A Catholic joins Pope Francis in misunderstanding "ideology" as single issue voting

One Paul Moses, here in Commonweal:

[Bishop Murphy] thus subordinated many other concerns of Catholic social teaching—and signaled to Catholic voters in the two suburban counties on Long Island to do the same. (Murphy was not available for comment in a phone call to his residence.) It was no small matter, given that Catholics are a majority within the diocese’s borders, that polling shows nearly nine in ten of them say religion is “very important” in their lives, and that many are the sort of moderate suburban voters who swing close elections in New York state.

In his apostolic exhortation Rejoice and be glad, Pope Francis warns against elevating any single social issue, including abortion, above all others. He includes this in a passage that assails two “ideologies striking at the heart of the Gospel.” The first is seen in those who elevate the quest for social justice over faith, over openness to grace. The second is found in those who see social engagement as “superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist,” he wrote. “Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend.”

Single issue voting is hardly the same thing as "ideology". That is quite simply a terrible simplification of ideology.

What marks out ideological thinking from mere single issue voting is the overarching, undergirding character of an ideology's flight from reality, indeed, its denial of reality, over against those who accept the features of reality which happen to be the impediments to the ideology's realization.

In the case of abortion, the denial of reality is all on the side of its advocates, not its opponents. Its advocates say that the unborn child isn't a child, merely a fetus. And therefore when one terminates a pregnancy one isn't committing murder. To which the opponents reply, If it isn't really alive why do you have to kill it? The hoops one must jump through to deny the evidence plainly in view are self-evident. It's the abortion advocates who are the ideologues, not the advocates for life.

The case is similar with illegal immigration, the real subject of Paul Moses' advocacy. The ideologues deny the reality and legitimacy of nation states, their borders and the rule of law, and redefine the transgressors of same as "migrants" or "strangers" instead of what they really are, "illegals".

One suspects that this attack on single issue voting as ideology is not just another example of the penchant for projection characteristic of human nature when caught in a fault, but of contemporary liberalism generally. Frustrated with an ever intractable reality, the representatives of reality must be marginalized, maligned and disarmed if the liberal agenda is to have any hope of advancement.

Catholics used to be smarter than to fall for this sort of thing.    

Pace Kurt Andersen in The Atlantic, Democrats believe in loopy 2:1 over Republicans, and "independents" aren't far behind

Kurt Andersen in "How America Lost its Mind" contends that only one third of Americans are solidly reality-based and come mostly from the Democrat left, not the "loopy" GOP:

By my reckoning, the solidly reality-based are a minority, maybe a third of us but almost certainly fewer than half. ... Only a third strongly disbelieve in telepathy and ghosts. Two-thirds of Americans believe that “angels and demons are active in the world.” ... A quarter of Americans believe in witches. Remarkably, the same fraction, or maybe less, believes that the Bible consists mainly of legends and fables—the same proportion that believes U.S. officials were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. ... In the late 1960s and ’70s, the reality-based left more or less won: retreat from Vietnam, civil-rights and environmental-protection laws, increasing legal and cultural equality for women, legal abortion, Keynesian economics triumphant. ... [W]e’re splitting into two different cultures, we in reality-based America—whether the blue part or the smaller red part . . ..


Kurt has it exactly backwards (I'm shocked, shocked I tell you). It's your average Democrat or independent who is more likely to believe in loopy, not Republicans.

Democrats believe in reincarnation, yoga, astrology, spiritual energy and the evil eye 176 to 87 for Republicans in a Pew Research study from 2009, a ratio of 2:1. So-called independents aren't far behind at 163 to 87, for a ratio of 1.87:1.

And when it comes to being in touch with the dead, ghosts and fortune tellers, the story is similar. Democrats outstrip Republicans 163 to 81, also a ratio of 2:1. Independents beat Republicans 143 to 81, for a ratio of 1.76:1.

Apart from the greater prevalence of wacky beliefs among Democrats and independents generally, the results indicate that the much-vaunted independents are much more like the Democrats than they care to admit.

If someone really wanted to understand what accounts for America's turn toward the insane, go there.

I compiled the data above from the Pew findings, found here.

Why did Jesus appear to go quietly to his death?

Jesus is reported to have said little at the trials which shortly preceded his execution.

