This is the stuff that makes me love to be Catholic, and reaffirms my faith even when I am most despondent.
www.met-art.com passwordJimmy Akin tells the tale of a theological organization founded by Evangelical Christians, and how despite their best attempts to frame a charter that would implicitly exclude Catholics, clumsily wrote it in a way that stated accurate Church teaching. As a result, Catholics and like-minded Protestants were able to join the organization. Eventually (this past November, to be specific), they elected a President of the organization so close to Catholic philosophy that he returned to the Church during the course of his tenure. (Dr. Francis Beckwith was raised Catholic and received the Sacraments of Initiation as a boy, but eventually became an Evangelical Protestant.)
Welcome back to the Church, professor! Your circuitous trip again reveals the truth that the Holy Spirit lives in our sister Churches, despite the sad reality that they are not endowed with the fullness of Grace.
In one of his glib "You Don't Say" entries, James Taranto points to an article - at the Jerusalem Post, of all places - that claims that Benedict XVI's background is theological, not diplomatic. Buried at the bottom of the article (on page two in the web version) is this gem:
As a cardinal, Ratzinger expressed his reserve at the prospect of Turkey's entry into the European Union. Nevertheless, a papal trip to Turkey is planned for November 28 to December 1. Undoubtedly this pope feels a degree of diffidence with contemporary Islam while at the same time he is deeply aware of the necessity of engaging this world in dialogue.The writer doesn't bother to explain why the pope would distrust Islam.
Just to prove to our friends on the Left that TBR and TBM are not simply an organ of right-wing-never-does wrong propaganda (as The Ugly American jokes), and to rebut the inevitable anti-Catholic rhetoric (thanks heaps Dahvid), I must take note of a disgraceful episode Thursday night regarding Mel Gibson. Apparently, the actor/director got blinding drunk, got caught DUI, and during the arrest repeatedly spouted anti-Semitic remarks. I'll let others get more detailed, and for my part simply and completely repudiate all Gibson's insane nonsense.
Unfortunately, those of us - especially we Catholics - who defended Gibson in the past will be hurt by association here, regardless of what we say. His tirade makes it appear that all the evil designs that he denied while making The Passion of the Christ were actually true. He brings scandal to the Church, and our cries that Catholics aren't really secret anti-Semites - despite some terrible things we've been associated with in the past - will fall on even more deafened ears.
We can only repeat that this is not the case, renounce Gibson's drunken antics, and beg the forgiveness of the Jewish people for any real or perceived insults of the past.
I get a daily email from OpinionJournal.com, informing me of the highlights of the offerings there for that day. In the Saturday edition this week, the subtitle of one of the articles caught my eye: "The Muslim holy book isn't just a 'bible'. It's far more sacred than that." I immediately became interested, because the comment seemed like a clear sacrilege. Is not Jesus The Word? Well, Kenneth L. Woodward explains why the statement - though provocative - is not inaccurate, and why the Newsweek Koran-flushing story was so important in the Islamic world.
The Quran is not "the Bible" of Muslims. It is infinitely more sacred than that. To use a Jewish analogy, it is more like the oral Torah first revealed on Mount Sinai, which was later passed on orally through the prophets and eventually written down on scrolls for all to read. Whereas Christians regard the Bible as written by human beings inspired by God, Muslims regard the Quran--the word means "The Recitation"--as the very words of God, revealed aurally to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic. To hear those words recited is, for Muslims, to hear Allah. If, for Christians, Jesus is the logos or eternal Word of God made flesh, the Quran is the Word of God made book, and every Arabic syllable in it lives as the breath of the divine.So perhaps rather than comparing the errors at Newsweek with those at CBS, we should say they were equal to the Catholic Church's problem with eBay. Still, I believe Muslims need to get a grip on themselves - Catholics didn't kill anyone over the eBay incident.In short, what Christ is for Christians the Quran (in Arabic) is for Muslims: the living Word of God made present in this world. Moreover, to recite the suras or verses of the Quran, as devout Muslims do, is to breathe in the very words of Allah. Thus, recitation of the Quran is for Muslims much like what receiving the Eucharist is for Catholics--a very intimate ingestion of the divine itself. This, then, according to Newsweek's story--now retracted and "regretted" by the magazine's editor--is what some interrogators flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay.
It was not long after I clicked the "Post" button on my last entry, when the thought popped into my head: "Oooh, I'd better change that to say, 'Say a prayer to Saint Agatha... for her intercession with Our Lord.'" A few minutes later, I wanted to smack myself for "being PC". A few minutes after that, I wondered if my justifiable caution isn't simply good evangelism. Now I'm just confused.
I remember a time, long ago, when my mother's prompting, "Say a prayer to Saint Jude," would bring a feeling of hope that some lost cause might yet have a happy ending. Now this kind of a phrase causes me anxiety that someone, somewhere might believe I'm raising a human being - saintly, residing with Jesus in heaven, a reasonable candidate for intercession - to the level of the Almighty.
Does anyone else have this problem? Am I being cautious for the sake of apologetics, or shamed into unnecessary apologies?
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.
This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.
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?