Perceptive Man

The Heresy Hunter called me a punk.

He's an incredibly perceptive man.

To clear up one question in his post, however, a little explanation is in order.

Heresy Hunter was mystified as to why Pat Madrid would declare joy at the thought of my being told to "shut up" (Pat's words).

Therein lies a tale....

Anyone who knows Pat's history knows that he was one of the founders of e3mil.com, which is now known as Catholic Exchange. As most of you probably remember, Pat had founded Basilica Press and Envoy Magazine. Well, both were folded into e3mil.com as part of their "cover all channels" communications strategy, and from what I was given to understand, Pat got a large chunk of change for coming aboard early in e3mil's development cycle.

Well, e3mil.com was bankrolled by a Catholic millionaire that Pat, Tom Allen and a few others had hornswoggled (I never got the name, but my royalty checks are still signed by Peter Daou Foundation, so draw your own conclusions). When the dot-com bubble burst, so did e3mil.com.

Pat ran for cover, leaving e3mil and taking Envoy Magazine with him along with a golden handshake. He left Basilica Press behind in the ruins of the e3mil fiasco. But before he ran for the hills, he had signed several authors onto Basilica Press. I was one of them.

I had a book called Scriptural Catholicism which I had self-published for at least a year prior to signing with Basilica. It was really the first of its kind (at least, the first in the last 40 years) in amassing enormous numbers of Scripture quotes into one place. It was a one-volume encyclopedia of apologetics and it sold really, really well. As a vendor, I actually once out-sold Tim Staples at one of Staples' own conferences (80 books to his 30 or 40 sales, in an audience of about 300). I had dozens of bookstores buying it - I thought signing with Madrid and Basilica was just going to mushroom sales. After all, hadn't Pat Madrid and Matt Pinto mushroomed the sales of their own respective self-published books?

Now, Pat made all kinds of promises to me when he signed me, including promising me a stint on ETWN. As a naive young Catholic, I foolishly thought that Catholics would honor promises even if they weren't formally written in the contract.

Hah! I found the joke was on me!

Not only did Pat change my book so as to make it unrecognizable to my audience (he even changed the title to the non-descript "Bible Basics"), he never got me that EWTN appearance or any additional sales. In fact, quite the reverse. Thanks to Pat's expertise, my book sales crashed by 90%. They never recovered.

By absolutely sheerest coincidence though, Pat came out with a competing product, "Where is THAT in the Bible?" just about a year later, right after he left e3mil, in fact.

Now, a few years after that Mel Gibson created his "Passion of the Christ" movie. As you may remember, e3mil.com used Ascension Press to bring out their famous best-seller on the Passion movie, using Mark Shea as an author. In fact, Tom Allen, the head of Catholic Exchange (the resurrected version of e3mil), somehow managed to worm his way into the production and help market the book across the country, to such an extent that his name even appears in the closing credits of the movie.

The movie raised enormous interest in Catholic theology and Catholic handling of Scripture in both Catholics and non-Catholics alike, so the Ascension Press book did VERY well.

And, to their credit, Ascension Press DID put my book in the bibliography of their book on the Passion.
First, in fact.
But, DARN!
By purest bad luck, Basilica Press had taken my book out of production just a month before the Ascension Press "Passion" book released... and Basilica kept it out of production for a full year. Everybody who wanted my book on Catholic handling of Scripture couldn't get it. I had zero sales from being in the bibliography.

But not everyone lost!
Pat Madrid did just fine with his Scripture book (it was published through OSV - he apparently didn't think much of the publishing company he created).

Oh, should I mention that during this time, the people in charge of the distribution of my book at Basilica were the same people in charge of distribution for Ascension Press? Yes, the ubiquitous Lynn Klika and her Catholic Word distribution company worked for Ascension Press, Basilica Press and Ignatius Press! What a coincidence!

And why would Ascension Press screw one of their own products in order to help an OSV product?

Well, Matt Pinto and Pat Madrid both used to work at Catholic Answers for Karl Keating.
Matt Pinto and Pat Madrid are old friends. Very old friends.
(To his credit, Karl Keating spent years refusing to talk to either one after Mutt and Jeff left his employ, for reasons I have never discovered. But I can make a couple of guesses).