This is often understood to mean that Jesus previously had resigned himself to the idea that it was God's will that he be crucified, but only after wrestling with God in prayer in the garden before his arrest, so that he did nothing to stand in the way of the inevitable once events had gotten underway in earnest. This "Stoical" demeanor later became an important part of early Christian preaching about Jesus' crucifixion, for example as reported in Acts, and became an important model for taking persecution with equanimity:

The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth. -- Acts 8:32

This fact of Jesus' silence at his trials is well known from the Synoptics:

And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. -- Matthew 26:62f.

And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. -- Mark 14:60f.

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. -- Matthew 27:11ff.

And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. -- Mark 15:2ff.

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

 -- Luke 23:8f.

But you would be hard pressed to find this silence in the Fourth Gospel.

In John, by contrast, Jesus is not at all silent but has quite a lot to say at his trial, as a reading of John 18 amply testifies. And there is no evidence of any personal struggle in prayer, either, in the Garden of Gethsemane preceding his arrest, but rather a bold, self-assured confrontation with his betrayer. The only evidence of silence from the whole episode is more of Jesus pausing for effect than refusing or being unable to speak:

And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. -- John 19:9

But that too passes as Jesus shortly does give reply.

In comparison to the Synoptics John's account is almost surreal, as if there is lurking there a Jesus who could actually be thinking he's not going to die and that God is still going to intervene at the very last second. In the end all the human drama is wrung out of John's wooden account in the service of a comprehensive theology about a descending and ascending incarnate Logos. 

But if it may be doubted that John is writing history, reasons remain to doubt the Stoical model susceptible from the Synoptic accounts as well.

For one thing, from the accounts of the struggle in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane one cannot conclude there was any succor such that Jesus was now prepared to go quietly to his fate. The closest thing we get to that is in Luke 22:43, where we are told an angel appeared from heaven to strengthen Jesus. (Who was awake to see this?) But immediately after that Jesus is back on his knees praying again, in worse shape than before, sweating blood.

For another, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 omit the appearance of any angel, but the ongoing anxiety despite prayer is palpable in both accounts in that Jesus repeats his prayer three times asking that "this cup pass". While Luke has Jesus engaged in supplication only twice, all three include some form of the petition "not my will but thine be done", as if Jesus is still dwelling on what he wants to be the reality, but still is not.

Furthermore, the psychological terminology used in these accounts in the Garden is striking but is rarely allowed to paint a picture of the depressed state of mind into which Jesus is descending.

And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful (λυπεῖσθαι) and very heavy (ἀδημονεῖν). -- Matthew 26:37

The terms signify grief leading to tears, and a feeling of being lost and totally out of place (the KJV translation shown leaves quite a lot to be desired).

Mark says he was struck with terror, and felt lost:

And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed (ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι), and to be very heavy (ἀδημονεῖν). -- Mark 14:33

As if those terms weren't enough, both Matthew and Mark pile up worse ones in the immediately following verses. Jesus is "beyond sorrowful", so sad he could die.

Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Περίλυπός), even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. -- Matthew 26:38

And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Περίλυπός) unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. -- Mark 14:34

And Luke piles on that he was in utter agony, a terrible struggle with himself.

And being in an agony (ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ) he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. -- Luke 22:44

What we have here is a man falling into a major depression, full of fears, feeling as if lost in unfamiliar country, isolated and alone, suddenly driven to repetitious behavior, perhaps seeing things, and speaking of dying.

It's a short step to catatonic stupor, in which you say nothing and become so rigid you just stand there and take it.

Elite wannabes like Thomas Kidd of Baylor are so pissed off over evangelicals' support of Donald Trump they're denying reality

'Why in the world would so many Christians support a rude and crude candidate like Trump, whose pro-life credentials seem obligatory at best, and who specializes in vilifying Hispanics? ... I frankly do not believe that most of the people identifying as “evangelicals” in these polls are evangelicals (or conservatives) in any useful sense. The sympathy for Trump is, instead, a holdover of the worst aspects of American civil religion and Bible Belt culture.'

Well, that clears it up. Y'all must be fundamentalists.

You would think that an historian worthy of the name would take care to identify Trump more accurately as a critic of law-breakers and those who excuse them, but that would get in the way of the elite agenda, wouldn't it? I mean, Christian America must forgive, must it not? Separation of church and state my sweet German-American ass!

More at the link.

The cure for fanaticism

The cure for fanaticism:

a good dose of reality;

in serious cases multiple doses of reality may be required, applied liberally;

in the severest cases nothing works except death; in such cases the patient usually asks for it.

