|Core: noun, the most important part of a thing, the essence; from the Latin cor, meaning heart.|
|Needless Commentary from Small-Town America|
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Monday, October 21, 2002
"Compare and Contrast: Duties and Priorities"
A stunning blog today at Dyspeptic Mutterings.
Here's a question prompted by Dale Price: Why do the bishops of the Catholic Church in the USA expect anybody else to listen to them when they don't listen to themselves?
"The divine courtesy towards Our Lady"
From Dylan today, a splendid reflection on devotion to the Mother of God:
.... One hears sometimes, in the precincts of evangelical Protestantism, a bewilderment about the praise that is heaped upon the Mother of God by Catholics and by Orthodox; we hear sometimes, "Well, God could have chosen any young woman of Israel; it's God, and the Son of God, who deserves our attention. The Marian hyperdulia is misplaced; obscures the unique mediation and redemption of Christ," etc....
Meaning no disrespect to anybody, nor any offense to anybody's sensibilities, I must say that I think objection to Marian devotion betrays an opinion of God that is way too low.
Here's what I mean.
With inconceivable condescension, the Incomprehensible, Incommunicable, Ineffable, All Holy Creator of Galaxies and Amoebas deigned to dwell for our salvation for nine months in the womb of the Virgin of Nazareth. She nursed Him; she dressed Him; she fed Him; she cared for Him in all the ways whether momentous or quotidian that any good mother cares for her child: Him, the Eternal Word incarnate, the only Redeemer and Savior.
Were every moment of every day, every syllable of every thought, every action of every person in every place dedicated with whole heart and whole mind to the praise and honor of Mary it would all be nothing, and less than nothing, and even less than that, compared with what the Holy Trinity has already done for her in making her the Virgin Mother of God the Son.
I say it again: Meaning no disrespect to anybody, nor any offense to anybody's sensibilities, I must say that I think objection to Marian devotion betrays an opinion of God that is way too low. And I have a feeling that many ex-Protestants know what I mean.
Announcement of Latest Issue of The View from the Core
The View from the Core Volume 2.7, 10/21/02, is now available.
Front Page: Featured Webpages: 40 links posted, 8 new. Featured Websites: 131 links posted, 9 new.
Poetry: "The Latter Rain" (Jones Very), "Indian Summer" (Hamlin Garland), "Autumn" (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow).
Prose: "The Writer's Necessity" (Dorothy Sayers).
Photography: Solar Images 1 (From NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory):
Guest Column: "The Oblivous Menace" (Anthony Woodlief).
More on Four Subversive Traitors in Detroit
Karl Schudt and Amy Welborn have taken up the issue, too.
From Summa Contra Mundum:
A few words about the Gang of Four in Detroit (see my previous post). I was going to go through a point by point refutation of the idiocy of their letter, but Amy Welborn and Kevin Miller have done my work for me. But I want to add something. It is my contention that these men must be removed from the active ministry. I don't know if canon law allows them to be laicized or excommunicated for this evil act, but they can certainly be removed from their positions as pastors. There are two reasons why this must happen:
1: For the sake of the souls of their parishioners. Consider if a young couple went in to talk with one of these priests. "Father, we've got a problem: my wife is pregnant, but we don't have enough money to support the child. What should we do?" The priest then gives a highly nuanced, precisioned, and completely bogus answer: "Church teaching is ambiguous on this topic [it isn't], and reasonable people have the right to follow their consciences when they disagrees with Church teaching [they don't--disagreeing with Church teaching is evidence that one's conscience is incorrectly formed]. So you do what you think is right." The couple then goes out and aborts the child, putting their souls at risk, since abortion is a mortal sin incurring automatic excommunication.
2. For the sake of the souls of the priests themselves: Jesus says "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matt 18:6) If the priest through his teaching contributes to the fall of any of his parishioners, he is responsible. Ezekiel 33:6 is equally clear: the pastor who fails to warn the people of the wickedness of deeds will be guilty of the act himself. If these priests cause anyone to choose to sin by their squishy and evil teaching, the priests are responsible. They are digging themselves holes straight down to Hell.
A good shepherd (Note to Cardinal Maida) would quickly remove these men for the sake of the faithful, and for the sake of the men themselves.
And from In Between Naps:
Four Detroit-area priests have written a letter to the Detroit Free Press in opposition to the letter written by three scholars, including Janet Smith, regarding Jennifer Granholm’s abortion stance and her Catholic faith.
I’ll go into some details refuting their points in a moment, but I want to say first, right up front, that the fact that these guys are Catholic pastors and seminary professors is scary.
Scary because they have so little concern for the weak and the voiceless.
Scary because abortion is evidently nothing more than an “issue” for them, and not actual events in which actual preborn human beings are crushed, evacuated, and disposed of as so much trash. Once you face that fact, you can no longer employ the cool language of politics and choice. You’re talking about real kids who are being killed. You can’t stand back any longer and parse.
Scary because these fellows are counseling women and girls under their charge with evidently no sense of the weight of a decision like this.
Finally, scary because Catholic parishes are being led and Catholic seminarians are being taught by ...dare we say it… idiots?
Now to the points, well-worn, and often refuted....
Amy has a follow-up blog, too, in which she makes some very good points related to a point that I have also raised when dealing with the alleged "conscience" clause: the Subversive Traitors who appeal to "conscience" when it comes to abortion, divorce & remarriage, and artificial birth control, would be horrified if asked to apply the same standard to, say, racism and unjust treatment of laborers.
Viacom/VH1/Music Behind Bars/Christopher Bissey
The saga continues.