Anyway, as a result, Pat Madrid made a TON of money, Catholic Exchange made a TON of money, and I .... oh, well, I wasn't part of the "in" crowd, was I, Pat?

That's why, as Pat points out, even though I once spent a night at his house, he never got to know me too well. Farmers don't spend a whole lot of cozy time with the chickens, pigs or sheep they raise.

So, of course, Pat needs to find me "acrimonious."
It undoubtedly helps him when he thinks about the past, assuming he thinks about the past.

And, of course, with this column, he's helping out his old friend, Matt Pinto and Ascension Press. After all, Matt's business was slowly sinking into the dirt until he signed Christopher West. Without West, Ascension Press would almost certainly have followed Sophia Institute Press and Tan Books into the Chapter 11 "find me a sugar daddy!" phase of Catholic publishing - the interminable senescence before death (the same death Ignatius Press was contemplating before hitting the unexpected pay dirt of having Fessio's friend, Cardinal Ratzinger, elected Pope).

So to be fair, I'm quite certain Pat didn't write that post just to be vicious to me. Knowing Patrick Madrid, he's not only helping Matt, he's probably somewhere got a financial deal cooking in the background, and he needs to show his bona fides to whoever is on the other end of the contract. For my money, Pat's essay is meant to assure someone that Pat is "on the side of the angels," as his friend, Mark Shea, would say.

So, you have your pick of reasons for why Pat Madrid suddenly jumped into the fray "from left field." It could be any one of them. It could be all of them. Or maybe he actually believes what he writes. Who knows?

Ask Pat! I'm sure he will tell you what you want to hear.

And, Pat, if you're reading this, I'm glad to hear you found another sugar daddy for Envoy!

Sorry I didn't respond to your essay earlier, but I didn't know anyone considered you relevant anymore.

FOOTNOTE:
To be scrupulously fair to Pat, Ignatius Press had also caught wind of my book at the same time Pat did, and they were also trolling to sign me. I chose Basilica over Ignatius primarily based on the promised royalties. Given what I know of IP, I doubt my treatment would have been any better if I'd signed with them.

Shocked to Find Gambling Here

The police were famously shocked to find gambling at Rick's.

And I'm shocked to discover that Catholic Exchange is vociferously defending Chris West.

But, let's take apart a few of the sillier comments made by the CE representative, Heidi Saxton:

Differences in Approach or Content?
1) She states that the differences between West and von Hildebrand amount to different blind men around an elephant, that is, it is merely a difference of approach, not content. You may remember that Mark Shea launched this trial ballon on Inside Catholic within the last 48 hours. It seems the Westians are trying to establish a solid meme in multiple channels before The Chris returns from his sabbatical.

Is it true?
Well, shockingly enough, my conclusion is "NO!" (Betcha' didn't see THAT coming, eh?)

This cannot be a problem of the blind man and the elephant because there can be no conflict between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, as John Paul II pointed out in Catechesi Tradendae #22.

It is useless to play off orthopraxis against orthodoxy... Nor is any opposition to be set up between a catechesis taking life as its point of departure and a traditional doctrinal and systematic catechesis...This revelation is not however isolated from life or artificially juxtaposed to it. It is concerned with the ultimate meaning of life and it illumines the whole of life with the light of the Gospel, to inspire it or to question it.

This is a question of doctrine - how it is presented without distortion. West, supposedly a great student of John Paul II, seems wholly unacquainted with papal writings outside of a very narrow scope.

So, West's position is that this is a problem of approach.
The von Hildebrand position is that this is a problem of content.
The two positions are not mutually reconcilable.

It's similar to the difference between a clinician telling a general practice physician, "Your treatment is wrong because I wouldn't have prescribed that drug for pneumonia"
versus
the clinician saying "Your treatment is wrong because the patient has a broken back, not pneumonia."
The first is a difference in approach.
The second is a difference concerning the facts.

Given that Saxton acknowledges, and West's own editor admits in a linked article, that some of West's positions are wrong, von Hildebrand's concerns are demonstrable and essentially admitted by all sides.

On the other hand, apart from repeated bald assertion by West supporters, there is no evidence West's contention is true. However, we must all remember the most important aspect to this part of the discussion: Joseph Goebbels' point that if you repeat a lie often enough, it is believed.