Put By More Than Money

So advises the ghost of Christmas present to Scrooge, as played by George C. Scott in one of the many productions I have seen of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. The line is not in the original, but captures the spirit of it pretty well. The idea seems oddly out of place these days, seeing that many people haven't put by nearly enough money to survive what has turned out to be a protracted period of unemployment, crushing debt, dispossession and economic stagnation.

We watch a number of these productions in our home in the days leading up to Christmas every year, and in 2009 Disney produced another which was notably the occasion for some materialist nonsense by one Peter Foster (which can still be accessed in full here):

Would the world have been better without Scrooge? Did he force people to do business with him? Was Bob Cratchit not free to find better employment elsewhere? And if no such employment was available, was that Scrooge’s fault? Scrooge’s “conversion” is also problematic. Once Marley’s spectre has shown Scrooge what the afterlife looks like for the uncharitable, is there any need for the three Christmas ghosts? Scrooge has been “scared good” the old Christian way. With fear of eternal damnation.

The author is at pains in the essay to help the reader achieve, dare we say it, a more charitable view of capitalism than these productions usually afford, the 2009 Disney production starring Jim Carrey in sympathy with and perfectly timed for, it would seem, that odd thing, the wealth re-distributionist 44th president. Foster points out, quite rightly, how there has been a strong tendency in all quarters and evident for a long time, to encourage us to bite the invisible hand that feeds our society. And in this Mr. Foster surely is correct.

But if this tendency often expresses itself in caricatures of the reality in films, it is to miss the point entirely to conclude that Scrooge was simply "scared good." If Mr. Foster had taken the time to re-familiarize himself with Dickens' story, it is not evident from that remark. The ghosts were not superfluous because Dickens was anything but a proponent of some stern form of Christian fundamentalism any more than he was of the revolution of the proletariat. 

On the contrary, we should consider that the ghosts sent to Scrooge revealed to him many important truths which speak to the mysteries and wonders of life beyond the superficialities of mere production and consumption with which both Marxism and now capitalism concern themselves in a world flattened by the dismal science of economics. And it is this flat view of life which animates Mr. Foster no less than it does his anti-business bogeymen.

At least the economists of the past paid back-handed compliments to the more real, multi-dimensional world we all used to inhabit, where "markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" and "in the long run, we're all dead." As Dickens reminds us in the beginning of his story, at Christmas we open our shut-up hearts freely and think of people as "fellow-passengers to the grave," into which no new 3D film technology from Disney will scarcely be able to take us.

No, Dickens is more a proponent of the methods of Socrates than of some wild-eyed hellfire and damnation preacher. Scrooge lives the unexamined life, which to Socrates is a life not worth living. Wedded to a Christian conception of reality in which the grace of God trumps all, it is Divine Providence which sends the spirits who help awaken Scrooge to life's examination and explanation, showing him the meaning behind the "shadows of the things that have been, that are, and are yet to come."

A thoughtful, educated person would instantly be reminded of the shadows constantly beheld by the cave-dwellers in Plato's allegory in Book X of The Republic, whom the philosopher comes down from the mountain to release, fixed in their seats facing the darkness, unable to see behind themselves. He comes to loosen their chains, which stand for Ignorance, that they may turn and see the objects on which the Light shines, creating the shadows their eyes mistook for the true things.

These Socratic ghosts show Scrooge that he once thought his own life had been truly worth living; 
that he was actually happy once, open to the world and other-directed;
that love was real and precious;
that people could mean it when they repented of their mistakes;
that they could change for the better;
that each life has the potential to mean something positive to every one around it;
that people exist who are quite happy without money;
that if individuals mattered to God they should matter to him;
that we must pay homage to ordered liberty, be thankful and toast the founder of our feast, whatever else others may think of him;
that choosing justice for its own sake is as indispensable for the conduct of his own business as for the conduct of the business of life.

"Mankind was my business!" shrieked the ghost of Marley.

And it is ours.

Obama's Monstrous Theology: "Male and Male Created He Them"

From The Washington Post, here:

There is a lot of fawning media coverage of President Obama's new support for gay marriage. There is serious discussion of how he "evolved," and there are serious timelines being prepared by the Obama apologencia that earnestly track his "evolution." The only problem is they don't put "evolution" in quotation marks to highlight the cynical doubts that Obama's conversion deserves.  There is every reason to believe that this decision was made because Obama thinks it serves his current selfish political interests. He characterizes his politically expedient flip-flop as a theological "evolution."  The reality is, his political trajectory has stalled and he "evolved" into a desperate political situation.

Genesis 1.26-28:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.