tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post5985301720737660777..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: Descent Into the MaelstromUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-12874170279556862862010-10-07T05:29:32.145-05:002010-10-07T05:29:32.145-05:00You're a bully, Steve (as per Brendan's po...You're a bully, Steve (as per Brendan's post, and you're reply)<br />http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/10/public-letter-to-westians.html<br /><br />Love you're work. <br />God bless you, from the depths of His Sacred Heart.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14130344474821519693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-80501793919643946232010-10-06T14:33:57.321-05:002010-10-06T14:33:57.321-05:00Christina,
God bless you, but over and over again...Christina,<br /><br />God bless you, but over and over again your instincts have been demonstrated to be completely wrong.<br /><br />We've produced Magisterial documents and works from the Fathers and the Doctors. You can't even come up with anything solid from West. <br /><br />I don't know how to tell you this in a "nice" way, but there it is.<br /><br />Because you follow West, you continually misunderstand Creation, the Fall, Sin or Redemption. <br /><br />Stop following your "instincts" and start following what the Church actually teaches. <br /><br />You aren't a mystic.<br />You don't know what you are talking about.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-8423106037809407772010-10-06T14:04:26.490-05:002010-10-06T14:04:26.490-05:00Don't you see Steve that you and I are capable...Don't you see Steve that you and I are capable of so much more. Christ came into the world to restore us to the purity of the original creation. <br /> <br />You speak so much about the about the “dangers” of sexuality, it seems as if you believe there is no escape from sin. <br /><br />I only mean to say that I pick up such a distrust of the body that it seems to reject the possibility that Christ offers us real freedom in this area.Christina Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897945149064888568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-51192959930741870772010-10-06T13:44:36.981-05:002010-10-06T13:44:36.981-05:00Thanks for judging my soul, Christina.
Not everyo...Thanks for judging my soul, Christina.<br /><br />Not everyone has that kind of chutzpah.<br /><br />Westians do - Chris does it every time an audience member critiques his presentation - but no one else really has that kind of second sight apart from Padre Pio and Chris West.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-84361271728765968972010-10-06T13:41:38.708-05:002010-10-06T13:41:38.708-05:00Ya, but your Sham-Wow piece is not in the spirit o...Ya, but your Sham-Wow piece is not in the spirit of wanting to correct, it is mostly anger. Scott has a point, you are filled with rage. Is it Holy rage, I believe that you are sincerely desiring for others to see their errors, however, whether your rage is justified is another thing completely.<br /><br />As you believe Westians are misled, so do I believe you are missing a more complete picture. We are capable of more freedom than you allow in your understanding of TOB.Christina Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897945149064888568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-24158798620113151742010-10-06T10:19:24.619-05:002010-10-06T10:19:24.619-05:00Scott,
When Jesus whipped people in the Temple wa...Scott,<br /><br />When Jesus whipped people in the Temple was He being loving?<br /><br />When he called the scribes and Pharisees names (Blind guides! Hypocrites!) was he being loving?Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-45235405104278181702010-10-06T10:17:41.140-05:002010-10-06T10:17:41.140-05:00I guess that you are so impressed that the whole p...I guess that you are so impressed that the whole point about truth always needing to be connected with love is lost on you. Maybe when one's opinion does not reflect the truth, love is unnecessary?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00993772919911115296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-56574270546400039892010-10-06T10:05:04.340-05:002010-10-06T10:05:04.340-05:00Wow.
Well, I'm certainly not the kind of pers...Wow.<br /><br />Well, I'm certainly not the kind of person who feels he is capable of standing in judgement of the apostles.<br /><br />Clearly, the people who wrote that piece are secure enough in their version of Christianity that they DO feel capable of judging the apostles.<br /><br />I'm impressed.<br /><br />Not in a good way, but impressed, nonetheless.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-25285867839516979742010-10-06T09:34:21.150-05:002010-10-06T09:34:21.150-05:00I can't help but think that today's medita...I can't help but think that today's meditation from "The Word Among Us" is relevant to this debate. While I don't necessarily agree that West and Smith require your correction, I strongly believe your opinions should be offered in a spirit of charity and love. <br /><br />On today's reading (Galatians 2:1-7, 7-14) "The Word Among Us" offers the following from their daily meditation:<br /><br />"Of course, we should admire Paul for his bravery and his undying commitment to the gospel. But we should also be careful to learn from his missteps and mistakes. The truth - no matter how important it is - cannot stand in isolation, as a solitary pillar upholding the entire church. No, the truth must always be connected with love. It must always be placed side by side with the call to fellowship and communion. Surely Paul could have found a better, more respectful way to preserve both the message of the gospel and the unity of the apostles.<br /><br />Like Peter and Paul, we must do all we can to work together to serve both truth and unity. By responding to pressure the way he did, Peter gave the believers in Antioch a false impression of Christianity. And by overreacting to the situation, Paul brought the church close to a tragic division. It was only after they took up the whole issue with their fellow apostles - in an act of unity and trust - that it was resolved peacefully (Acts 15:1-31).<br /><br />Just like Peter and Paul, we too can find the way to unity in our churches and in our homes. All it takes is a humble determination to uphold each other as we work together to honor the truths of the Lord. He can make us one!"<br /><br />Credit: "The Word Among Us," October 2010, p. 30.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00993772919911115296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-68525261286459372010-10-06T08:49:56.634-05:002010-10-06T08:49:56.634-05:00Scott,
Charity and love do not preclude clear wor...Scott,<br /><br />Charity and love do not preclude clear words - just ask Jesus.<br /><br />It DOES sell books - West has sold millions since he started styling himself and his readers as mystically pure and his critics as depraved Manichean heretics.<br /><br />He's been using this language for years.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-34053922513397600652010-10-06T08:19:55.332-05:002010-10-06T08:19:55.332-05:00This is all very ugly, dude. I wonder what the Apo...This is all very ugly, dude. I wonder what the Apostle Peter would think about all of this "scholarly" mudslinging? Whatever happened to charity and love? I thought that was what Christianity was all about? I guess I'm just a naive and misguided Westian. This hatefulness must sell books.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00993772919911115296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-43720299777288315472010-10-01T15:35:30.225-05:002010-10-01T15:35:30.225-05:00Mr. Haley,
In the comments thread that follows th...Mr. Haley,<br /><br />In the comments thread that follows the article, someone tried pointing this out to her. She circled the wagons around the original argument.<br /><br />The poster also mentioned Pre-Vatican II moral theology manuals that WERE translated completely into the vernacular, and discussed sexual issues, and they were quite explicit. On that, there was silence.<br /><br />I'd recomend clicking the link she gives for Fr. Slater's moral theology manual. One doesn't have to be a Latin student to understand what the chapter headings mean. To be fully honest, I honestly wish they would repress that stuff,, honestly had no clue they talk about that kind of stuff in moral theology manuals lol. Gives me a newfound respect for priests in the confessional. If they hear one confession related to the kind of things covered there, they've already got more stomach in those 10 minutes than most people will have in a lifetime.Kevin Tierneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09772355448244959559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-58311391993362779752010-10-01T14:41:07.222-05:002010-10-01T14:41:07.222-05:00Bill,
To address your other point, we should noti...Bill,<br /><br />To address your other point, we should notice that what constitutes "manners" changes from age to age, within certain boundaries. <br /><br />So, Jesus called people names, Paul called people names, Jerome and Augustine called people names, etc., etc., etc. The idea that we shouldn't call people names is peculiar to our age. <br /><br />There is no firm evidence that it is helpful to the proclamation of the Gospel to always refrain from doing this. That is to say, there is no firm evidence that current cultural mores are charitable.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-26854542439099507362010-10-01T14:29:53.643-05:002010-10-01T14:29:53.643-05:00Bill,
To be perfectly honest, I was so taken abac...Bill,<br /><br />To be perfectly honest, I was so taken aback by a classics scholar who claims to be a theologian denigrating her own Catholic Church using Latin that I simply pointed out that incongruity.<br /><br />When you asked your question, you forced me to articulate the basis for my shock in a way that the writing of the essay did not. <br /><br />I composed my analysis of Dr. Smith's essay literally as I read it, and did not stress the Latin remark as it did not figure prominently in her diatribe.<br /><br />However, your question forced me to contemplate more deeply the utter madness of her position, if she really did take that position innocently.<br /><br />If it were innocent, yet she still made it, that remark alone demonstrates the total depravity to which Westianism has brought her thinking. <br /><br />Simply meditating on the extent of that error is breath-taking in its implications of how warped her thought has become.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-22666492642906796062010-10-01T13:25:40.615-05:002010-10-01T13:25:40.615-05:00And, just to pile on, which is superior?