Does The End Justify The Means?
2) To say that many good people have come to Christ through TOB is really not relevant to the discussion. Catholics are not just concerned about ends - we also care about means.

To take a physical example, Christ has brought many people into existence through artificial insemination and rape, but this fact does not mean either artificial insemination or rape are therefore reasonable ways to give the gift of life.

To judge ONLY by the fruits is to implicitly accept the idea that the ends justifies the means. The continued harping on the fruits of West's work, with scant attention paid to his means, is itself a violation of how Catholics look at things.

How Thin is West's Skin?
3) Why would people take it personally when West feels himself treated in a trivial way? The very statement that this happens shows that the people who do this are not identifying with Christ so much as they are identifying with Chris - Christ without the "t", that is, Christ without His Cross, which is essentially what Chris preaches.

The inability to separate "doctrine" from delivery from deliverer is the definition of a personality cult. Indeed, Saxton herself virtually admits this. She points out that everyone agrees both of the von Hildebrands have done marvelous work in explaining the teachings of the Church, yet no one cares much if either one is somewhat marginalized. That is, Saxton admits that the personality cult does not exist for either of the von Hildebrands.

The very fact that this personality cult exists for West, that all sides agree it exists, and that it seems to have been encouraged at every step, is a serious mark against those who defend and those who follow West.

Catholic Exchange Distorts Catholic Doctrine?
4) Saxton implies that the Church has, at some point, taught that sex is 'dirty.' She needs to substantiate that implication or retract it.

To say that people have this understanding of the Church is to simply state that they believe a falsehood. It is the case that Chris West has done nothing to dissuade people that the Church at one time taught this. In fact, in the seminars I've attended and the recordings I've heard of him, he has actively encouraged that understanding. But let us scale back the assertion to accommodate critics and just say he has done little to correct it.

The fact that he has done little to correct the misunderstanding is a standing indictment of West. He is playing roughshod with the truth in order to "identify" with his audience. Again, NO catechist is permitted to adulterate the truth in this way - it is a violation of John Paul II's teachings in Catechesi Tradendae, #30-31:

Thus, no true catechist can lawfully, on his own initiative, make a selection of what he considers important in the deposit of faith as opposed to what he considers unimportant, so as to teach the one and reject the other... It can also happen that a particular sort of language proves preferable for transmitting this content to a particular individual or group. The choice made will be a valid one to the extent that, far from being dictated by more or less subjective theories or prejudices stamped with a certain ideology, it is inspired by the humble concern to stay closer to a content that must remain intact. The method and language used must truly be means for communicating the whole and not just a part of "the words of eternal life"(80) and the "ways of life."(81)

Questions concerning the appropriateness of West's language are thus very apropos. As can be seen from the above quote, the Holy Father himself was concerned that the catechist's language must communicate the whole truth, that it must not be driven by "subjective theories."

But West's only defense for his language is the purely subjective theory that he needs to use such language in order to reach people. He has provided no evidence to show that this is true, neither empirical nor formal.

Conclusion
Given the following facts:

• Pauline Books and Media blog TOB offensive (four articles in 48 hours),
• Mark Shea's recent "coming out" article with Inside Catholic on TOB (and remember, he constantly professes to know nothing about TOB), and
• this Catholic Exchange series on TOB,
  
• All of these happening in the same week
  

we seem to be witnessing a coordinated effort by multiple spinners attempting to prepare the ground for West's return.

Look for more spin in more venues - the next likely places are the Ignatius Press blog and probably something from Catholic Marketing Network to the Catholic bookstore community. Also, something from Maximus (a spinoff of Catholic Exchange) is probably in the works.
If they can figure out how to twist EWTN into this, they'll be on a roll.

Watch for the following points to be repeated ad nauseam:

• the West controversy is just one of approach, not content,
• the argument is not very important,
• West is being personally attacked and can't defend himself because he's "on sabbatical",
• West detractors are mean

Shea Shoots - Does He Score?

Mark Shea attempts to be the voice of sweetness and light in the TOB debate, and he gets a few things right, although these tend to be overshadowed by some major errors. However, in the spirit of fraternity, I'm happy to embrace what he did get right.

In order to do that, let's pull out the weeds of error first. He begins by saying of TOB that it is "about a fascinating and potentially useful constellation of ideas that do not form part of the essential teaching of the Faith."

