I don't even have a good reason why I liked Hitchens' work; I just do. Actually, one of life's more interesting moments came about when discussing him. I was at an event sponsored by the respected Acton Institute, and I mentioned that I respected him and liked to read him. You'd think I killed someone's cat or worse. The table, full of uber-orthodox Catholics, was stunned. I didn't say I thought he was a moral paragon; in fact, the difference between our worldview and his covers some distance. But he always makes me think, and I appreciate that. I may ever be one who admires the unworthy, but my intellectual world is better with him in it. Lucky for me, his words outlive him. I wonder what to make of this? Even the thought of taking this seriously is preposterous. But maybe that's the point.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments