Our Pragmatic President

I haven't accuse Reese of antisemitism.

"Why have no Catholic OnFaith panelists remarked upon the murder in the Museum? What say you?"

Again, there are only two "luke-warm" Catholic panelists who routinely make comments on the On Faith blog i.e. Father Reese and Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo. The "catholic in name only" Professor Crossan makes commentary only on rare occasions. Ditto for the orthodox Catholics William Byron (last commentary made on 11/02/2007) and George Weigel 06/19/2008).

Again none of these individuals speak for the RCC anyway.

There are currently over 75 On Faith Panelists. Only 12 of these have commented on the atrocity at the Holocaust Museum. So this somehow makes over 63 of the panelists somehow anti-semitic????

Hardly, since these 63+ panelists rarely comment on any topic.

One can also conclude that the interest in the On Faith blog has waned considerably on the part of panelists and commentators over the past year as it appears what has been said about religion has been said especially with regards to the flaws and errors of said religions.

We now wait to see how long it will take to clean up the mess!!!

TTWSY and so forth:

"This shooting is no different than the Mall shootings, the University, and High School shooters, mother’s murdering their children, husbands murdering their wives. We have devalued life; we have made morality subjective."
--------------
The shooting was radically different, issues from a radically different history, one that is two thousand years old, one whose roots go back to Constantine. It branched into the ghetto vecchios, the Crusades, the Spanish and Papal Inquisitions, where the proto-racializing of Jews took shape. Under Isabella the Catholic, Jews could never really convert because they lacked "pura sangre," pure blood. As Jews were tortured, slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands, deported, deprived of citizenship, in the nineteenth century pura sangre was the start of racialization.

The myths of the powerful Jew issued from the French Jesuits, spread from there throughout Europe, etc., etc.

I sincerely hope that your reply to me is not the one Fr. Reese would give. I still await a comment on this recent racist atrocity from a Catholic affiliated with OnFaith.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
FARNAZ1MANSOURI1
“THE MUSEUM MURDER”
POSTED JUNE 12, 2009 7:22 AM

IRT:
“Why have no Catholic OnFaith panelists remarked upon the murder in the Museum? What say you?”

ANS;
I didn't think it needed a response; its repugnance should speak for itself.

Mother Theresa has as good of a response as anyone can make. “the smile is the beginning of love; peace begins with a smile; We shall never know all the good that a simple smile can do. Every time you smile at someone, it is an action of love, a gift to that person, a beautiful thing. If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.””

She continues, “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion”
’
This shooting is no different than the Mall shootings, the University, and High School shooters, mother’s murdering their children, husbands murdering their wives. We have devalued life; we have made morality subjective.

Consequently, we have the “Me” generation. The shooters are all about themselves; others don’t matter. Thus, “Don’t force your morality on me.” The problem is, it’s not my morality or anyone’s morality; it’s God’s morality inscribed in man’s conscience, his nature, and in the Natural Moral Law that God wrote in the natural law. Their purpose is that man may live in harmony with society.

Natural Laws have un-compromising consequences when broken; they show no mercy. They don’t need you to believe them. You can no more negotiate the NML than you can the Law of Gravity when falling over a cliff.

Hence, violence begets violence, evil begets evil. Though it’s happening before one’s very eyes, many deny it. We’ve murder some 50 million unborn; we take their flesh and sell it for cosmetics and their organs for research; man becomes a commodity and is no longer viewed as human. Commodities are expendable.

The unborn are real persons, the majority doesn’t care. “"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships—MT”

I didn't ask anyone to speak for the RCC. That was not and is not my question.

Note: The "Catholic" panelists have no speaking authority for the RCC !!!!

i.e. Father Reese, Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo and Professor JD Crossan. Orthodox Catholics typically do not consider these three to even be Catholic.

If you want official Catholic responses to domestic/world events check with the US Council of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/)

TTWSY and so forth:

Why have no Catholic OnFaith panelists remarked upon the murder in the Museum? What say you?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
LUKE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS WRITING?”

IRT:
"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed.”

Again, Jesus was God; to say He couldn’t read is unbelievable.

“Jesus presents the word of Scripture as the word of the eternal Father (John 5:33-41), as the word of a writer inspired by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 22:43), as the word of God (Matthew 19:4-5; 22:31).

He declares that "all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me (Luke 24:44).

The Apostles knew that "prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21); they regarded "all scripture, inspired of God" as "profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice" (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Apostles considered the words of Scripture as the words of God speaking in the inspired writer or by the mouth of the inspired writer (Hebrews 4:7; Acts 1:15-16; 4:25).

Finally, the Apostles appealed to Scripture as to an irresistible authority (Rom., passim). They supposed that parts of Scripture have a typical sense such as only God can employ (John 19:36; Hebrews 1:5; 7:3 sqq.), and they derived most important conclusions even from a few words or certain grammatical forms of Scripture (Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 12:26-27).

It is not surprising, then, that the earliest Christian writers speak in the same strain of the Scriptures.

St. Clement of Rome (I Corinthians 45) tells his readers to search the Scriptures for the truthful expressions of the Holy Ghost. St. Irenæus (Against Heresies II.38.2) considers the Scriptures as uttered by the Word of God and His Spirit.