What is Magisterial?
Well, the Magisterial weight of the TOB is an interesting question.

Take for example, the lives of the saints or the homilies of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. These things are considered Magisterium in the sense that what is contained in them has been confirmed by the Church as a correct representation of what She believes. Thus, we can use the fact that many saints threw themselves into thorn bushes to avoid physical temptation, or whipped themselves in expiation for their own and others' sins, as an example of what a proper understanding of the body can properly lead to.

But, while the ordinary Magisterium is infallible, it's theoretically possible for homilies, Wednesday audiences and the like to be erroneous as well. Even saints committed sins. As one wag noted, it is perfectly possible to go to hell by imitating the imperfections of the saints.

So, how can we tell what is part of the infallible Magisterium and what isn't? We have to wait for the judgement of the Church. Wait and see what She endorses. If She passes over a teaching or practice in silence, with no further references made, no holding up of this teaching or practice as spot on correct, then it is not part of the infallible Magisterium. It's just something that an otherwise good and holy person did or said that we, in charity, pass over in silence.

So, in THAT sense, the sense that we don't have a good handle on what is wheat and chaff in the TOB presentations, you could make the argument that the TOB audiences aren't Magisterial. After all, there is a lot of convoluted verbiage in there, and the Church has been utterly silent on the whole sequence for the last thirty years. That silence doesn't bode well.

And, as has been pointed out, there are aspects of the TOB which are quite problematic. For instance, the TOB audiences separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex in their discussion of sex. This is an enormous difficulty precisely because, while these two aspects can be distinguished, they can never be separated. Yet, by their silence, the TOB audiences seem to do just that. Making this separation was a prudential judgement on John Paul II's part, but it could easily be considered an erroneous prudential judgement.

So, in that sense, while the audiences may not contain error themselves, the failure to portray sexuality properly might be considered erroneous and therefore make the whole of the TOB audiences non-Magisterial.

And this problem of a foolish silence is not unheard of in the history of the Church. Pope Honorius had this problem - he silenced both sides in the Monophysite controversy. This was a prudential judgement that was ultimately deemed not only foolish, but heretical by the Church, and the liturgy of the Church (which most definitely always IS Magisterial) actually named him a heretic for several centuries because he imposed silence on everyone when he should have spoken.

So, I'm fine with saying TOB is not clearly Magisterial, because we don't have a clear line between the wheat and the chaff.

However, I'm not fine with saying the "constellation of ideas" within it are NOT Magisterial, because that's obviously false.

The TOB attempts to teach on human sexuality.
The Church's teaching on human sexuality IS Magisterial.
So insofar as the TOB audiences properly represent Catholic teaching, those TOB audiences are Magisterial. And if the constellation of ideas within TOB - all of them clearly related to human sexuality - are not Magisterial, then what are these musings on human sexuality? Non-Catholic? Pagan? What? Was John Paul II doing his best imitation of Dr. Ruth? Which ideas within that "constellation" would Mark like to label as not Magisterial?

Now, I don't necessarily disagree that some of the ideas within the TOB audiences are not Magisterial (as I've said before - and Mark seems to agree - I think there's a lot less in TOB than meets the eye), but I'd like to know what ideas Mark has in mind so I can judge whether I'm going to agree or disagree with him.

Is TOB Unimportant, As Shea Says?
The whole judgement is made even more peculiar by the fact that Mark, by his own profession, says he really doesn't know very much about what is in the TOB audiences, so how can he know which ideas are Magisterial? Given his own professed ignorance, how can he write half this essay?

Sigh...

In any case, you can't, as Mark did, just dismiss the whole TOB thing is a sideshow, which seems to be Mark's first intent: "This is not an important argument!" Although it is becoming more and more convenient to West supporters to make this argument, it is simply disingenuous to say this or imply this.

Either TOB is important, in which case its worth the trouble it has caused, or it's not, in which case Ascension Press and Pauline Books and Media need to quit hyping it to the detriment of important things, and Chris West needs to quit pounding sand down this hole and go off to do something useful with his life elsewhere. At this point, the major reason I think it is important is due to the number of theological errors which can now be attributed to its proponents. Give it another twenty years on this trajectory and the Westian version will become a major heresy of the Church.

Is West A Pioneer?
Mark's second error is calling West a pioneer.

