False Dichotomy: Pelagianism or Calvinism

 Below is my response (with a minor edit or two) to an internet friend's recent blog post: You Are Saved By Your Works

"You Are Saved By Your Works  ... because you're the only variable in the equation."

 The heresy expressed here is call 'Pelagianism'.  While The One True Bureaucracy has *officially* condemned this belief as heresy since the 5th century, it *also* inculcates the heresy in its adherents, even to this day.  If it helps to ease your mind, there are also some so-called Protestants who are actually Pelagians, such as the 'Holiness Movement'.

 "I've never understood the position some Christians take that you can do nothing on your own and you cannot be saved by your own actions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but as far as I can tell, when it comes to salvation, there are only two actors: you and God. Since He is constant and His Universe is a given for all people everywhere, the only variable is you, your decisions and your actions.

…

If we aren't saved by our own actions, then what was the point of free will?"

 Does this help? -- You are reasoning from a dichotomy, false as it turns out, between Pelagianism, on the one hand, and “ultra Calvinism”, on the other.

 The Pelagian position is that one can become righteous-unto-salvation by one’s own works.  Or, put another way, that Christ’s death and resurrection is superfluous to one’s salvation; that if one has made oneself “good enough”, then God *owes* one a spot in Heaven, as it were.

The “ultra Calvinist” position is that human nature is so enslaved to sin that not a one of us can even so much as *regret* that we sin, much less repent of it; and thus that only those few in whom God works some mysterious change-of-nature which over-rides Original Sin can ever repent and be saved.

And, by the way, IF you were to look into the *reasoning* presented to justify the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, you will find that that reasoning is just “ultra Calvinism”, but applied to a single individual only … despite that The One True Bureaucracy *officially* condemns Calvinism as heresy.

The *Biblical* position is that *all* our righteousness is as filthy (menstrual) rags compared to the perfect (i.e. total/complete) righteousness of God.  That is, no matter *how* “good” we are, we can never be “good enough” to escape Sin/Death (Understand, that sin *is* capital-D Death).

The *Biblical* position is that *no one* is good, but only God.  Jesus himself asserts this.

The *Biblical* position is that the only contribution we make to our own salvation is to stop fighting/rebelling against God.  Or, to put it another way, it’s not so much that repentance of our sin causes or leads to our salvation, but rather that repentance of our sin allows the sin to be tossed into Hell without dragging us with it.  Sin is Death, and those who do not repent of their sin clutch their own Death to their breast as being more precious to them than Life Himself.  To truly repent of one’s sin is to stop refusing to be saved from Death.

Accepting a freely-given gift is not even on the same plane as earning a reward, much less on the same axis. 

 

The *Biblical* position is that “good works” are the result of salvation, not its cause.

 

“If we aren't saved by our own actions, then what was the point of free will?" 

The point of free-will is that you are free to open your hands, thereby letting go the Death which you have been heretofore tightly grasping to your breast, so that you are free to receive the Life which has always been there for you to receive.

=====

ADDENDUM: We are not saved by our own works any more than we are damned by our works.  You see, from our origin, we are already damned, we are already carriers of the infection of sin and dearth, we are already dying and headed for Death -- this is merely what the doctrine of Original Sin means.  Much as people misunderstand what 'Immaculate Conception' (which is false) refers to, most people also misunderstand what 'Original Sin' (which is true) refers to.

Think of it this way: We are not sinners because we commit sins; rather, we commit sins because we are sinners.

 

Usury and The One True Bureaucracy

@17:46 in the video linked below: M.Knowles has mis-stated what usury is -- apparently the mis-statement is intentional.

@18:17 in the video linked below: T.Aquinas (in the quote) is outright wrong about what what lending money at interest is.

@18:55 in the video linked below: M.Knowles: "So that's [Aquinas' argument] a little bit confusing ..."

Aquinas' argument against lending money at interest is "a little bit confusing" because Aquinas is tying himself into a logical pretzel to attempt to defend and justify a specific immoral and self-serving practice of The One True Bureaucracy of his day.

To lend money at interest is not "to sell what does not exist", it is to sell the use of that money for a specific time and at a specific cost. The use of money certainly does exist, and it exists apart from the money itself. The use of a sum of money is a wholly different thing from the use of a measure of wine or wheat -- the using of a measure of wine or wheat *just is* the consumption of it; but the use of a sum of money does not consume nor destroy the money.

There is a world of difference between the judicious lending of money at interest for some specific and defined purpose with a reasonable expectation of success and the modern orgy of debt-fueled consumerism.

Also, the real reason that The One True Bureaucracy created canon law outlawing "usury" was so that wealthy organs of that same One True Bureaucracy could further enrich themselves by usurious lending practices which would make a mafia don blush, all the while pretending that it wasn't usury.

This is how the "It's Not Really Usury" scam worked -- Petty Aristocrat A believes it will benefit his soul to go on Crusade. He doesn't have enough money to outfit himself and his retainers as needs be. He goes to The One True Bureaucracy (Division: Wealthy Organ B) to borrow the necessary monies. Wealthy Organ B lends him the money -- on condition of a mortgage (i.e. "death-grip") on his estate; that is, all income from the estate is to be turned over to Wealthy Organ B until the debt is repaid by income derived by other means, and if the debt is not repaid in some time period, the estate is forfeit to Wealthy Organ B.

I leave to Gentle Reader's imagination the contemplation of the fate of the widow and children of Petty Aristocrat A should he die of any cause while on Crusade.

Now, while actual usury is indeed bad and is indeed sinful and should indeed be prohibited by law, The One True Bureaucracy are not the people to be defining "usury" for anyone.

In the OT Law, God does not forbid the lending of money, and (contrary to the doctrines of The One True Bureaucracy) he does not forbid the lending of money at interest. What God does forbid is the enslavement of one's fellow Israelites (which, in Christianity, is universalized to all human beings) by means of debt. In almost every instance in the OT which is translated as a prohibition on 'usury', that prohibition is linked with the rationale for the prohibition -- that you not enslave you fellow Israelite by means of the debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fgd8jBo1Sg

Concerning 'sola scriptura'

This post and its comment thread is intended to allow for a discussion of the Protestant doctrine of 'sola scriptura', rather than hi-jacking a thread at Neo-neocon.