To read ...And, just to pile on, which is superior?<br /><br />To read a passage in translation or to read a passage in the original language?<br /><br />The original is superior - it contains nuances of meaning that no translation, no matter how good, can carry.<br /><br />When discussing sex and sexual sin, it is extremely important that nuance not be lost. <br /><br />Thus, the insistence on retaining the Latin phrasing for an extremely delicate and nuanced subject is an insistence on rigorous accuracy on the part of the both the author and the reader. <br /><br />Far from repressing the meaning, to leave a passage in the original Latin <b>accentuates</b> the meaning and adds to the emphasis that it is extremely important to fully understand this section. <br /><br />Sections which are not as critically reliant on nuance and exact meaning might allow translation into a foreign language, but these sections were so crucial that they did not permit that luxury.<br /><br />Again, anyone trained in a foreign language (or several, as is the case with Dr. Smith) knows this. <br /><br />So, Dr. Janet Smith is either substantially incompetent in her own field (classical languages) or she is substantially a liar.<br /><br />In perfect justice and perfect charity, I don't see how you avoid the horns of that dilemma. <br /><br />If you can point a way out, I would be most grateful.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-62674112708835712852010-10-01T13:17:53.626-05:002010-10-01T13:17:53.626-05:00Drogo,
Let us assume English is the national lang...Drogo,<br /><br />Let us assume English is the national language of the US (I do not say it should be, I merely use this for example). If you are a native speaker of German, and I reply to you in an American magazine in a mix German and English, is the presence of the English passages a sign that I want to repress the truth of those passages from most Germans?<br /><br />I don't see how that would be true. As an American, it is natural to reply in English.<br /><br />The official language of the Church is Latin. Even during the Second Vatican Council, some bishops made their entire address to the council in Latin. Were they trying to repress the truth contained within their addresses from their fellow bishops? <br /><br />If you read books, fiction or non-fiction, written prior to World War II, you will frequently find passages written in Latin, Greek, and French without translation. Were those authors trying to hide the truth from their readers? <br /><br />No - they were assuming their readers were well-educated enough to read the original Greek, Latin, or French on their own. their assumption was not unfounded. You were not considered educated at the turn of the century unless you could read those languages. <br /><br />To say that a pre-Vatican II manual retains some Latin is to say that it retains some connection to the ancient traditions of the Church and that it assumed a moderately well-educated reader. <br /><br />Dr. Smith commits the sin of anachronism to make the conclusion she does. Rather than being uncharitable, I am being far too kind to her. <br /><br />As a classical languages scholar, she certainly knows the history of her own discipline. She already know all this - but she deliberately mis-represented the pre-Vatican II educational reality in order to make a spurious point to a readership that she knows to be uneducated.<br /><br />In short, to be perfectly honest, she lied. <br /><br />Finally, truth is the only real charity. Anyone who discusses God and man's relation to God is doing theology. <br /><br />The internet is changing the parameters for what constitutes acceptable debate.<br /><br />It doesn't matter if you or I like that, the fact is, the way debates are going to be carried out are going to be different. <br /><br />You may find the new modes of expression uncharitable, as the well-heeled 2% of the population who graduated college at the turn of the last century found the influx of GI's into their post-WW II institutions rude, gauche and lacking in polish. <br /><br />Quite frankly, the old standards for what constitutes "productive" debate are no longer operative. Productive debate now has a much brasher way of being done. <br /><br />I find it appropriate that this new phase of the debate began on the feast of St. Jerome, the saint who most fully lived out the jeremiad.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-3460555470591891022010-10-01T12:42:12.126-05:002010-10-01T12:42:12.126-05:00I think he was more pointing out that, just like o...I think he was more pointing out that, just like other places, a PhD is no longer sacrosanct. Dr. Smith had to have known, no matter the intent, the PhD would lend credence to the cause, and she launched something she now wants to take back, making countless "uncharitable remarks" (her words.)<br /><br />As far as repression, take a look at what Fr. Slater is actually discussing, and then outside of that, he discusses "immodest touches" meant to stimulate "veneral pleasure." That part is in English.<br /><br />Doesn't sound very repressive to me!<br /><br />Besides, she omitted the fact that Fr. Slater wrote this work specifically for priests, not laymen, when Latin was well known by all priests. (He mentions this in the preface.)<br /><br />Dr. Smith did "ready, fire, aim" on this one.Kevin Tierneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09772355448244959559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-3899802850220027622010-10-01T12:23:31.000-05:002010-10-01T12:23:31.000-05:00I think there is a misunderstanding on one point:
...I think there is a misunderstanding on one point:<br /><br />JPII said the body "makes visible that which is invisble." Yet he never said it does so perfectly. Sometimes the body doesn't accurately depict the soul, but it always depicts certain meanings, aspects, etc.<br /><br />Viewed in this prism, OF COURSE the soul is superior to the body.<br /><br />Defenders of Mr. West love to emphasize the "body" of that quote, but never the higher manifestation it represents, albeit in an imperfect way.Kevin Tierneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09772355448244959559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-63446537374231482362010-10-01T11:11:43.790-05:002010-10-01T11:11:43.790-05:00Alright, Christina, here's a thought experimen...Alright, Christina, here's a thought experiment.<br /><br />You go engage with God JUST through your body, without your soul's participation at all.<br /><br />You know, go engage with God like a corpse would.<br /><br />Now, try that engagement again with JUST your soul, as a saint in purgatory or heaven would.<br /><br />Now, which worked better for you?<br /><br />Do you see why Thomas didn't think the body carried nearly the same importance as the soul? <br /><br />Do you see why St. Francis of Assisi called the body "Brother Ass" but never attached such a sobriquet to the soul?Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-55274502776382504372010-10-01T11:06:41.527-05:002010-10-01T11:06:41.527-05:00Oh for heaven's sake.
