Dr. Janet Smith and Dr. Michael Waldstein led Westians everywhere in the public attack on Dr. Schindler of the JP II Institute for daring to question Chris West publicly. These two so-called "scholars" said West had ample evidence in the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to call the Paschal candle a phallic symbol and to sexualize the liturgy.
On August 29, 2010, I called their bluff.
Produce the quotes or quit pretending to be scholars.
I gave them until September 11, 2010, roughly the day of Chris' "coming out" of sabbatical (No pun intended. Really).
This was the best any of the Westians could produce:
"Acknowledging the Paschal candle’s phallic imagery does not require a quote from a particular Father of the Church."
We now can see why Dr. Smith and Dr. Waldstein wanted this argument taken to the journals.
After all, Dr. Schindler already took Westian TOB apart, and made Waldstein look like a fool to boot, in a journal article published well before the ABC Nightline interview ever aired. But, since none of the ticket buyers ever read journal articles (or if they did, they didn't understand how thoroughly Westian theology had been debunked), Schindler had already demonstrated that a discussion in the journals would never hurt the income stream these two got from piggy-backing on West.
So, if they took the discussion of the phallic symbol to the journals, they could admit there that they were flat-busted, didn't have a shred of evidence, etc., and it wouldn't hurt anyone's income because no one would ever know they had admitted it.
They'd look like fools to their peers, of course, but that's easily remedied in journals. Journals are always so nice and refined that there's no sting. You simply don't publish a reply, without explaining WHY you aren't publishing a reply, and you can still hold your head up at the theologian's tea, you see. When asked about it, use big words, joust at side issues, and watch your listener nod sagely. Everyone's gaudy image remains intact.
But, being called out in public, that's a different story.
That can be kind of.... well, humiliating.
People actually see you are bankrupt.
Can't have that.
No, our two Westian professors got NOTHIN' and they are too proud to admit West suckered them.
So, they'd rather lie like rugs, pull the rags of their pride about them and pretend they are rich, lest they lose face.
Heck, Fr. Loya (see how restrained I am?) even doubled down (I doubt Fr. Z would approve):
"Don’t stop with the Paschal candle. Every aspect of the Church’s theology and its expression in liturgy plays out of the spousal ('sexual') mystery."And, to add insult to injury, the good priest seems to have entirely fabricated a quote he now pretends is from John Paul II (you want us to believe the late great Pope used the phrase "conjugal relations"??? Please.).
Even Michael Waldstein, our famous non-Polish speaking translator of JP II's Polish TOB addresses, didn't try to slip that phrase under the Pope's TOB rug (now, since I don't wear a rug, you certainly can't read a double meaning into that turn of phrase).
Oh, and how about this one (I simply love this one):
The womb is a vacant space, with an opening to its emptiness. The theology, the “language” of the womb, says that it is ordered to being filled with life, to being inseminated. To see the womb-like character of the baptismal font but not a complementary phallic element in the Church’s liturgical action is to see the womb (font) in a disintegrated, contraceptive, sterile, and useless way. This is not a Catholic (sacramental-mystical) view.Wow, a womb without a phallic element.
That's just CRAZY talk, I tell ya'!
It would be, like, disintegrated, contraceptive, sterile and useless!
'Course us old prudes used to call a womb without a phallic element VIRGINAL, but what the heck do we know? Everything has changed since Vatican II! The Church used to teach all kinds of crazy stuff, but thanks to Westians, we know better now!
So, thank you, Blessed Virgin Mary, but according to Father Loya, it turns out we don't need you after all, you contraceptive, sterile, useless woman you! Turns out you don't make any sense without a phallic symbol, Mary! And that whole "virginal font" stuff? That went out with Augustine. Aquinas. Vatican II.
You know, St. Louis de Montfort once gave a talk in a public square on the Blessed Virgin while three men made cat-calls and derisive comments about her from the corner cafe. And after de Montfort finished his talk, he walked over to the corner cafe, and beat the livin' snot out of the three gentlemen.
I don't know why I mention that just now.
I just go off on bunny trails sometimes.
Anyway, to get back on topic....
It would be absolutely rude for anyone to point out that Fr. Loya, the author of the piece, could arguably be referred to as Fr. Liar, or that Janet Smith has now descended to being the Lady Gaga of Catholic theology, to complement Chris West's slavish imitation of Dr. Ruth Westheimer and Michael Waldstein's "little monster" riff.
As I am never rude, I refuse to make make any of those comparisons.
I would certainly not encourage any of you to do so either.
Unless you were like, well, really pure and stuff.
And wanted to, of course.
In which case, I'm sure there is precedent in the Doctors and Fathers of the Church.
Yep, you gotta love The Big Lie.
Repeat a falsehood often enough, and your opponents will be swamped trying to refute something that doesn't even exist.
So, the Westians are going to pretend they have already supplied all the evidence they always said they had, but never actually produced, and now admit they don't actually have because... wait for it... it isn't necessary!
With West, it always come down to a very simple question:
Who do you believe?For men and women who insist that you stare at nudity, it's amazing how little they want you to trust your eyes, isn't it?
Or your lyin' eyes?