So, in this OP, I'll duplicate the pertinent parts of some comments from that linked thread.

Roy Nathanson
Just a point…

There is nowhere in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) that expressly proscribes abortion. The absolute forbidding of abortion is an extreme position, when looked at in historical terms.

R.C.
1. Protestants made up a solid majority of the population during the days when serious Christians made up much of the population. Consequently, the assumption called Sola Scriptura leaked into the popular culture: Non-Christians in the U.S. naturally assume that all the content of the Christian religion can be derived from Bible passages (which will state that content with sufficient clarity that the meaning won’t be misunderstood).
...
This is relevant because outside the Protestant world, Sola Scriptura does not exist as an operating premise; it’s considered a weird and self-contradictory 16th-century well-meaning-but-heretical innovation.

Something I find amusing about this particular comment is that R.C. goes on (which I haven't quoted) to contrast 'sola scriptura' ... with an approach which is totally in keeping with 'sola scriptura'.

Ilion:
Crazy me, but I also dream of a day when the bureaucrats of The One True Bureaucracy will stop instructing their flock in false teachings about 'sola scriptura' (especially) and the other Protestant 'solas'.

The fact of this false teaching is especially amusing when one understands that The One True Bureaucracy implicitly endorses 'sola scriptura': does not the the Roman denomination ultimately try to justify all its claims, no matter how questionable, by appeal, no matter how strained, to Scripture?

RC
(Warning: the following reply to Ilion is utterly uninteresting to anyone uninvolved in Protestant-Catholic disagreements. If that ain’t your cup o’ tea, skip it.)

@Ilion:

Thanks for your reply; and I think I kinda like your characterization “One True Bureaucracy.” It has a ring to it, and is (sadly) a fair characterization of one of the worst traits in one segment of the Roman clergy: Too many senior clergy come off more like bank branch-managers than like, say, Athanasius or Thomas Aquinas. They ain’t all like that; but too many are.

That said, I have to disagree with a three of assertions you’ve made (one implicitly):

Assertion #1: “[Catholic bishops] instructing their flock in false teachings about ‘sola scriptura‘ (especially) and the other Protestant ‘solas‘”:

I don’t think that’s accurate, because in my experience Catholic bishops don’t teach Catholics anything about Protestant beliefs, true or false. In fact only the best of them make much strenuous effort to teach Catholics anything detailed about Catholic beliefs. This goes hand-in-hand with my complaint that many of the bishops act more like careerist middle-managers. When it comes to faithful preaching of the Catholic faith, Protestant Billy Graham probably outdid 75% of the current American episcopate.

In response to that, I anticipate you might reply, “Okay, fine, if 75% of your bishops aren’t really teaching, perhaps it wasn’t they, but in my opinion someone has been teaching Catholics something false about ‘Sola Scriptura’, which leads to…

Assertion #2 (implied): “[Some Catholic teacher, somewhere] instructing [Catholics] in false teachings about ‘sola scriptura‘”:

If I have correctly anticipated that clarification, let me grant that, yes, some Catholic teachers have, on occasion, failed to distinguish between Sola Scriptura as held by, say, John Calvin, and the less-defensible “just my Bible and me” approach which makes no reference whatsoever to patristics or liturgical tradition. (One wag used the term “Solo” Scriptura for this latter form.)

My Southern Baptist upbringing makes me sensitive to the distinction, so I’m always quick to point it out whenever I find my Catholic friends conflating the two. One ought not to indulge in straw-manning one’s interlocutors even if they’re atheists; still less if they’re brothers-in-Christ.

Fortunately, I find that the recent (last 30 years) influx of Protestant clergy, lay apologists, missionaries, seminary professors, etc., becoming Catholic has led to a wider understanding. When Catholics have Sola Scriptura described to them these days, it’s by folks like David Anders, Bryan Cross, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, and Scott Hahn. In this way, they get a more-nuanced description than they would if some “cradle” Catholic tried to do it.

Assertion #3: “The One True Bureaucracy implicity endorses ‘sola scriptura‘: does not the the Roman denomination ultimately try to justify all its claims, no matter how questionable, by appeal, no matter how strained, to Scripture?”

Nope. Not in the way you mean.

Catholic apologists argue by the following pattern:
– We’re being told that XYZ is integral to the theological/moral/liturgical content delivered by Christ to the apostles, and by the apostles to their earliest disciples, and they to their disciples, down to the present. But is that accurate?
– Ignore, for the moment, the claim of “divine inspiration” or “inerrancy” of these texts called “the Bible,” and view them (or even just the least-controversial parts of them) as historical witnesses to what the early Christians did, said, and thought. Do they support XYZ ambiguously, or unambiguously?
IF unambiguously, then skip down to the step marked “CHURCH”
IF ambiguously, continue…
– We are unsure whether XYZ was supported by Those Historical Texts or not, because the relevant passages are ambiguous: They can be interpreted in various ways, not all of which support XYZ. How can we exclude some of these competing interpretations?
IF an interpretation is anachronistic in the context of a 1st-century Jewish audience, exclude it (the earlier traditions in the Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls are helpful to understand the assumptions of the initial hearers/readers);
IF an interpretation utterly contradicts the consensus views of the early Christians whom the apostles installed in positions of early Church leadership (a.k.a. the “Early Church Fathers”, exclude it;
IF an interpretation means that true Christianity didn’t exist anywhere in the world for multiple centuries at in the history of Christianity, such that Christ’s promises were thereby proven false and His claim to be even a true prophet (let alone God) were also proven false, exclude it. (After all, the guy rose from the dead, and normal folk don’t do that.)
– What remains, then, among the interpretations still open to us?