Origen testifies that it is granted by both Jews and Christians that the Bible was written under (the influence of) the Holy Ghost (Against Celsus V.10).”

Now wouldn’t it be preposterous to claim the Bible was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who is God, but the Holy Spirit, or Jesus who is God, could not read? Chutzpah!

“Again, St. Clement considers it as proven by Christ's dwelling in the flesh that the Law and the Prophets were written by a heavenly charisma, and that the writings believed to be the words of God are not men's work (De princ., iv, vi).”

St. Clement of Alexandria receives the voice of God who has given the Scriptures, as a reliable proof (Stromata I.2).”

Consequently, God, who is Omniscient, who inspired St. Luke, doesn’t make mistakes.

"Cardinal George Calls Violence at Holocaust Museum Appalling; Cites Need for Education Against Racial, Religious Prejudice
Posted on: Thursday, 11 June 2009, 12:46 CDT

Condolences to family of slain security guard

Shoah warns that violence toward one is violence toward all

Museum cautions against danger of unchecked hatred, genocide

WASHINGTON, June 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the violence of the June 10 shooting at the Holocaust Museum was "appalling." He added that "This tragic incident only serves to reinforce the need for continued education throughout society against bias of every kind, but most especially racial and religious prejudice."

His entire statement, issued June 11, follows:

The shooting that took place yesterday, June 10, at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. was a deplorable act of violence and a violation of a hallowed space in our nation's capital. By preserving the memory of the six million Jews who died in the Shoah, the Museum speaks to the consciences of all who pass through its doors and hear the powerful stories of the innocent men, women and children who lost their lives at the hands of a criminal regime. Each year millions of visitors to the Museum learn of the dangers of unchecked hatred and of the need to prevent genocide wherever it threatens. This tragic incident only serves to reinforce the need for continued education throughout society against bias of every kind, but most especially racial and religious prejudice.

On behalf of the Catholic Bishops of the United States I offer prayerful condolences to the family of Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns, who died in the line of duty, and to the staff of the Museum who endured this appalling act of violence. As Catholic Bishops who are committed to promoting human dignity and interreligious peace throughout our nation, we echo the words of Pope Benedict XVI: "May the Shoah be a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all." (General Audience, January 28, 2009)

SOURCE U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Source: PR Newswire"

DRAR FR. REESE,

Please forgive the caps, but they are the only means of emphasis. Given recent events, my question is of some import.

Let me begin by saying that I do not set much store by the former popes's notion of Abrahamic. Feel-good though it is, it is fuzzy at best: the three religions do not have the same etiology, differ fundamentally when it comes to theology.

However, a Christian, at least by ancestry, went with a rifle to the USHMM, having repeatedly announced, "It's time to kill the Jews." He heeded the call, and although unsuccessful in his larger mission, he did commit a murder.

An interesting array of response followed from among OnFaith panelissts--Jews, Muslims, a Bahai, two Protestants, an atheist--sought to give expression to their horror, find within them that with which to proffer a life-affirming reply.

Only one "Abrahamic" religion was unrepresented: Catholicism.

I do not wish to say how very sad I found/find this. I will say that it isn't too late for a Catholic associated with OnFaith to comment on this affront to humanity. A young man lies dead.

There is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses. Ditto for Luke 2:46.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors.

See Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JESUS WAS AN ILLITERATE:

IRT:
“Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth”

ANS:
How do your sources explain Luke 4:16? Were they there?

Lu 4:16
And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought up: and he went into the synagogue, according to his custom, on the Sabbath day: and he rose up to read.”

Of course, it is immaterial whether God could read or not; He invented language, not to mention He is Omniscient, and His teachings verify it.

I wonder how your Biblical scholars determined Nazareth was a non-existent myth. Were they under a rock in the Jordan during the time of Moses’ plagues on the Egyptians?

Consequently, here is another problem for your scholars. Luke 2: 46cf “And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. “

Did you ever wonder how he knew more about the Scriptures than the Jewish hierarch knew about them and yet be an illiterate? It not only boggles the mind, but it is nonsensical, and defies common sense.

If your scholars are contemporary they would be denying over 2,000 years later what hundreds of thousands of witnesses were witness to and wrote about.

Consequently, I wonder how they explain an illiterate knowing so much about the Scriptures Old and New and couldn’t read. However, Matt Mark and Luke explicitly disputes your scholars. Mt 12:3, Mt 12:5, Mt 19:4, etc., and your sources are less credible than are they.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
THIS CATHOLIC'S VIEW
THOMAS J. REESE, S.J.
JUNE 9, 2009; 9:32 AM ET

IRT:
“On the campaign trail, at Notre Dame and at Cairo, Obama spoke the language of reconciliation, bipartisanship, dialogue, and common ground. This is not a black and white world of good guys and bad guys.”

ANS;
No, Obama wasn’t speaking in black and white; he was speaking in dialectic materialism. How do you speak of reconciliation on murdering the unborn, on gay marriage, on partial-birth abortion, on embryonic stem cell research and cloning that will exploit Third World Women?

