Skip to main content

5 Thoughts For Today

5. Welcome to the Cardinals, Justin Masterson! [That ERA is truly hideous.--ed.] The change of scenery will help. [I hope so.--ed.]

4. Utter the slightest word that what we want at any given moment is not our final end, and the Acton Institute will freak out, and call you a Stalinist. [Exaggeration much?--ed.]

3. Bryan Cross wrote: " Dylan writes, "This has had the ill-effect that those dissatisfied with the product are more likely to go “church shopping” or, perhaps, take an entrepreneurial model and start their own church or denomination. But what is the alternative?" He then proposes a dilemma: the only alternative to ecclesial consumerism is coercion, which is obviously untenable. So instead of complaining about consumerism, claims Dylan in his penultimate paragraph, churches need to offer a better product than their ecclesial 'competitors.' But Dylan's "either ecclesial consumerism or coercion" dilemma is a false dilemma. In advancing such a dilemma, Dylan misses Fr. Dwight Longenecker's point. The problem with consumerism is not desire per se, but disordered desire, underwritten by the assumption that there is no standard or basis for the right ordering of our desires. This is the assumption on which a consumeristic culture is built, and is the reason why such a culture fosters the proliferation of disordered appetites, much as Plato described in Republic Book VIII. The tendency in disordered appetites, is precisely toward greed, narcissism, self-gratification, and the instrumentalization of others in lust and abuse. The remedy to consumerism is not coercion, but virtue, which includes valuing the truth and the common good over the demands of our lower appetites. I've written about ecclesial consumerism at the link below." (Which is here.) For my part, I hadn't even noticed this; I was just slightly paranoid that Cross wants to take away my chicken sandwiches! But seriously, I think a good Catholic fight about markets and the common good would be highly useful. [This isn't it.--ed.] No; you're right. We have work to do.

2. I have pulled a muscle in my back. I knew I wasn't that out of shape. But now, I'm more disabled than normal. I can't get out of bed on my own.

1. I discern a movement of my appetite toward a box of SweetTarts. Is this gluttony? Good thing I don't have any.

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