The Angry Old White Men of the Catholic Faith
In Catholicism, and to some extent in other branches of Christianity and society in general, there are pillars of power that are being replaced. And the pillars of Christianity are mad. That is an understatement.
The pillars include both high level clergy but also writers and pundits who support giving power to clergy leadership. Their role is go give intellectual, or intellectual sounding and appearing, material clergy can use to justify their powerful role in running the Church.
A couple of writers/pundits are Edward Feser and George Weigel. Weigel's claim to fame is being tight with former Pope Benedict. Feser's claim is a huge volume of writing and appearances claiming the legitimacy of "natural law." The link is a long article from Feser's blog.
Feser is popular with people who want to claim the moral case against for anti abortion and anti gay marriage. He claims the case can be made without religion. Other philosophy scholars disagree. He also likes to use big words for ideas that are simple. He fill pages putting opponents into categories, each with a label. Labeling opponents allows a put down without addressing the arguments. I get that here on my blog at times, "Jon, you are in a group called ----." It makes the accuser feel intelligent without revealing anything intelligent.
Feser, and all of orthodox Catholicism so far as I can tell, tries to draw a line of commonality from the Greek and pagan Aristotle, of about 350 BCE to Aquinas, about 1,200 CE, and to the present day. The attempt, unsuccessful as it is, is useful because it allows Feser and the Catholic clergy establishment to put fists into their favorite punching bags. These are abortion, gay marriage and critical thinking of all kinds. The critical thinking they hate today includes critical race theory, critical gender theory and critical Bible scholarship. Their go-to term is "natural law." "Natural Law" favors order and hierarchy. The right people at the top passing down judgments and rules to those below is better for everyone is the message.
The panic of Feser and his fans is that classic literature is falling into disfavor and disuse. The classics have been used for centuries to disenfranchise lower class human beings. Aristotle himself wrote that some people just deserve to be slaves. When one reads the classics from the perspective of critical race or gender theory they become something less than the foundations of Western society.
The passion to take the classics down a notch is typified by one among many who have Ivy League degrees. This fellow teaches at Princeton. In his view Critical Race Theory should apply to all literature regardless of how admired it is by those in power. The classics were used to justify slavery consistently from the ancient Roman Empire through U.S. slavery, segregation and today's prejudices.
Literature of the old white male intellectual history has always been challenged intellectually and it is now being defeated. I predict this will weaken the hold of Christianity over the U.S.
"The Angry Old White Men of the Catholic Faith"
ReplyDeleteHow many '-isms' can Jon manage to commit in one headline?
Old - ageism
White - racism
men - sexism
Catholic - religious bigotry
To show how he hides behind PC, imagine if he had written the following headline,
The filthy young Black transgendered atheists of Antifa
Matt -- "how many --ism's"
ReplyDeleteThe thing that works with old angry white men (who want to dictate to women how they should conduct their lives) is you know who you are.
PS -- It was necessary to add "Catholic" this time because those I've been reading about who are dishonest enough to claim anti abortion is not a religious issue are Catholics. I know there are others and maybe I'll find some of their dishonest writing and review that.
DeleteI agree with Matt. if there ever was a more angry old man than Jon I ,like old
Deletediogenes, could go about town with a lantern without hope of finding one.
The obvious observation is that you, Jon Lindgren, is the poster child for "Angry Old White Men".
ReplyDeleteI'll claim "Catholic" who is old (but younger than you ), White (but more ethnically diverse than you by virtue of my 50% Lebanese blood) and more of a man (I don't advocate ripping up young babies in the womb) than you.
Anticipating your objections and your claim of being a 'ladies man', it is interesting to note that the pro-life movement is characterized by massive numbers of pro-life women actually involved in helping women while the pro-abortion movement seems to be built by liberal males. Roe was decided by liberal white males, as was Doe.
Matt -- "massive numbers of pro-life women...."
DeleteI don't know the answer to this so I have to ask. Has there ever been an anonymous vote by Catholic women on whether they would like the opportunity to be clergy?
The answer to your question is simple. I'm sure there has been such a vote by SOME Catholic women. Even you knew the answer to that question.