Catholic apologists argue that the remaining interpretations include no known forms of Protestant ecclesiology and sacramentology. It’s pretty much down to hierarchical and sacerdotal churches (Catholic, the various Orthodoxes) who claim judicial binding and loosing authority with divine sanction (“He who hears y’all hears Me, he who rejects y’all rejects Me” / “Whatsoever you/y’all bind on earth is bound in Heaven and whatsoever you/y’all loose on earth is loosed in Heaven”).

– “CHURCH”: If you have a church with an authoritative and divinely-sanctioned judicial authority on matters of faith and morals (parallel to the system of judges, tribal overseers, and “seat of Moses” seen during the Exodus) then naturally that Church will do the following:
(a.) preserve (by judicial affirmation) those traditions of faith/morals which come from the apostles;
(b.) allow (by judicial permission) those traditions of men which don’t nullify the word of God, but can contribute beneficially to the lives of the faithful (e.g. fasting on certain days, having Wednesday Night church suppers);
(c.) reject (by judicial condemnation) those traditions of faith/morals which do nullify the word of God (i.e. contradict those preserved by (a.)).

Through that process, the content of the Christian religion (or “Apostolic Deposit of Faith”) can remain objectively knowable (and thus potentially obey-able) in every century from the Ascension to the Second Advent. But which traditions were approved by this process?

– The traditions judicially approved by the Church include:
(d.) apostolic origin (sometimes indirect through scribes or secretaries) of the 27 New Testament books;
(e.) apostolic use of the Septuagint Old Testament canon (including Wisdom, Baruch, Sirach, Judith, Tobid, 1&2 Maccabees, and the disputed parts of Daniel);
(f.) a tradition giving certain books the supreme honor of being read-from aloud from them in the Liturgy of the Word (the first half of the Divine Liturgy, the second half being the Liturgy of the Eucharist);
(g.) a tradition of limiting that highest-honor to only books of apostolic origin or use;
(h.) a tradition of applying the phrase “God-breathed” in Paul to all those highest-honor books, not just the Septuagint Old Testament (which is what Paul was referencing when he wrote that phrase to Timothy);
(i.) a tradition of interpreting “God-breathed” to logically imply “inerrant, given a correct interpretation of the authors’ intended meaning.”

So, by means of that judicial approval, Catholics get a divinely-inspired inerrant collection of 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books, to which they grant the supreme honor of being read aloud from at Mass.

But as you see, this practice required the Church first to exist, and then to have divinely-protected judicial decisions (on such matters), to be able to arrive at confidence about the content of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

And the Table of Contents of the Bible (the “canon”) is a derivative work of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, arising from the need to know which books should be granted the supreme honor of being ritually read from in the Liturgy.

Now, Ilion, I don’t know how you wish to define the term “Sola Scriptura,” but I don’t know of any popular definition of that term that could possibly be implicitly endorsed by the Catholic understanding.

Peace,

R.C.

Here is the response I have composed to the above --

R.C.: "... and I think I kinda like your characterization “One True Bureaucracy.” It has a ring to it, and is (sadly) a fair characterization of one of the worst traits in one segment of the Roman clergy: Too many senior clergy come off more like bank branch-managers than like, say, Athanasius or Thomas Aquinas. They ain’t all like that; but too many are."

Thank you; and that is one of the points of the quip.

R.C.: "[Objection #1] .. .In response to that, I anticipate you might reply, “... someone has been teaching Catholics something false about ‘Sola Scriptura’,"

Your objection is fair; and your anticipation of my response is correct.

I interact with a lot of intelligent-and-educated Catholics on the internet. In my experience, perhaps in large part due to where and with whom I interact on the internet, it's almost always a Catholic who broaches this sort of subject (that is, related to our insoluable disagreements), and it almost always involves 'sola scriptura' ... and what those Catholic persons say about 'sola scriptura' is always a gross misrepresentaton.

R.C.: "(One wag used the term “Solo” Scriptura for this latter form.)"

I like that; I'll try to add that to my cache.

R.C.: "... Nope. Not in the way you mean."

And yet, you lay out a series of steps for judging whether "XYZ is [indeed] integral to the theological/moral/liturgical content delivered by Christ" which is, just as I said, "... ultimately [to] try to justify all its claims ... by appeal ... to Scripture."

R.C.: "But as you see, this practice required the Church first to exist, and then to have divinely-protected judicial decisions (on such matters), to be able to arrive at confidence about the content of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

And the Table of Contents of the Bible (the “canon”) is a derivative work of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, ..."

And there is seen another reason for the phrase, 'The One True Bureaucracy': the Catholic hierarchy is a late Imperial bureaucracy ... which outlived its Empire, and still has not given up on its imperial (and imperialistic) pretentions.

AND, in what you have written there is seen why 'sola scriptura' is so critical; for Catholicism does, indeed, set its bureaucracy above Scripture.

R.C.: "Now, Ilion, I don’t know how you wish to define the term “Sola Scriptura,” but I don’t know of any popular definition of that term ..."

What? Suddenly we're evaluating 'sola scriptura' by popular understandings ... and mis-understandings, a la "solo scriptura"?

Here is a treatment of 'sola scriptura' from 'the Gospel Coalition':

"Firstly, sola scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. It did not mean Scripture was the only authority. ..."

See, this is the very point of contention. On the one hand, the bureaucrats of 'The One True Bureaucracy' say, "*We* are the supreme authority over the souls of all men, for we (and we alone) speak in God's Name." And on the other hand, we Protestants say, "Well, no, you're not. Rather, Scripture is the supreme authority for evaluating all allegations of speaking in God's Name."

And, of course, 'sola scriptura' does have the inescapable consequence, much lamented by those who wish power over the souls of others, of individual liberty-of-conscience and even "Solo Scriptura" error.

(Shoot! Even that font of knowledge and wisdom, the Wickedpedia, does a fair job of explaining 'sola scriptura'.)

R.C.: "... that could possibly be implicitly endorsed by the Catholic understanding."

