Skip to main content
There are two things I want to talk about. (Debated the colon right there; chose otherwise) First, a Congressman Stearns (R-FL) is investigating whether Planned Parenthood has violated the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. Many people on the anti-life side of the abortion issue (we can do it too) are pointing out the political motivation for such an investigation. To which I say: So what? It's quite irksome when those on one's political "team" are harried for political reasons. We can all say that. And of course, this investigation is the stated reason why the Susan G. Komen Foundation has pulled its grant money to Planned Parenthood, as I'm sure you've heard. It could be a witch-hunt, sure. But to sharpen the point, you'd better believe I was glad when Sen. Leahy of Vermont held hearings on Halliburton, et al. overcharging the government for services in Iraq. It doesn't alter the fact that Sen. Leahy appears to be an imbecilic partisan tool-bag 3 out of 5 days a week. [Congress only works 3 days.--ed.] Even so. If he or anyone else discovers waste or something worse, no matter the motive, it is a good, on balance, even if we deplore that. This is how "democracy" works. The competitive nature of our politics gives an incentive to uncover malfeasance. Some argue that this hyper-partisan sniping encourages the use of the appearance of impropriety to destroy opponents, and that is a valid point. But are we really terribly impressed with the character of the ruling class? [That's the point: we've pushed them out.--ed.] I doubt it is so severe. I'd run.
The other thing I want to talk about is Mark Driscoll. When you've finished rolling your eyes, hear me out. On the one hand, as a Catholic, my first best option is to completely ignore those who lack the proper faith, relation to the Church's visible principle of unity, (the pope) and a valid episcopal succession from the Apostles, at least to the extent that they purport to speak for Christianity and Christians in general. On the other, what individuals believe and share with me as a friend or even brother in Christ has value, even when in error. Add to that the fact that Driscoll has influence in truth and error; people follow him, which means that I may (and have) interact with his ideas. All the qualifications made, let me add that a disturbing trend of ad hominem dismissal (with respectful apologies to readers with whom I do not concur in specific) is on the rise in general. Driscoll may be awfully wrong about many things, and he's certainly not authentically sent, in the Catholic sense. But he's not always wrong. The commenters there who jumped on his statement (as just one more instance of his authoritarianism) that one could question sinfully were being foolish. That's true. Whatever Mark Driscoll's faults and deficiencies for gospel ministry--both personal and sacramental--the statement remains true.
And though I wish to congratulate the author on being an agnostic who is not completely insane,--for I liked his sentiments in general--I do not salute him for leaving the Catholic Church on account of the clergy sex abuse scandal. For one, that's curiously (hyper) Calvinist reasoning for one who once believed people are actually responsible for what they do. In no scenario real or imagined is it true that God is to blame for evil. The highest-ranking clergyman to the most forgotten nobody will come before God. And nothing in Catholic theology or teaching gives sanction to any such evil. If I lived under a more permissive ecclesiology, where movement from one gang of sinful Christ-professing scumbags to another caused no dissonance at all by the nature of the case, I may well be more sympathetic. But the barque of Peter is at the very feet of Christ, for one.
Believe me, those who have suffered at the hands of alleged Christians have my sympathy and a fair measure of mercy. Great suffering would not be so called if it had no chance to misdirect us. And what will follow is no doubt easier for me to say (but not easy, please note) than for others. Yet Christ has no part with evil; rejecting Him on account of his disciples is like consigning oneself to raw meat on account of a skillet burn. Abuse does not negate proper use, and I daresay, the acceptable range of successful defenses before the judgment-seat of God is likely to be pretty narrow. Though creatureliness and humility remind that those precise contours are not mine to know.
I still scoff at the easily-profferred benedictions, the false comity, the empty smiles. And I work to forgive, knowing that the Name upon those lips, while denied in any one case, is the true Name by which we are saved. May I be great enough to pray and believe the words on the lips of Christ (and St. Stephen): "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And may I cleave to His Church, as I cleave to Him.

Note: The reader knows well that I am quite specific about the word "Church" here; he or she is quite free to disagree (and be wrong) so long as he grants my heartfelt acknowledgment of the reality of very powerful "elements of sanctification" outside the Church proper. Were I to deny these in fact, I would be invalidating a great many gifts and blessings while I myself was in such a state. Baptismal grace and Trinitarian life is no small gift, and it is no trifle, even in the face of heresy and schism. This may still strike one as insufficient. I can only say that my desire to see Christians united in truth is more powerful than my desire to pour sherry down the throats of foolhardy and incautious ecumenicists, to borrow a phrase. I am very thankful that pizza (and a modicum of creedal concurrence) transcends the major separations in Christendom.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un