If the sexual teachings of the Church are Magisterial - and they are - then insofar as West is teaching what the Church teaches about human sexuality, West is not a pioneer.
Neither is John Paul II, for that matter, and Weigel would then simply be wrong.

John Paul II cannot have said anything in the TOB audiences that alter the Magisterium, he can only have said things that (a) elucidate it (b) don't elucidate it but don't happen to be erroneous or (c) are simply wrong.

Given the enormous arguments over what constitutes correct TOB teaching, it's fairly clear that (a) didn't happen. Now the question is, was it (b) or (c)?

It's fairly trivial to demonstrate that West's interpretation of JP II is (c).

But, as Mark correctly points out, there is some disagreement as to whether West accurately portrays JP II, so whether JP II himself is in the (c) category remains to be seen.

Is TOB New?
Mark makes yet a third egregious error, though this one is somewhat understandable. He says the theological discussion of sex is "a new region of thought opened up for us by the late Holy Father."

Yes.
Well.

Let us just say that it is not the case.

John Paul II was not the man who invented the idea that there should be a theological discussion of human sexuality, nor did he invent the discussion, nor is it even obvious that he invented any of the ideas in the current discussion.

While Mark's position plays right into the Dan Brown "hermeneutic of discontinuity" that West and company have been pushing from the beginning, and while the attempt to make this assertion is a GREAT Ascension Press talking point, that whole meme is simply false. If the Church has never had this discussion before, then we shouldn't be having it either, because it isn't Catholic.

If it's new, it ain't true.
And if it's true, it ain't new.

Like any good parent, the Church has a habit of repeating herself.
How often do you tell a child to clean up his room?
Once in his lifetime?
Or once every five minutes?

One of the reasons it is easy to master two thousand years of Church teaching is precisely because the Church has a tendency to keep repeating the same teaching to every generation. And every generation, when it finally stops ignoring the Church and actually hears the teaching, responds, "Dude! Why didn't you ever teach this before!?"

So, we can oftentimes completely skip reading the pronouncements of a particular pope on a particular subject because all of his predecessors and most of his successors said exactly the same thing. Apart from a few cultural nuances peculiar to a specific situation, it is often the case that if you've read one pope, you've read them all.

Is This A Quarrel About Fact Or Approach?
Given that historical perspective, it is a little unsettling to hear Mark express another sentiment. It's an idea which sounds nice on the first encounter, but the more you think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes: "All they are quarreling about is how to be faithful, not whether to be faithful."

Well, yes, but that rather begs the question, doesn't it?

Arius thought he was being faithful. He was the one who got the Emperor to call the Council of Nicaea - he thought he would be vindicated.
All Nestorius wanted was to be faithful. He was fighting Arian heresies, wasn't he?
The Monophysite heretics invented Monophysitism because they just wanted the arguments about Christ's nature to stop, they just wanted to be quietly faithful.
To the end of his life, Martin Luther was trying very hard to be faithful. He was certain the institutional Church would eventually see that he WAS, in fact, being faithful.

Unfortunately for all concerned, what is intended is only part of the moral calculus.

In addition to my graduate degrees in theology and history, I trained as an undergraduate in computer science. Math, and it's stepchild, computer programming, is peculiar in one respect: it cares not a whit for what you are trying to do. It only cares about what you actually did.

And the standard for judgement is quite severe - you're either right or you're dead.
Sometimes literally.

Not too long ago, in the first Iraq war, twenty-eight soldiers were killed because the millions of lines of code that control the Patriot anti-missile system contained exactly one line that had an error: it failed to round a number correctly.

Everything else was right. The programmers, the quality assurance team, the manufacturer, the people who deployed it and operated it, all of them did their work with the best of intentions, and they mostly did it exceedingly well.

Hitting a bullet with a bullet is easier than doing what the Patriot missile system does routinely every time it goes operational. The creators of that system did marvelous work creating a nearly foolproof system of mind-boggling complexity.

Unfortunately, there was that one niggling little error.
And, as a consequence of that one niggling little error, a rounding error, just about the simplest piece of math one can logically perform in mathematics, an incoming missile was ignored by the software.

That SCUD missile made it through the defenses.
It wiped out an Army barracks.