Oh, it's so much worse that I said initially. When necessary, The One True Bureaucracy will go straight-up hard-core Calvinist -- I was shocked (and amused) when I read the reasoning (at say, the Catholic Encyclopedia) to justify the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

The One True Bureaucracy ... and Celibacy!

From the comments of K T Cat's post concerning recent revelations about the Lavender Mafia within the bureaucracy of the Roman denomination (here "Catholic Arguments Against A Celibate Priesthood") --

K T Cat: "Tim, I'm sure the requirement for celibacy is rooted in logic and derived from some solid first principles. Everything in Catholicism is."

I'll explain it to you --

1) it is a natural aspect of the psychology of (normal) human males to put the interests of his group ahead of his own interests, even to the point of sacrificing his life for the group;

2) when a (normal) man is married, his primary group naturally becomes his wife and children;

3) the bureaucrats of The One True Bureaucracy -- which base their absurd claim to universal dominion over the souls of mankind upon a deliberate mis-reading of a single verse -- require its priests to be unmarried for much the same reason that generals (and street-gang thugs) would rather their soldiers be young and unattached: it's far easier to turn that natural masculine instinct to serving *your* ends if there isn't a woman (and children) mucking things up.

============
lee: "Having been part of another religion with married clergy, there is no bigger pain in the backside, them and their family."

Yes, there is that, too.

============
============
Please understand, above I am explaining why the Roman denomination settled on a demand of celibacy of its priests; I am neither praising nor condemning the decision.

The One True Bureaucracy rides again

BBC: Pope Francis declares death penalty inadmissible in all cases

To quote Ian Bibby on Facebook: "Pope Francis declares Catholic teaching to be fallible on matters of ancient Catholic doctrine, and therefore denies his own authority and the legitimacy of the Catholic church itself."

For the past few years (and especially since Francis was elected), I've been telling online Catholic friends -- especially the ones who like to blame leftism and related social ills on the Reformation -- that the day was coming when they'd have to choose between fidelity to The One True Bureaucracy and fidelity to Christ. That day has come closer.

Two Jewish Jokes

I was Googling to find a particular Jewish joke; I found it, and on the same page I found another that I wish to share with Gentle Reader.

Here is the joke I was looking for --

Nothing

During Shabbat services the Rabbi kneels and puts his forehead to the floor and says, "Before you oh Lord, I am nothing."

The Cantor looks at him, thinks it couldn't hurt, and kneels, puts his forehead to the floor, and says, "Before you oh Lord, I am nothing."

Ben Shapiro in the fifth row is watching this and thinking that it was a pretty good idea, so he goes in the middle of the isle, kneels and puts his forehead to the floor and says, "Before you oh Lord, I am nothing."

The Rabbi nudges the Cantor. "Look who thinks he's nothing!"

Here is the one I wish to share with Gentle Reader --

A Dialogue while Moses is at the top of Sinai....

G: And remember Moses, in the laws of keeping Kosher, never cook a calf in its mother's milk. It is cruel.

Moses: Ohhhhhh! So you are saying we should never eat milk and meat together.

G: No, what I'm saying is, never cook a calf in its mother's milk.

Moses: Oh, Lord forgive my ignorance! What you are really saying is we should wait six hours after eating meat to eat milk so the two are not in our stomachs.

G: No, Moses, what I'm saying is, don't cook a calf in its mother's milk!!!

Moses: Oh, Lord! Please don't strike me down for my stupidity! What you mean is we should have a separate set of dishes for milk and a separate set for meat and if we make a mistake we have to bury that dish outside....

G: Ah, do whatever you want....

So, Jews do understand the absurdity that Rabbinical Judaism has made of the Law.

As social institutions or traditions, both Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity are off-shoots of 1st Century Pharisaical Judaism -- that is, as social institutions or traditions, both present-day Judaism and Christianity have an equal claim to being the "real" Judaism.

Now, aside from the whole Son of God question, the difference between the two is that -- following Christ -- Christianity rejected the whole Oral Torah tradition of the Pharisees, whereas Rabbinical Judaism wrote it down and elaborated it to even more absurd lengths than the Pharisees themselves had done.


And, by the by, the Mysterium (that's intentional) of The One True Bureaucracy is analogous to the Pharisees' Oral Law.

What's up with the Jesuits?

Since when do 20th Century (*) Jesuits go around speaking truth?

Jihad Watch: Jesuit priest: Islam is “violent throughout its entire history” out of “obedience to the Law of Allah”

Jihad Watch: Jesuit astrophysicist Manuel Carreira: “Islam is the worst plague that humanity has seen in the past 2000 years”


(*) Yes, I realize that we are firmly into the 21st Century

Which is the Real Catholicism?

This post duplicates the content of a response I have posted at The Orthosphere in Alan Roebuck's thread, Roebuck's Standard Orthosphere Disclaimer --

Echoing Leo, which is the real Catholicism -- the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (as a whole) or individual bishops (such as Chaput) or the commenters here (playing at being "reactionaries")?

Here is an official statement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops concerning (the political joke known as) "comprehensive immigration reform".

Those who refuse to admit that The One True Bureaucracy is at war with our nation, and indeed with all Western nations, will seize upon the portion I will quote first, while totally ignoring the portion I will quote second (which is the reason for the order in which I quote).

Under the heading: Catholic Social Teaching --

"The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. ...

The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." Catholic Catechism, 2241."

That sounds so good, doesn't it? Well, unless one looks too closely at what is actually said.

Consider: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions ..." But, of course, if they may, then they may not; that is, according this quotation from the Catholic Catechism, the enforcement of the "second duty[, which] is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good" is not a matter of the duty of officials to uphold the laws of their "sovereign nation", but rather is a matter of the discretion of officials whether they will uphold the laws of their "sovereign nation".

Consider: "Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them ..." Really? And who is going to make this law and enforce it? Does the USCCB allow that the "political authorities" may deport immigrants who do not meet their "oblig[ation] to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them"?

Right!

