I had the most "heretical" political thought yesterday or so: What if this Islamic terrorism, while not morally acceptable at any time, is an entirely predictable response to American military and oligarchic economic hegemony? Don't guerrilla forces do stuff like this all the time? If you can't win a fair fight, you make the other guys 1) terrified, and 2) believe that you are crazy nut-bars who will do anything. [They might actually be crazy nut-bars.--ed.] Fair enough.
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