Search This Blog

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Idolatry

Michael Egnor: Magdi Allam and the Catholic Church

Proph (at The Orthosphere): Losing our religion III: The Francis issue

The idolatry of which I speak is that of Mr Egnor and Proph and many of their commenters with regard to the RCC, the One True Bureaucracy. Let's concentrate on Mr Egnor's response to Mr Allam's reason/excuse for leaving the Roman denomination.

Gentle Reader may recall a recent post of mine, 'A Suicide Pact?', in which I linked to the web-page laying out the official position of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops with respect to "comprehensive immigration reform", wherein I said that the position of the USCCB is one of deliberate national suicide. Gentle Reader may not know that I linked to that page in response to Mr Engor's quote of Hilaire Belloc, to the effect that the One True Bureaucracy is the House of Man.

Linking to the USCCB's statement, I asked Mr Egnor:
Do you (and Belloc) mean this Catholic Church? You know, the one that asserts that Christians have a duty to aid in the destruction of the country, both as a polity and as a people?

To relate this to the OP, my thought is that the USCCB is telling us that [-- as Christians --] we must burn our house down.
One is free to follow the discussion (including, if so inclined, the postings by the intellectually dishonest fools 'Anonymous', 'Hoo', and 'Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navy'), but the short of it is that despite his long-term expression of concern over Leftism's intentional acts and policies aimed at destroying America as a polity and as a people, when the leftists are wearing the robes of prelates, he can no longer find his voice.

Now, consider Mr Egnor's recent post concerning Magdi Allam
Michael Egnor, quoting John Allen, Jr, concerning Magdi Allam:
Unfortunately, in thinking about why Allam took this step, most people haven't gotten past the headline. If you consider the entire essay he published March 25 outlining his thinking, it makes for very interesting reading.

Allam says he's leaving Catholicism because of what he describes as four "physiological" features of the church he can no longer tolerate:

* "Relativism," meaning the fact that the church "welcomes inside itself an infinity of communities, congregations, ideologies and material interests that translate into containing everything and the opposite of everything."

* "Globalism," meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

* A tendency to being "do-gooders," meaning "putting on the same level, if not actually preferring" the interests of people outside one's community with the community's own interests.

* A "temptation to evil," which Allam blames on "imposing behaviors in conflict with human nature ... such as priestly celibacy, abstaining from sex outside marriage and the indissolubility of marriage, along with the temptation of money."
I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

"Relativism" and "Globalism" used in the sense Allam uses it is a good thing; the Church must avoid sectarianism and exclusion to the greatest extent possible. Certain ideologies must be anathema-- Marxism, Nazism, atheism, for example-- but the world's only truly global organization must not be captive to pointless sectarianism.

And a tendency to be "do gooders"? Goodness gracious, that is what the Christian life is. We are called to radical do-gooding, by the original do-gooder Himself.

Some of Allam's criticisms of the Church's supposed accommodation with Islam resonate with me a bit as well, but I trust the Church. She alone has fought Islam for 1400 years. She understands the issues as no other entity does. Defiance has its place, for sure, and I share Allam's general assessment of the totalitarian nature of Islam, but lives and souls are at stake, and the Church's policy of engagement and respect has much to say for it.

I trust the Church.

Allum's fourth "physiological" feature which he can 'no longer tolerate' is raw nonsense. The Church is right on all of these issues.
Quothe Michael Egnor, "I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ."

Simply amazing!

Mr Allam's first three points, according to Mr Allen (who appears to be quoting Allam), and Mr Egnor's responses to them, are:

1) ""Relativism" -- meaning the fact that the church "welcomes inside itself an infinity of communities, congregations, ideologies and material interests that translate into containing everything and the opposite of everything."


2) "Globalism" -- meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

"I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

"Relativism" and "Globalism" used in the sense Allam uses it is a good thing; the Church must avoid sectarianism and exclusion to the greatest extent possible. Certain ideologies must be anathema-- Marxism, Nazism, atheism, for example-- but the world's only truly global organization must not be captive to pointless sectarianism.
"

So, while avoiding addressing Mr Allam's actual criticisms of the socio-political stances of the ruling bureaucracy of the One True Bureaucracy, Mr Egnor nevertheless asserts that those socio-political stances are "those of Christ."

Let's consider "Globalism", as Mr Allam appears to be using the term -- meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

According to Mr Egnor, these positions are "those of Christ." According to Mr Egnor, it is God's Will to destroy the nations as discrete peoples, and to destroy the nation-states as discrete polities.

Now, I deny that this is God's Will for nations, as peoples or as polities ... but, is this not *exactly* what I had previously argued on his blog is the socio-political stance of the One True Bureaucracy, and which (at the time) he couldn't quite bring himself to acknowledge? Is it not *exactly* what I had previously said (though had not argued) on my blog is the socio-political stance of the One True Bureaucracy, and which Bob Prokop is unwilling to see, even though it is right there in black and white, requiring only that one read with comprehension?

3) A tendency to being "do-gooders" -- meaning "putting on the same level, if not actually preferring" the interests of people outside one's community with the community's own interests.