Even in this part, which those who refuse to admit that The One True Bureaucracy is at war with our nation will seize upon, what is actually said is inimical to the interests of the citizens of the United States (and of all Western societies).


Now, for the second quote from the USCCB's stance paper --
"The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241."

According to the USCCB, the *first* duty of "good" government "is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person". According to the USCCB, the *first* duty of "good" government is not to safegaurd the security and well-being of the society of human persons over whom it asserts authority to rule, but rather it is to welcome the alien, over whom it does not assert the authority to rule, who chooses to intrude upon the society over which it does assert the authority to rule.

According to the USCCB, "[p]ersons have the right to immigrate", from which it follows that "thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible" ... and, of course, "the greatest extent possible" is throw open the borders, which happens to be precisely what the USCCB is shilling for.

But, look at that assertion again: "[p]ersons have the right to immigrate". Really? Since when?

The Founders of the US government asserted that "[p]ersons have the right to emmigrate" -- which, let it be noted, was a novel and revolutionary assertion by those who would rule over a people. But to say that "[p]ersons have the right to emmigrate" is a very different thing than to say that "[p]ersons have the right to immigrate".

Our Founders asserted that neither they nor any other set of rulers owned the human persons over whom they ruled. The Roman Denomination asserts that no existing human society (especially the ones which are "prosperous") has the right to limit, much less refuse, aliens intruding into its midst.

It's a matter of simple logic: IF "[p]ersons have the right to immigrate" -- if persons have the right to come into a society -- THEN societies have a corresponding "duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person ... to the greatest extent possible".


Further notice, this isn't *just* the damned (and I mean that word most literally) "liberals" of the USCCB -- and who happen to be the spiritual overseers of you American Catholics -- simply making these assertions; they are directly quoting the Catholic Catechism. This call to national suicide is made not just by the USCCB, but by The One True Bureaucracy as a whole.

Usury!

If Gentle Reader spends any on-line time around adherents of the Roman heresy (*) (and how can he not? they're everywhere!), he is bound, sooner or later, to encounter gasps and denunciations (**) of some great (supposed) sin called "usury" (as, see this recent thread at Malcolm the Cynic's blog).

My thesis here is that Romanism is all wet about "usury", and, moreover, that historically it was entirely hypocritical about the strictures it placed, in the guise of combating "usury", upon the societies which swore allegiance to the bishop of Rome.

When Roman heretics are trying to argue (to the limited extent that they do ever argue in support of their errors) against the charging of interest, and ultimately against your and my freedom to spend our time as we wish, they will call as witness the several instances in the Old Testament wherein God forbids the Israelites to make loans to their brother Israelites at "excessive interest". This tack is ironic -- and frequently hypocritical (***).

Oddly, the Romanist who points to Deuteronomy in condemnation of "usury" tends to ignore the rest of the verse; for, in almost every case in the OT in which God forbids "excessive interest", the reason for the condemnation is given with the condemnation -- that you do not reduce your brother to slavery.

Apparently, God is very concerned with the *freedom* of his people, not just collectively, but also individually. The RCC, not so much.

But, we capitalists have bankruptcy laws -- it is impossible for the legal charger-of-interest, that is, the one who is able to operate his business in the light of day, to reduce his "customers" to a state of slavery. It is only the illegal charger-of-interest -- who even has a market in which to operate in the first place precisely because of "usury" laws (****) -- who is able to turn his "customers" into slaves. This also relates to the Roman heresy's hypocrisy about "usury" that I mentioned up front.


The other main leg upon with the Romanist tries to argue against "usury" is by an argument from Saint Thomas Aquinas, the gist of which is that the charging of interest amounts to fraud since it involves the interest-collector selling to the interest-payer "something that doesn't exist".

Look, Thomas was undoubtedly a genius, but even he was just a man and was susceptible to a popular error, and official error, just as any other man is. And by the time of Thomas, bodies within the structure of the RCC were turning a tidy profit by exploiting the Romanist hypocrisy concerning "usury".

Consider (as, apparently, Thomas did not): by the Law of Moses, when an Israelite "sold" his land to another Israelite, what was he *really* selling him? He wasn't *actually* selling the land, for come the Year of Jubilee, the custody of the land must return to the original owner or to his heirs. What he was selling was the future harvests, or, as Thomas might put it, "something that doesn't exist".

So, in the end, his arguments (to the extent he even tries to argue) being shown ungrounded and futile, the Romanist is reduced to sputtering something the Mysterium (*****) forbidding "usury", and that's good enough for him (and should be good enough for you, too). In other words, he falls back to attempting an argument from authority against someone who rejects the assertion of authority in the first place (******).

=============
(*) What? It "offends" you that I apply to you -- and with far more justification -- the same language you apply to me? Surely, by now, you ought to understand that I don't give a rip whether anyone is "offended" by what I say.

(**) Frequently, these denunciations of "usury" are in the context of denigrating and denouncing what we call "capitalism" -- which is so say, these adherents of the Roman heresy are denouncing and denying others' God-given freedom to use their own labor, their own lives, as they see fit.

Hell! So great is the hatred of The One True Bureaucracy for "capitalism" -- which is too say, hatred for individual freedom, and the natural result of that freedom -- that one will sometimes see Rah! Rah! Catholics speculating that perhaps they can make common-cause with "the old left" -- you know, Lenin, Stalin, Mao ... Hitler -- in the battle against capitalism.


(***) When an Evangelical points to the Word of God as the basis of his reasoning, the adherents of Rome not infrequently accuse him of "proof-texting". So, depending on whether this particular Romanist does that, his move is either ironic or hypocritical.

(****) The only reason -- ever -- that there is a "black market" for this or that is because someone is using governmental force-and-violence to control or suppress whatever natural market for it exists. Observation of this inescapable fact is not the same as saying that no markets should ever be suppressed.

(*****) just in case it's not obvious, "Mysterium" is intentional

(******) Oddly enough, Romanists generally like to laugh about, and point fingers at, the stereotype of, say, a Southern Baptist, who "argues" against an 'atheist' by quoting Bible verses.


