Safe Haven

Prior to the first world war, there had been a dominant liberal hermeneutic for Scriptural interpretation: this "Jesus" was anti-cultic, anti-institutional, and the goal was to embrace the Kingdom, which transcends these especially Old Testament notions of sacrifice, Temple, and people. The war destroyed that consensus. Part of what Ratzinger calls the "moralism" of this view was upended by the savagery of the conflict. The second war deepened the disillusionment. Old ideas die hard, though, and its proponents reformulated this anti-cultic tendency with an eschatological twist. A new angle was that this re-formulated concept meshed easily with ascendant neo-Marxism, and its morality play of oppressed versus oppressor. They could pit the "institutional" Church against the popular Church. Ratzinger says that these views are bad candidates for reality as it is, precisely because they bear the marks of the times in which they were created. We can be resp...

Among faithful Catholics, there is a confidence that Christian history bears out the conviction that the Church of the New Testament, the Church that Christ founded, is the Catholic Church. Consequently, all Christians should be members of the Catholic Church. At the popular level, you might hear someone say, in response to a question about them seeking full communion with the Catholic Church, "I read the Church fathers." It's kind of a quick answer that may not tell one anything at all. And you might be well aware of Protestants who read and know the Church fathers. I believe that one can say there is a theological significance to the passage of time, and to the gradual refinement of the articulation of dogma. The Incarnation and the totality of the paschal mystery means that the world as it was made, and all the people therein, belong again to God through Jesus Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit. So, it would be reasonable to expect that the same faithfulness...

I'm actually shocked, shocked (!) that middle-aged (and older) white guys in trucker hats think Trump is obviously the better choice. Of course, this isn't an argument. But the funny thing is, the Democrats have always said we were trying to turn back the clock. Maybe they are right this time. I have to admit that there is a real generational aspect to this whole thing. I'm 36. I couldn't even finish Trump's introductory 3 minute commercial. I get nostalgic about Nintendo games, and Matlock, not about an America that never actually existed. Call it liberal if you want, but I think it's actually pretty patriotic to realize that not everyone got a real slice of the American pie in the "good old days." Tell the truth, make amends, (if possible) and go forward. But there's nothing forward-looking about Trump. There's nothing reflective or self-critical about him. Can you honestly say you feel proud of what he represents? Forget about the Democrats;...

Welp. The GOP got itself stuck with Trump. This articulates pretty well my thoughts since last November. I don't agree that Never Trumpers have simply failed to put on their "big-boy" and "big-girl" pants, to just vote for him. Judicial myopia. With a hat-tip to Anderson for some help there. I have never responded to the battle-cry, "Judges!" before now, and I'm not starting now. If I could disregard social issues, (abortion, gay unions/"rights", etc.) I'd vote for Hillary without hesitation.  If you don't live in the thought-world where that might be an option, well, there are no locks on the metaphorical doors; I will leave you to whatever emotivist rage against me you are feeling. The argument goes something like this:  As her e-mails and Goldman Sachs speeches might show, she is a relentlessly triangulating careerist. She's no progressive ideologue. She's tough as nails; that's why we don't like her. She...