Twenty-eight soldiers died and more than 100 were injured because somebody's fine intentions were not sufficient. The programmer made a mistake, quality assurance didn't catch it. People died. The fact that everybody meant well was comfort as cold as the corpses in the graves.

Now, undoubtedly, at the Final Judgement, God takes our intentions into account. He knows the programmer didn't intend that error - quite the opposite. Certainly the people killed by that programmer, the people whose deaths were abetted by the software quality assurance people, all those people undoubtedly forgive the programmer and the SQA team. Unfortunately, despite all the sorrow and all the forgiveness, those soldiers are all still dead, which was not part of God's plan.

So, while the programmer will almost certainly not have this error held against him because it was not a sin - an intentional evil - we cannot avoid the fact that he DID commit an evil. An unintentional evil, but an evil nonetheless. And as a result, twenty-eight people are dead, twenty-eight families wept at their graves, twenty-eight groups of people have holes in their lives where their loved ones should be.

All of us are in this world to mitigate evil. If we see someone making a mistake, we are meant to correct that mistake and mitigate the evil.

What Is Charity?
Now, we are meant to do that with charity. Unfortunately for us all, what constitutes charity is often a prudential judgement. We cannot forget that the God Who Is Love, the God Who forgave the penitent adulteress, is the same God Who also raged at the impenitent teachers of the Law, the men who refused to alter their teachings when they were clearly in the wrong.

Was God being uncharitable to call these people "fools!", "blind guides" and "dens of vipers" who "make your disciples twice the sons of hell that you are!"?

I think it would be rash to say such a thing.

Are we not meant to imitate Christ's lived example?
Why, yes, yes we are.

Showing anger at an impenitent teacher is not obviously a violation of charity. Indeed, quite a strong argument can be made that failure to show such anger is much more obviously a violation of charity and a failure to follow the example of Christ.

How Now Shall We Live?
I agree with Mark, however, that a Catholic is much better off reading the Fathers and Doctors of the Church than spending much time studying TOB. John Paul II is famously wordy and convoluted. Precisely because the Church HAS taught clearly on human sexuality for two millennia, it is not particularly likely that John Paul II's teachings on the subject - which, as Mark points out, were never referred to again by anyone - are particularly necessary to the discussion.

Ultimately, the whole point of Mark's essay seems to be "I don't know anything about TOB except that it doesn't matter, which is why we should be happy a lot of other people are teaching it now, so that we don't have to rely completely on Chris West to learn more about this unimportant teaching. Chris is opposed by people obsessed with trivialities, people who are not being like Christ, because Jesus never argued with anyone or called anyone names or ever got angry. He was a big teddy bear, and people just wanted to hug Him and they also want to hug West because West is a pioneer in this unimportant non-Magisterial area of human sexuality. He is a pioneer who teaches doctrines as old as the very dirt in the hills, which is why we can't find many of his teachings anywhere in the Magisterium, but don't worry because his heart is in the right place, and darn it, people like him."

Which, when you think about it, is a darned compelling position.

Sex, Lies and Pauline Books and Media

When it comes to the Theology of the Body, Christopher West is an inspiration.

First Example:
Consider this quote from West's Institute director, Kate Blanchard:

"[A]nyone who has written on the theology was invited [to the TOB congress], including critics such as von Hildebrand. No restrictions were put on what they could discuss.”

Update: NCR now points out that Kate has retracted, extended and revised her original remarks. The article now reads, "Blanchard said that many speakers were invited: “We recognize that there are many talented speakers on the theology of the body. It would have been impossible to extend invitations to every theology of the body speaker in the world, but we certainly discerned inviting a balanced representation of the thought on John Paul II’s theology of the body, and we believe we achieved that.” "

So now that the TOB Institute has altered reality, some of the commentary below is rendered moot. You see? It isn't just Chris who continually revises his message. His whole Institute does it. It's hard to keep up. My apologies to poor Thomas McDonald, the reporter who accurately recorded and reported Kate's remarks, but who was forced to change history to conform with the spinners at TOB Institute. It is not pleasant to see the man being forced to put up with this crap.

Odd.

I am a well-known detractor of Chris West, and my work on Theology of the Body is listed in Michael Waldstein's bibliography, yet I didn't get an invitation to the Congress. I know of other experts who have written extensively on West and who were also not invited.

Kate Blanchard seems to be telling little fibs.