=============
Now, about my charge of historical hypocrisy by the RCC concerning "usury" --

It all goes back to the mortgage; for the origin of that particular financial device was as a means to allow bodies within the Romanist bureaucracy to charge excessive interest to laypersons while pretending to honor the Romanist strictures against "usury".

Over several centuries of invasion and conquest by barbarian pagans, followed by conversion to Christianity of the sons of those pagan conquerors, followed by generous donations of estates to various bodies within the Roman hierarchy by the sons and grandsons of those pagan conquerors -- and coupled with Rome's refusal to pay taxes (however taxes were accounted in any particular realm) to the secular rulers (*) -- eventually "the church" had become a major, if not *the* major, landowner throughout western Europe.

Once things had settled down a bit, the question arose of how to invest the income of these religiously-affiliated properties ... without openly charging interest (**). One solution was the 'mortgage'. And how that worked is that a religious institution would lend money to a noble, who would in exchange turn over all the income from one or more of his properties to that institution until he was able to repay the original loan by some other means. And you can be sure that most landowners (or their heirs) repaid those loans many times over before the 'mortgage' was paid off; all without "the church" technically charging interest on the loans.


(*) This refusal by the Roman hierarchy to pay the same taxes that secular landowners owed the king is an important contributing factor in the *next* wave of barbarian pagans steam-rolling over the existing state.

(**) Which goal, by the way, is what the "Moslem finance" of which one sometimes reads these days is about: collecting handsome rates of interest on loans of money while *pretending* to do no such thing.

It's a perennial human quest: we place unnecessary strictures upon ourselves -- and especially upon others -- in the Name of God, and then expend vast amounts of ingenuity looking for ways around those strictures.

Talk about not having eyes to see

Here is a comment made on Mr Wright's blog that I wish to share -- Comment by BobTanaka

I hate to be a damper, but I really want to know: how are we certain this is the Consecrated Host? Is it possible that the Satanists kept the real Host and gave back an unconsecrated one in its place? We’re obviously not dealing with honorable or honest men here.

Does anyone know?

Indeed: how does one distinguish the alleged physical body of Christ, that is, the alleged (actual) meat and blood of the consecrated elements (*) from mere bread and wine that hasn't been consecrated?


(*) I mean the physical thing which is asserted to actually become by consecration the actual flesh and blood of the Christ, rather than the mystical Body of Christ, which is the Communion of All Saints, of all the Redeemed throughout all history past and yet to be.


Edit:
Just in case it's not clear: I can rejoice with the Catholics that the Host was recovered and that the Satanists promise to not filch one again ... because it's important to them ... while still believing that the whole raft of their beliefs attached to the Sacrements (and priests and prelates) is absurd and, indeed, anti-Christian.

On burearcracy as ecumenicalism

Douglas Wilson: Keeping the Cathedral

followup:
Douglas Wilson: Two Cheers for Tribalism

So in the negative sense of tribalism, the reforming tribe is likely to be the most tribal. I remember one time making the mistake of referring to the Church of God as a denomination, and being corrected by someone associated with them. No, they were not a denomination — they were the answer to denominationalism. No doubt it seemed that way to somebody once upon a time, but now they are just one more denomination. The same goes for all those highly denominated non-denominational churches. It is a good thing we quit denominating them — that might have caused us to sin.

One last thing. When a non-denominational zeal reaches its zenith, as it does with the Church of Christ and the Local Church, that claim necessitates that they read themselves right out of Protestantism. Groups that see themselves as “the one true church” can’t be Protestant, any more than the Roman Catholic church can be Protestant. This is because Protestantism cannot be sectarian to such an extent, by definition. When churches like the Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist confess themselves Protestant, they are confessing that their particular tribe is part of a larger confederation of tribes. The Protestants are like the Iroquois Nation, and I think we should let the Lutherans be the Mohawks.

The campus ministry I attended at university was one of these "we're not a denomination" denominations. Right. That's why (later, when I was part of the student staff) the associate campus minister didn't care for me collecting some money to send to World Vision (before it lefted-out) because "They're not affiliated with us". Now, they were good people ... but incoherent on this point.

Several years ago, I attended their "we're not a denomination" denominational church a time or two with a retired boss and her husband (raised Catholic and with a very negative opinion of Catholicism). It was all I could do to keep from rolling my eyes when I heard the partor's wife taling about "teh denominations". Again, these were good people ... but incoherent on this point.

And incoherency on one point has a way of twisting all sorts of other seemingly unrelated things, such is the price of protecting the incoherency.


Douglas Wilson: Some Doctrinal Triage

Finally! A 'foreign leader' he won't bow to

CNN: Obama, Pope Francis meet for first time

The truth of 'X' ...

This post is initially prompted by reflection on my recent statement that of the two (or three) Canadians I've known or met in person, two were 'dicks'. But, I don't explain that until the end.

The truth of [some concept or philosophy or world-system] doesn't stand or fall on the behavior of its adherents or promoters. Now, certainly, one can, and ought, observe and take into account to some degree the behavior of the adherents and promoters of [the concept or philosophy or world-system], but at most that behavior can arouse suspicion that [the concept or philosophy or world-system] contains some serious flaw - but, that suspicion may itself be false and based on mis-information.

Consider: in recent years, a number of Roman Catholic priests have been accused, and some convicted, of “pedophilia”, both in the US and in other countries - though, indeed, it was not ‘pedophilia’ as that term is medically and legally defined, but rather it was the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men (the facts are constantly misrepresented because the "liberals" are currently playing up the official victim-status of "gays"). Should one thereby condemn Catholicism as being false? Or, should one thereby condemn Catholicism as having materially contributed to these condemnable acts - as a hypocrite such as Richard Dawkins does … when he’s not condemning you for condemning the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men?

Of course not! (Gentle Reader surely knows that I have no use for the Roman denomination, but I do oppose unjust and false attacks upon it). Now, IF a majority of RCC priests were molesting boys and young men, then certainly that would justify the suspicion that there is something deeply wrong with Catholicism, but one would still need to examine Catholicism to see whether that were true.