The human person is the...Oh for heaven's sake.<br /><br />The human person is the combination of body and soul, the soul being composed of the intellect and will, but simply, in such way that the will can be said to be an appetite of the intellect. <br /><br />Now, as Rome has pointed out, those who are separated from their bodies (as the holy souls in purgatory or the souls in heaven prior to the Last Judgement and the Resurrection of the Body) are still persons, despite their lack of bodies, yet they are incomplete, thus the need for the Resurrection. <br /><br />Yet the locus of the person is where the soul resides (in purgatory, heaven, hell or the body), NOT where the body resides (e.g., in the grave). <br /><br />Thus, the soul is the primary image of God, and the body, being formed by the soul, ineluctably carries the image of God, but as a trace imprinted by the soul upon the form of the body.<br /><br />While it is true that bodily participation in a sacrament is important, the participation of the soul is crucial. A body from which the soul has departed can receive no sacraments nor graces apart from the providential grace of existence, but a soul which is separated from the body CAN still receive saving grace (e.g., the perfection attained in purgatory).<br /><br />Would you spend a year studying the Summa? It would do you a world of good.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-77244277492734580892010-10-01T10:57:04.308-05:002010-10-01T10:57:04.308-05:00By the way, I am talking about imaging God, not sa...By the way, I am talking about imaging God, not saying "like" God. <br /><br />God does not have a body so obviously we could not be "like" him in body. Our intellect and soul would suffice but I thought you were saying that we can not image him or engage with him exept through our intellect and our soul. <br /><br />That is what I objected to. <br /><br />Again, language is so important. I just see so much resistence in you to anything physical. It is like Shakespeare when he said "My thee doth protest to much". What is really going on here? Why does it seem you are hell bent on discarding the value of our bodies in our faith? It also seems as if you think my defense of the body is me some how wanted to over emphasize it. You said yourself, that if anyone criticizes West people go nuts, well when I try and include the body and the sex of the body you seem to go......Christina Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897945149064888568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-42577398255096234422010-10-01T10:50:18.974-05:002010-10-01T10:50:18.974-05:00Are you excluding the body Steve?Are you excluding the body Steve?Christina Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897945149064888568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-37028444345102131762010-10-01T10:42:58.454-05:002010-10-01T10:42:58.454-05:00Christina,
Read the Summa. It's all in there....Christina,<br /><br />Read the Summa. It's all in there. Here's an article which quotes one part that addresses this question directly:<br /><br />http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/07/cult-of-expert.html<br /><br />You say "To say that some how we are more perfect or more like God only through our intellect and our soul and to exclude our bodies is not Catholic church teaching."<br /><br />You are engaging in the Cartesian heresy. We are like God primarily through our souls, our intellect and will.<br /><br />Your TOB training is shining through. You demonstrate in spades why Chris West is viciously dangerous. <br /><br />Thank you for the dialogue. This is precisely the kind of "fruits" that Dr. Smith always waves her hands about, but it contains the details she never bothers to explore.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-82570272951014530122010-10-01T10:25:43.817-05:002010-10-01T10:25:43.817-05:00Sure, okay but it is understanding the person thro...Sure, okay but it is understanding the person through the body and how it is related back to the person. Isn't that why the focus in topic is the body? <br /><br />I was merely stating that there is a lot of emphasis on the body in Theology of the Body. Just as in Love and Responsibility there is a lot of focus on love. I realize that it is love as it relates to the person.Christina Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897945149064888568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-74614847679713175392010-10-01T10:22:55.213-05:002010-10-01T10:22:55.213-05:00I would be careful to say that the primary way we ...I would be careful to say that the primary way we image God is through the intellect and soul and not the body. Where are you getting this quote or information or teaching from? I would want to read that. <br /><br />The sacraments are an outward sign of the inward grace that pours into our soul and it's only means of reception is by a physical interaction with the material. Of course, I would need to think through how then Baptism of desire is made physical but God desires our physical participation or he would not have given us bodies. <br /><br />To say that some how we are more perfect or more like God only through our intellect and our soul and to exclude our bodies is not Catholic church teaching. I must not be understanding you here. Could you please elaborate?Christina Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897945149064888568noreply@blogger.com