not a concession I feel is desirable or necessary). His drift into that part of the discussion simply detracted from the central issue we've been discussing, IMHO.)

"There's a problem with John Kerry"

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I've discussed before how some of the principles upon which the Republican Party was founded have endured the test of time, and how we've outgrown some prejudices that ought never have been a part of the Party of Lincoln in the first place. One of these positions was the initial anti-Catholic stance of most Republicans early in our history. Thankfully, we have outgrown that, and in fact we have long since reversed the trend with more and more practicing Catholics moving from the Democrat Party.

Note my differentiation by saying: "practicing". A good deal of the "Catholic vote" is still going to the Democratic Party. The problem is those people aren't Catholics as anyone should define them. Unlike many other religious or social affiliations, there actually is a simple litmus test for being Catholic: one must be a member of the Body of Christ, and the outward symbol of that membership (if I dare call it a mere "symbol") is the reception of the Holy Eucharist. What is beyond the understanding of many once-a-week and twice-a-year Catholics is even some of them aren't Catholic either. Without this becoming a long theology lesson, suffice to say there's a lot of faith required behind that act, and a lot more action required behind that faith, before your card is punched.

Especially in America today, we Catholics don't spend a whole lot of time talking about this self-amputation of our members, primarily because it would require us to make judgements about the nature and character of the faith of our brothers. But the Church does have a mechanism to shield the faithful from the most egregious of our erstwhile brethren, lest they drag us down with them: excommunication. By saying publicly that someone is not worthy of receiving the Holy Eucharist at this moment because of the example of his words or actions, the Church can show the faithful a clearly negative example of what it means not to be in union with the Body of Christ.

Here's where we get back to politics. Any political party not run exclusively by practicing Catholics will have policy positions that may run counter to Catholic teachings. And for many years, the Democrat's concentration on social welfare seemed to be as close a fit as one could make with Catholic doctrine. But those days have come and gone. Liberation theology has been repudiated as a serious economic system, leaving bare many of the Democrats' social positions - abortion primary among them - as seriously anti-Catholic in nature. Not to be rebuffed so easily, many Catholic Democrats have insisted that Rome ignore their voting records and rhetoric, trying to separate their public acts from their "private beliefs". (Nevermind for now the hypocritical concept that one should advocate something they personally disagree with.) But recently, bishops and priests have become more vocal in stating that they may need to use excommunication to chastise Catholic politicians who advocate positions contrary to the teachings of Catholic doctrine.

For the fourth time in American history*, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is Catholic (or, at least, he says he is). But John Kerry has suggested that his Catholic faith is his "bedrock of values, of sureness about who I am," even though he takes the standard anti-Catholic Democratic position on euthanasia, homosexual "rights", and (of course) abortion.

* In reverse order, the previous three Catholic nominees for president were: John Kennedy (1960), Al Smith (1928), and Charles O'Conor (1872).

EDIT: I added a line in the sixth paragraph that completes a thought I left floating in the wind.