And, when one does examine Catholicism, one sees that it condemns -- and offers no exceptions -- not only the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men, but all homosexual acts, across the board. That is, while it is true that some RCC priests have molested young boys, it is also true that these acts are inconsistent with, and contrary to, Catholicism. So, to find the explanation for why some RCC priests have engaged in the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men, and why some RCC prelates have tried to bury the facts and/or protect the molesters, one has to widen one's field of enquiry.

Does Gentle Reader know that in terms of percentages (and of sheer numbers), far more public school teachers than RCC priests molest children put under their authority? Does that information change what one thinks one knows about RCC priests and young boys?

Yet, when was the last time *anyone* ever put forth the claim that for that reason we should re-think the very idea of having public schools?

Does Gentle Reader comprehend that “comprehensive sex education” is nothing but a scheme to groom children so as to make them easier prey to sexual predators?

Yet, when was the last time anyone with a(n approved) public voice ever put forth the claim that we should do away with “sex education”?

The answer to both questions is never, it’s always that we should double-down.

Consider: throughout the past two-plus centuries, every time that leftists have gained control over coercive State power, the result has been mass murder: whether it is the French Revolutionaries depopulating the Vendée for resisting the murders of their aristocrats and priests; whether it is Hitler (he as a leftist, no matter that the Stalinists have branded him a rightist) murdering millions for the crime of being non-Aryan; whether it is Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong, etc, murdering millions for being of the wrong social/economic class; whether it is American Progressivism justifying and facilitating the murders of millions of unborn children, both in the US and abroad … every damned time that leftists have gained control over coercive State power, the result has been mass murder.

Now, is this fact, all by itself, proof that leftism is murderous at its core? Well, no ... but it does and should arouse one's very strong suspicion that leftism is murderous at its core: but one still has to look at the content of leftism.

And, one needn't look far to find that, in contrast to molesting priests and Catholicism, mass murder is totally consistent with leftism, and indeed is all but guaranteed to happen when leftists control the State. For, at the core of leftism is the repudiation of the individual -- leftism not only denies the importance of the individual as an individual, but denies the very existence of the individual as an individual.

Under leftism, every individual human life is the representative of some class or other -- and the leftists get to define those classes and to assign or deny personhood to them. Thus, under leftism, if The Leader/Party says that 'Enemies of the Revolution' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and whole districts of people may be murdered for daring to resist 'The Revolution'; if The Leader/Party says that 'non-Aryans' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and whole nations may be murdered for the crime of being of the "wrong" race; if The Leader/Party says that 'kulaks' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and entire strata of society may be murdered as scapegoats for the failed economic policies of The Leader/Party; if The Leader/Party says that 'fetuses' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and millions of utterly innocent human lives may be snuffed out for the crime of show-casing the falsehood of the promises by which the "Sexual Revolution" was sold to a public that *wanted* those lies to be true.

So, what does all the above have to do with Canadians being (or not being) 'dicks'?

Well, of course, it has to do with the obvious fact that it would be irrational ... and immoral ... for me to assert that "all Canadians are 'dicks'" on the basis that two of the two (or three) Canadians I've known or met in person were.

But, there is more to it than the obvious -- one of those Canadian 'dicks' was our pastor, and an object of my natural boyhood hero-worship, for a number of years when I was a child.

One frequently runs across God-haters who use the horrible behavior of some (presumed) Christian or other as an excuse for dismissing Christianity without even the pretense of examining its content. One frequently runs across damned-fool (presumed) Christians who sagely nod their heads at this irrational illogic of dismissing Christianity without even the pretense of examining its content ... or even greater fools who offer the excuse in his place, whether or not he would himself, as though he has no moral agency of his own: "Oh! He's so *angry* at God ... some Christian must have done something to justify his anger (or hatred) of God!" ... No, you damned fool, you God-damned fool, he's angry at God because enmity with God is the state in which we all enter this world.

Now, in fact, Christianity explicitly teaches that we *all* are sinners; that we all have done, and will do horrible things; that not one of us can correct this problem under our own power, by our own wills. So, that some (presumed) Christian or other has done some horrible thing is exactly what Christianity predicts.

So, do you want to know about this Canadian 'dick', who had been our pastor when I was a kid?

When I was a young man, mid-twenties -- visiting my mother after she'd had a stroke -- he tried to get me to engage in homosexual acts with him (under my mother's roof, no less!); thereby confirming a suspicion I'd had for a number of years that when I was 10, and had stayed overnight with him (something my brother did frequently, but I had never done before, being a more retiring child than my brother was, and never desired to do again) when his wife and infant son were visiting her relatives in Michigan, he'd come very close to molesting me.

And then, a number of years later, preaching my father's funeral, the very man who had tried to get me to engage in "sex" with him had the audacity to publicly single out my three siblings and me as sinners in special need of attention. And I, being the sort who naturally avoids confrontation, said nothing publicly.

And yet, here I am, a Christian, and a foe of atheism -- for I know that Christ is Truth Itself, no matter what some (presumed) Christian does or does not do.

Nailing it

Michael Egnor has a recent post to which I wish to draw Gentle Reader's attention, and also to a comment by 'Big Rich' that nails it -- Does Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equal the Inquisition?, which is in response to a piece by John Zmirak, in which is asserted that "Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equals the Inquisition."

As you may (or may not) know, I have no use for the Roman denomination; I think Christianity would be much improved were all Catholics to wash themselves of the effluvia of the Cloaca Maxima and become Protestants. That said, I wholly agree with Egnor that it is a "damnable lie" that "Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equals the Inquisition."; I also agree with him that the Inquisition itself is not inherently bad or immoral.