DeleteThe result of such a vote, even if by ALL Catholic women, is that the results would as relevant as the result of ALL Catholic men, as relevant as the result of such a vote of all Catholics, as relevant as the results of such a vote by any such subset of humanity. The question is not for vote.
Let's have another silly vote. Let's vote that all men should have to experience pregnancy and childbirth. The result of that vote would be meaningless as it is not in the nature of men to be pregnant or give birth. That is nature of women. That is a physical/biological nature of men and women.
It is not in the spiritual nature of women to be priests. This is how God planned it and wishes it to continue. You can look up all the theology you want if you wish to understand. You many never understand. I don't pretend to understand the will of God in all things.
The Church never voted on whether or not to accept the Ten Commandments.
BTW, it would possibly gall you to know that the State of North Dakota senate may vote on a bill to allow all public schools to post the Ten Commandments in school.
It is a microcosm of our national fascist problem where conservatives are shut down for the beliefs and politics. Jon plays like Amazon or Google when he refuses to publish dissenting opinions while publishing his own and his like-minded liberals' comments.
ReplyDeletenatural law "favors order and hierarchy". should we then imply that Jon favors disorder , even anarchy? for those of you who may have missed this ill phrased remark, all human societies are hierarchical in one way or another. and, of course, with totalitarian societies being the most hierarchical of all. which is to say that hierarchy as such isn't bad but that bad people can use it in a bad way. I am left wondering what kind of hierarchical arrangement we would have in Jon's utopia where every one is "equal".
ReplyDeleteFeser uses "big words to express simple ideas". what simple ideas specifically? it may be news to Jon but most philosophical concepts are not "simple". philosophy is a daunting matter, something not to be dismissed by folks, like so many today, who are looking for simple answers to just about everything, whether the meaning of life, the mysteries of the human condition, the foundation of ethics, etc. to say nothing about politics, economics and other human endeavors. (I wonder if Jon thinks of economics in terms of people using "big" words to express simple ideas?)
ReplyDeletetsm @ 3:56 PM “Philosophy is a daunting matter”
DeleteHere’s a simple answer for you, the history of man is not the history of the world.
Here’s a simple question for you, who could be more reasonable than an atheist?
what are these comments supposed to mean? that the history of the world includes the dinosaurs? sorry I overlooked that. and what could more reasonable than an atheist? again sorry, but I haven't noticed a lot of atheist reasonableness on this site.
DeleteYou ask, "who could be more reasonable than an atheist?"
DeleteReasonable, adj. "(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible."
To say a Buddhist, atheist, Lutheran, scientist, Congressman, plumber or anyone else defined by what religion they practice or what profession they engage in, is intrinsically or extrinsically more reasonable than another class of person is neither fair, sensible or is based on sound judgment. Therefore, putting an atheist at the top of list of reasonable people is not reasonable.
Feser "puts opponents into categories, each with a label...". according to Jon that makes him [Feser] something of an academic oaf whose views can be dismissed out of hand. pardon me, but that strikes me as a strange claim to be made on a site which thrives on categorization.( e.g. old angry Catholic white men whose views, like Feser's, can be dismissed as the ramblings of cranks). I could cite many more such examples. but why bother? anyone who visits this site must know that categorization (name calling?) is SOP here.
ReplyDeleteJon thinks that western literature (presumably including Dante, Shakespeare, Dickenson, Frost (to name a few who immediately come to mind) is simply a vehicle for justifying oppression by one group over another (whether blacks, women, homosexuals, whatever). moreover, critical theory is liberating, revealing the dark side of western thought. forget the neo-Marxist roots of critical theory, forget its totalitarian impulses, its patent absurdity. one can only hope that people will soon wise up and that in a few years it will be the butt of crude jokes, dumped like its progenitor into the dust bin of history.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for Jon. he hates natural law because it seems to inhibit his radical leftist calls for same sex marriage, abortion and all the rest of the issues on his bucket list. so what does he mean when he says that we "ought" not discriminate against homosexuals? or that we "ought" to uphold a women's right to abortion. or that priests "ought" not molest children? is he then appealing to some transcendent moral principle? or is he merely saying that he "feels" that such things are either right or wrong?
ReplyDeletetsm -- "he hates natural law because it seems to inhibit...same sex marriage, abortion and all the rest on his bucket list."