How do you reconcile Obama’s rhetoric to reduce the number of abortions and then lift the ban on the Federal funding of Abortion and subsequently send $50 million to the UN for Population Control that will exploit the life of the unborn even in China?

Though somewhat repugnant, hadn’t we had a compromise on Gays in the Military? Obama plans to lift that ban. There is no compromise here.

How do you compromise on the Natural Moral Law? How does a Catholic university give an honorary law degree to someone who doesn’t believe in the Natural Moral Law, the Bill of Rights and our inalienable rights?

How do you reconcile Obama’s kind of Justices—Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy—with the rhetoric of reducing the number of abortions, notwithstanding Obama’s votes against Roberts and Allito, two outstanding Justices?

Obama’s Justices, against all scientific determinations, deny the unborn is human even in the face of partial-birth abortion. In “Lawrence v. Texas”, these Justices elevated gay sex to the dignity of conjugal love in marriage, and concluded that traditional moral values served no legitimate purpose to the State and was not a basis for Civil Law when they are the basis of all Civil Laws?

Well, you could, perhaps, try to force Cheops out of death by bathing him in the blood of taxpaying virgins. And then you could try to force him grow younger by offering him one taxpaying maiden every day.

In the real world, however, it makes more sense to help children grow up.

AVG 2009:

"Old sectors can, however, be freed for enterprise if the old technology is disfavored before it has failed or has been superseded. To support it in failure is pointless."

But isn't GM being forced to "reform," as it were, at least to some extent?

As for the gas driven cars, they could have been done away with in the 1950s. No single person, no Obama, can take on the oil companies. Better prospects now, maybe, since the auto manufacturers are less wedded to them, but I'm not expecting that much progress soon.

New industry sectors creation depends on technological advances only and they can't be created with intent or predictably. The IT industry is an example.

Old sectors becoming free for enterprise is also technology-related: old phones and mobile phones are an example in the telecomunications sector, airships and passenger airplanes is another example.
Old sectors can, however, be freed for enterprise if the old technology is disfavored before it has failed or has been superseded. To support it in failure is pointless.

Petrol-driven cars haven't really failed technologically per se, but they have failed economically if you factor in the price of oil-related foreign and domestic policies and expenditure alone.

What economic initiatives? "Feel free to start-up a company to compete with the behemoth banks and car companies that we support because they no longer make any profit. We only support the lesser failures now."

There will be no enterprise until a new industry sector is created or old one freed, not just from and for american companies, but from and for all existing companies that could potentially fill the void.

AVG2009 writes:

"Change it is not, except in its future logical conclusion"

Yes, and no. His economic initiatives are clearly liberal, rather than neo-liberal;he doesn't appear to be sending out the checks, without glancing back at the recipients.

Are we in a "globalized" economy? Will it eat us all up? Can he or anyone else stop it? Make it work for us? They said, in another generation, that the revolution would not be televized. But it was....Will this one be broadcast on the internet?

I wonder what Reese means here by pragmatism. Polyani? Rorty? (Would he like to speak from an anti-foundationalist perspective?!)

Talk is cheap. Obama's actions (positive foreign policy, supporting military intervention, closing guantanamo, supporting failed banks and car companies) show something else, namely, all-out attempts to restore and preserve the status quo, as of 1999.
Change it is not, except in its future logical conclusion.

Fr. Reese,

Good as far as you go. Of course, he's asking Americans to "think outside the box." Quite honestly, it wasn't how far in the box I understood some Americans to be until I started blogging here. It is as if there had been no postmodernist critiqe, not postcolonial critique. It has been a throwback to the pre-WWII period.

On the other hand, he misrepresented Jews historically, colonized us and our identity in his speech, and in this way, made community with those he should not. He ignored the antisemitism which many Muslim nations, including Turkey, use to distract the citizens from real political and material injustices.

And, of course, there were other problems. Still, as I'm beginning to sense more clearly the thickness of the walls imprisoning American thought, I must give him credit for his worthy atttempt, significant accomplishment.

On another note, Fr. Reese, I wonder if you ever read OnFaith's essays from "Catholic America." I kid you not that is the name of the blog, hosted by one Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, who does not like us J. people, not very much at all. He has been taken to task for this before, as well as for an appalling lack of knowledge of history, Catholicism, for these latter, by Catholics.

At all events, after reading his last essay, I hoped I would see something form you. Protestants are forever blaming Catholics for antisemitism, a behavior I found problematic. Now, although "blame" is far too unsubtle a construct, I'm beginning to wonder if the Protestants just might have something.

Here is the link for Arroyo's essay, "The New Muslim-Catholic Coalition." Note against whom the coalition must direct its efforts. Note the references to a single journalist.

Frightening stuff, here, Fr. Reese, for this Iranian Jew girl.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2009/06/speaking_muslim.html?hpid=talkbox1

It is not a black and white world??

When it comes to religion, the world is definity black and white with the flaws and errors of all religions so very, very obvious with no gray areas whatsoever.

e.g. The Black and White of Christianity: (for those eyes that have not seen)

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology, all male hierarchies and strange banking and funding.