Here is the comment by 'Big Rich' I wish to bring to your attention:

Does Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equal the Inquisition? The better and more obvious question is, does the Enlightenment without Christianity equal the holocaust? And the answer is, of course it does. It also equals the guillotines of the French Revolution, Mao's and Stalin's purges, America's forced sterilizations and the -- the greatest genocide perpetuated on mankind and done specifically in the name of enlightenment -- the slaughter of the unborn. The death toll which lays directly at the feet of an unrestrained enlightenment is the better part of a billion human lives, but according to sons of the Enlightenment like Peter Singer -- we need to be more dead bodies -- just not his or course.

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?"

A Suicide Pact?

Christianity is not a suicide pact -- neither with respect to individuals nor to peoples and societies -- but according the the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholicism is a national suicide pact, at least with respect to *our* nation.

I'll Raise you a 'Social Credit Movement'

Foxfier at 'Headnoises' links to an article on 'The American Catholic': What Makes Those “Conservative Catholics” Tick?

I counter with the very "socially conservative Catholic" Jeff Culbreath at 'What's Wrong With The World', and his The Social Credit Movement. One can find any number of similar posts by some of the "socially conservative Catholics" at WWWW and at other blogs by "socially conservative Catholics".

Also, consider also this post by the Australian Mark Richardson (who is RC), and consider it in the context of his OP (and of the thread as a whole).

As I've said before, Roman Catholic "intellectuals" tend to be socialists at heart ... and it comes from a serious flaw in Catholicism, The One True Bureaucracy, itself: a distain for individual freedom, and a related hatred for wealth not controlled by bureaucrats or "the right people".

The Bible … and The One True Bureaucracy

There is an obnoxious, and absurd, argument - or, perhaps one ought call it merely an assertion - concerning the source, and authority, of the Bible favored by some Catholics and some Orthodox, and (in my experience) especially Catholics of the sort I call “Rah-Rah Catholics” (*), which might as well have come straight from the Dan Brown School of Theology. Essentially, it is the assertion that ‘The Church’ (meaning the hierarchy of The One True Bureaucracy) created the Bible … and, therefore, that the hierarchy of The One True Bureaucracy is the Sole and Dispositive Authority concerning any meaning or teaching of it.

As mentioned, this “argument” (I don’t recall that I’ve ever actually seen an argument, but rather just the mere assertion) is obnoxious and absurd, but I hadn’t yet given any thought to formulating an argument to demonstrate its absurdity. And, now, I don’t need formulate such an argument, as I’ve just read one offered by Alan Roebuck that does the job nicely:

... D. also said what Catholics and Orthodox always say about the Bible: the Church created it, and therefore the Church is a higher authority than the Bible.

If the Bible is solely the work of man, this view would be correct. But if the Bible is God's communication to man then it cannot be correct. A verbal communication from God has a higher authority than a human being or institution simply because God is higher than man.

Also, to say that the Church created the Bible is a serious error. The Church identified the books of the Bible as God's word and rejected other "candidates" as not being God's word, but it did not make the Bible. The church was not analogous to a legislature, it was analogous to a scientist.

What I mean is that a legislature has the authority to make up laws that would not exist otherwise, and the analogy would be the Church making up Scripture that would not exist otherwise. But a scientist only identifies a reality that exists independently of him. The Church did not write the New Testament. The Apostles (or, in the case of Luke, Acts and Mark, their associates) did. The Church only recognized the books of the New Testament to be Scripture. They did not make them Scripture.

Consider: Would it have been possible for the Church to have declared the so-called Gospel of Thomas to be part of Scripture? If the Church is the highest authority, the answer would have to be "yes, if the early Church leaders wanted to." But if the answer is "No, the church could not have declared Thomas to be Scripture, and it could only have declared the actual books of the Bible to be Scripture," then Scripture is higher than the Church. Which it would have to be, if it really is from God.

(*)“Rah-Rah Catholics” are an annoying and obnoxious sub-species of Roman Catholic who quite mirror an equally annoying and obnoxious sub-species of Protestant (for which I haven’t yet a distinctive name). Among other oddities, “Rah-Rah Catholics” believe in their heart of hearts (even if they will not always publicly admit it) that salvation comes via being “in communion” with the Supreme Overseer of the Prime Overseers of the Ruling Overseers of the Overseers of the petty/local bureaucrats of The One True Bureaucracy; whereas the equally annoying and obnoxious sub-species of Protestant which mirrors them believes that that is where damnation comes from.

----
And, by the way, I came up with that (possibly annoying, especially if you're Catholic) 'The One True Bureaucracy' out of annoyance at a "Rah-Rah Catholic" banging on about the RCC being "The One True Church" ... as though the Body of Christ has anything to do with a human bureaucracy.

At it again

The One True Bureaucracy is at it again.

Kathy Shaidle's succinct response is, "Dear Catholic Church: We’re breaking up. This time I mean it. It’s not me. It’s you."

My slightly less succinct reaction is this:

By and large, socialism is Catholicism without "all that bothersome God-talk." Certainly, there are multitudes of Catholic persons who abhor socialism, but modern Catholicism itself explicitly supplies the theological and moral justification for socialism (*). That it’s a false theology and a false morality is a different matter. Further, while the man-in-the-pew may tend to abhor socialism, just as with the “liberal” Protestants, the more a Catholic person regards himself as an intellectual, the more likely he holds to socialism … eventually making of it a substitute for Christianity, just as the “liberal” Protestants do.

(*) I strongly suspect that this is because way back in the mists of time, the RCC made a virtue of poverty -- and thus, today, the One True Bureaucracy hates wealth … when it’s owned and controlled by private parties.

There are, after all, reasons that many, perhaps most, “low-church” Protestants do not, and never will, trust the One True Bureaucracy; it’s not just about mutual bloodshed 500 years ago, it’s about what the RCC is to this day, about what its bureaucrats advocate and what they condemn.

Being wholly contrary to all of human nature - being contrary both to virtue and to vice - socialism can never be achieved, and all attempts at it must inevitably involve windrows of human copses. For a bureaucracy that claims to “think in terms of centuries,” the One True Bureaucracy sure does seem to have a glaring blind-spot regarding actual lived history.