"I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

And a tendency to be "do gooders"? Goodness gracious, that is what the Christian life is. We are called to radical do-gooding, by the original do-gooder Himself.
"

Christ does not call us to prefer the interests of other families, communities, and nations over the interests of our own families, communities, and nations. Christ does not demand of us that we betray our natural loyalties; he calls us to rightly understand and order them, but not to betray them, not to violate them, not to destroy them.

Christ does, sometimes, call us to prefer the interests of other individuals over our own narrow personal interests. But, even then, it is a matter of proper understanding or ordering. It is not that Christ calls us to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of 'The Other', but rather that he calls us to *stop* sacrificing 'The Other' for the sake of our improper interests.

This is not Christianity to which Mr Egnor is agreeing and defending, it is Leftism.

Leftism is a heresy of Judeo-Christianity, and specifically of Catholicism -- Leftism could never have arisen in a purely Hindu social milieu, for instance -- and even in the best of times, Catholicism has *always* been on the brink of falling into Leftism. Apparently, The One True Bureaucracy has committed itself to Leftism, at last.

So, it seems to me, the question is now: who are the faithful Catholics who are faithful to Christ, and who are those who are faithful to the Bureaucracy? As for all men, the question is always "Whom do you worship? Is your God Christ, or is your god Something Else?"

6 comments:

B. Prokop said...

"As for all men, the question is always "Whom do you worship? Is your God Christ, or is your god Something Else?""

I could not agree with you more, Ilion. The problem is, as I have told you repeatedly in discussions on Victor's blog, that your "political philosophy" is nothing less than Hell's Own Governing Constitution. No need for me to repeat myself here. The eternal internet has preserved my arguments in their entirety over there.

I'm quite serious here. You need to stop saying you're all for Christ while simultaneously arguing for the most un-Christ-like attitudes possible.

And this is not a left-right, liberal-conservative issue. Politics has nothing to do with this.

Ilíon said...

You've made no *arguments* related to how wrong and demonic I supposedly am. Assertions are not arguments. Assertions that "you are wicked -- as proven by your refusal to bow to my political inclinations" are not discussions.

Meanwhile, *your* "political philosophy" may be sumarized as "Enslave them all, and let God sort it out (after they're good and dead)!"

And, more to the point at this time, you have not presented any reasoning against the specific argument of this post.

Ilíon said...

"And this is not a left-right, liberal-conservative issue. Politics has nothing to do with this"

Of course it is, and of course it does. Politics and "religion" -- at any rate, Judeo-Christian Biblical religion -- can't really be separated, for both are about "how shall we live together?" and "what may we, and what ought we, and what must we not attempt to, compel one another to do?"

Proper "religion" gives us the theoretic basis to answer -- and to ask in the first place -- the questions. Proper politics is the practical application of the theory.

B. Prokop said...

Ilion,

I don't often suggest this, but you really need to read my book, Eyes to See. If you'd send a request to dmproko@hotmail.com (an address I use for this purpose only), I will send you a digital copy for free. This offer also goes for anyone else who might be reading this.

Rather than laboriously re-type stuff I've already written, this would be the best way to explain why I make such comments about your philosophy.

Ilíon said...

"... but you really need to read my book, 'Eyes to See.'"

Seriously? Literature bluffing?

"Rather than laboriously re-type stuff I've already written, this would be the best way to explain why I make such comments about your philosophy."

Indeed, you "make such comments about [my] philosophy" (and/or political and policy preferences) and about me -- constantly .

But, your explicit claim, right here in this very thread, is that you have already, repeatedly, explained (on VR's blog) why it is that it is correct-and-honest of you to assert that I am "Hell's Own Constitutionalist"; that you have already, repeatedly, explained (to me, personally, on VR's blog) why-and-how it is that I am incoherently (and/or intellectually dishonestly) presenting myself as "all for Christ while simultaneously arguing for the most un-Christ-like attitudes possible."

So, it now seems that you're implicitly acknowledging that you haven't actually done so.

Tell you what, after you actually explain to me why-and-how it is that I am incoherently (and/or intellectually dishonestly) presenting myself as "all for Christ while simultaneously arguing for the most un-Christ-like attitudes possible" -- or acknowledge that you have been wrong about this -- then I will gladly read your book: either to more fully understand, and correct, my error, or to attempt to understand how it is that you came to be in such error that you would initiate the partisan-based rancor between us ... for, after all, you did condemn me as anti-Christ before I returned the favor.

Ilíon said...

you: "Rather than laboriously re-type stuff I've already written, this would be the best way to explain why I make such comments about your philosophy."

me: "So, it now seems that you're implicitly acknowledging that you haven't actually done so."

Tell you what, I invite you to write a guest-post actually explaining my theological-thus-feeding-political error(s) -- the content entirely up to you -- which I'll (tentatively) title "Bob Prokop on Why Ilíon is 'Hell's Own Constitutionalist'" Send me a document (.RPF or .DOC or .DOCX) to ilion7@hotmail.com, and I'll post it, unchanged (well, only to correct any formatting or linkage errors), as its own thread.