A couple of more e-mails on which I have been copied:
The first of many weekends to come was spent without watching VH1. If anyone watched the program and has a list of advertising sponsors of the program please forward the list to me so I may contact them.
It is not a question of one's right, it is a question of what is right. As I mentioned in previous emails. Is there such a lull in music issues and news today that the level of programming must move to prisons to discover the cradle of tomorrows music. If an artist featured spent time in prison and it part of his musical history fine! The very implication of the program's title is glorifying the fact that these individuals are prisoners. I guess it all depends on what the word "bars" "is". I hope I have not made a terrible mistake, in that the program is about bands, in order to make ends meet, are working second jobs as bartenders.
We are all able to find comfort in the solitude of our own justifications.
Shame, Shame, on you VH1 for your cowardice. You represent a demographic which is categorized as having strong opinions and taking stands. It is too bad you do not more accurately reflect their character.
And this one, to Bill O'Reilly:
Below you will find the lame response the I and many other have from Viacom. Basically they are thumbing their noses at the general public who voiced concerns.
The VH1 producer, Mr. Shapiro is also another very arrogant fool and should be fired from his position immediately by Mr. Sumner.
If Mr. Shapiro thinks that our children and the families of the victims should watch this program I would suggest that he first spend 24 hours a day for 1 month in the prison getting to know first hand what kind of animals he is promoting to my family.
Viacom does not deserve our investment in their corporation anymore. They leave us no choice but to speak with our $$$'s. We should all agree to do several things:
1) Boycott not only VH1 but Viacoms other stations such as; CBS, UPN, TNN, TVLand, BET, MTV, MTV2, Nickelodeon, Nick at Night, Noggin, Comedy Central, The Movie Channel, Flix, Sundance and Showtime.
2) Boycott the sponsors who sign on to support such an appalling program.
3) Sell any individual stocks in Viacom and also any mutual funds that invest in Viacom's holdings
Bill, can you provide us with the list of sponsors of the Behind Bars program? We all need to act swiftly before they air this program again.
"Popes and Vatican II after 40 years"
By John Allen last Friday.
Very interesting article at the National Catholic Reporter:
.... Also on Oct. 11, Archbishop Denis Hurley of Durban, South Africa, one of the lions of the council, was interviewed at length on Vatican radio. Now officially retired, Hurley has lost none of his passion for the church, and none of his candor in calling the shots as he sees them.
Hurley represents a progressive understanding of Vatican II, and he was using the platform of Vatican radio to keep that memory alive.
He called the council the “greatest adult education program ever promoted” for the way it forced bishops to catch up with the new currents in Catholic theology that were suddenly given voice during conciliar debates.
One major disappointment, Hurley said, has been a failure to follow the council’s lead on collegiality, or the decentralization of power in the church. “The council’s idea was the bishops sharing in government with the Holy Father, and in turn the bishops, the clergy, the people and the religious working together,” Hurley said.
Hurley cited the recent Vatican crackdowns on the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, and the proclamation of a new set of rules for liturgical translation, as an example of a rollback on collegiality. He said the church still lacks the proper formulas and organization to make collegiality a reality.....
I don't suppose it has occurred to the archbishop that the Holy See is responding to decades-long, widespread, well-argued, heartfelt criticism from priests and laity about the language and style (and abuse) of the liturgy, did it? Perhaps he himself had (1) pretended such criticism did not exist or (2) shielded himself from such criticism and/or (3) ignored it and/or (4) derided it?
"Who the Sniper is, Why He Isn't al Qaeda"
By Susanna Cornett.
A very long, thorough, and well-thought blog at cut on the bias today:
I’ve been following the Maryland sniper case since it first caught national attention on October 2. I’ve done numerous posts, and my message has been consistent: it’s a single person, with an anger about something that was nudged into action by a precipitating event sometime recently, who is targeting people for the sense of power it gives him. While I’m less inclined now to think he may have white supremacist leanings, given recent events (my reasoning there had to do with the proportion of minority victims, and the paramilitary approach, which to me suggested someone tending toward survivalism and anarchy, especially if he has not had military training), I stand by my repeated and vigorous claim that it is not al Qaeda....
Time will tell whether she is right. Or will it?
"The Last Best Hope"
A young weblog by Aaron Nagano, a student at NYU Law School.
It looks like it's shaping up to become a very informative bird's eye view of ultra-liberal campus whackiness. And more. Here is some of his report on a presentation by the legal advisor to the Israeli permanent mission to the United Nations:
.... While Mr. Becker gave a very fair and well-supported explanation of Israel’s legal justification to respond to terror attacks, his insights into the workings of the Security Council were stunning. He was present at the Security Council last winter when tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed states, were at their highest point and war seemed likely. What was the Security Council discussing on that day? You’re forgiven for expecting that India and Pakistan might be the issue. But no, it was Israel that was in the Council for its regular verbal beating. At least there was some substantive debate going on, right? Nope.
When two opposed parties appear before the Security Council, they sit at opposite ends of a horseshoe-shaped table. Often this is the Arabs on the right and Israel and anyone else who happens to be present on the left. Anyone who sits next to Israel is expected to state explicitly that the position of his government is not that of the government of Israel. So what was the Security Council debating when the India and Pakistan were on the brink of war? The Tunisian delegate’s nameplate was placed next to the Israel delegate, and the Tunisian refused to sit down. The Israeli delegate stood up and invited him to take his seat. For two hours, the Council argued over how to get delegates to sit next to Israel....
And don't miss his letter to the editor of the campus newspaper.
|The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.|
|Needless Commentary from Small-Town America|
|The View from the Core, and all original material, © 2002-2004 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.|
|Cor ad cor loquitur J. H. Newman Heart speaks to heart|