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with Catholic's "Natural Law" is it is about prejudices, not about nature. Individuals have the right to hold whatever their prejudices happen to be. It is not morally sound to make up reasons from "nature" to justify them.
Homosexuality occurs in nature. There is no explanation for it except some people have a sexual attraction to their own gender. Abortion has been practiced since the beginning of humans so far as we know. Animals themselves have ways of limiting population growth. Humans have a brain to use to figure out when there are enough or two many people, either on the planet or in one household. Nature, evolution, provided us with such brains. "Natural Law" teaches we need more births in any and all circumstances and attempts to limit them is against some natural "law." That is contrary to nature. It is not something contained in nature.
individuals have the "right" to do such and such. what is "right" but another way of saying "ought"? so where do "rights" come from? why "ought" we to respect them, your so-called rights, that is? seems to me that you have another problem here: you confuse the natural moral law with the laws of nature. not quite the same thing. apparently, also, you think that because abortion and homosexuality have been practiced in the past then they are OK now. (BTW if what you say about homosexuality is true, then I suppose that we could call it an adverse mutation). anyway, don't forget that past human societies have practiced slavery, infanticide, genocide, cannibalism, incest, torture, etc. does that, then, make these practices OK?
ReplyDeletetsm -- "you confuse the natural moral law with the laws of nature. not quite the same thing."
ReplyDelete"not quite" is where things get a little go off the track. Let's start with the Wikipedia definition of Natural Law: "Natural Law is a system of law based on close observation of human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (that enacted by government or society)." Your term "moral law" does not appear.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia it says, "The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct is found in nature itself." It also says that dispensation of Natural Law by be granted only by God in "cases where a change of conditions modify the application of the law."
The latter makes Natural Law a joke. No one knows what dispensation "God" will grant. Oh, the Catholic hierarchy knows what God is thinking and because of that it can grant dispensation. Maybe you, also, are an expert on what dispensation God grants. Or, maybe I am. In the latter case, I declare God has decided to grant dispensation on all abortion. This is because women will wrongly be prosecuted for miscarriages. It is the "nature" of zealous anti abortion groups to put pregnant women under surveillance.
if Wikipedia doesn't use the term natural moral law so much the worse for Wikipedia. as to your C.E. comment, I would say that our moral sense is to be found in human nature itself, not in the so-called laws of nature. is the nature of a rational being such that it has a deep innate sense of right and wrong, good and evil, i.e. synderesis? deep down we know that it is wrong to kill the innocent, that we should be grateful, that we should honor our parents, that we should not lie, etc. of course we do these things all the time: and we can rationalize, while knowing that we are deceiving ourselves. now if you grant this point, the question arises: did God put the moral law in our hearts? or did it evolve as we passed from a pure animal existence to a rational, self conscientious being. that is a tough question: at this point I would only say that if you are an atheist, you have a very hard time justifying your use of terms like ought and right. it seems to me that you are left appealing to the laws of nature (e.g. survival of the fittest). or by simply saying that it is a matter of blind chance (as old Democritus said, the atoms do swerve from time to time). as to dispensation, I am not sure of the meaning of the term. perhaps it means that , without violating the natural moral law, you are allowed to lie to the Gestapo agent at your door. why don't you do a little research and fill me in with what you find?
ReplyDeletetsm "...if you are an atheist..."
DeleteI enjoyed that. Sometime in the past year or so you carried on that philosophy allowed one to come to conclusions against abortion and gay marriage WITHOUT religion. Religion was not needed to power your argument. I said that was BS. Now you are agreeing with me it was BS. You are improving.
yes, there are sound non-theistic ways of defending many traditional ethical principles, including obviously adultery, theft, lying, murder, feticide, same sex marriage, rape, racism, etc. Aristotle did quite a good job of doing just that. I think, moreover that even old Nietzsche, in his more rational moments, would do the same. many folks, myself included, think that the moral law is divinely inspired. and for many people who believe that, it is hard to think of non-theistic alternative ways to, for example, defend the pro-life position. and for atheists, of course, to find any credible foundation on which to build an ethical/moral system. but more later. I must "run" just now, leaving with a final observation: I emphatically did not mean to say that I agree with you. far from it.
Deleteno further comments. I have concluded this exchange is long played out.
ReplyDelete