If the TOB Institute did invite critics, they seemed only to have invited critics they KNEW would not show up.

I would have come!
So sad that Westians have no responses to critiques.

But Chris does have responses - or at least, I'm aware of one way he responds.

You see, Chris West physically assaulted me in the spring of 2005 when I privately questioned some of his public assertions after I attended one of his seminars in the Quad Cities in Illinois.

And yes, Chris knows I have witnesses to that physical assault, so I won't be getting sued anytime soon for saying that publicly, will I, Chris? In fact, one of the witnesses to the assault was the man who sponsored you in, wasn't it Chris? And after he saw you assault me, that man swore he would never give you another dime, didn't he, Chris? Of course, he wasn't the only witness - there were three others. But that should be enough to establish bona fides.

[Refinement: in response to a question, yes, this was technically not assault but battery. According to Illinois law "A "battery" is the act of intentionally causing bodily harm to another person or making some other physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with another person." As one witness told me immediately afterward, "The way he treated you is the way I treat my dog."]

If you ever wondered why I don't accept the idea that Chris West responds well to criticism, that may be one reason.

Second Example:
Now that Dawn Eden has documented a slew of Westian errors in her MA thesis, Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve of Pauline Books and Media has begun to slime Dawn Eden the same way that West's supporters have slimed me over the years.

Tools and techniques include ad hominem attack, straw man, poisoning the well, faint praise, etc., although ad hominem is the favorite. Consider what they said about Schindler, then look at what they said about me, now consider what Dawn Eden has begun to be called.

Sigh.

When I pointed out in the comments on her blog that our favorite Pauline Sister could answer some questions herself, she blackballed my IP address.

So, I got an IP anonymizer and posted more questions.
She removed all my questions and called my comments "vituperative" (perhaps she should look that word up?), citing that model of conversational decorum, Mark Shea, as her justification.

So, in the interests of fairness, I will post here the questions that Pauline Books and Media find so terribly "vituperative" on their own blog. Let the reader judge for himself:

Sister,

You seem to have left a lot of questions unanswered yourself:

How can you say people are getting West's material "second or third hand" when Dawn Eden's work is based almost entirely on his written work?

Did West have a ghost-writer?

If, as you and Fr. Hogan aver, nobody really knew what JP II was talking about when he gave the talks, what evidence is there that West knows what JP II was talking about now?

In fact, isn't the argument that West is constantly changing his delivery EVIDENCE that he doesn't really know what JP II was talking about?

If the Gospel of Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, why does West's Gospel change so much?

To put it another way, if Mr. West understands TOB so deeply, why is his message constantly changing?

If "no one knew what JP II was talking about" 30 years ago, who tapped us with a "knowledge wand" that makes us understand it so much better today (most TOB promoters are not known as saints or brilliant minds)?

Why is it that West supporters say we cannot rely on West's writings alone, that is, we all must first attend his VERY pricey seminars, yet West supporters attack those of us who critique West without thinking they need to attend OUR seminars?

Are we more consistent than West? Or simply more clear?

Why is critiquing West "divisive" [and now "vituperative"] while attacking those who do the critiques [such as myself] apparently acceptable and "unitive"?

Why is it "ad hominem" to point out Westian theological errors but perfectly acceptable to cast aspersions on the motives of Westian critiquers?

How is West's TOB movement different from the MoG cult that West grew up in?

Why do West supporters think West's self-described "rape" by the MoG cult is irrelevant to the way he approaches discussion of sex?

Why did West's Institute director claim all TOB authors had been invited to the conference when that was manifestly not the case?

Pauline Books is a big supporter of West.

Could you tell us, in round numbers, exactly how many millions of dollars St. Paul's Books and Media has made off the TOB franchise?

Could you break down those numbers so that we can see
a) how many millions you made off the original translation and

b) how many millions you made by selling the same book twice, i.e., having Michael Waldstein "translate" the audiences again from the Polish, even though Waldstein himself admits that he cannot read, speak or write Polish?

c) Could you tell us how Waldstein manages to translate into English from a language he doesn't himself know? It's a neat trick, obviously very profitable, and I'd love to learn it myself.

And, Sister, if you want to "open wide the doors to Christ," why did your website stop accepting requests to comment from my ip address, so that I had to resort to an IP anonymizer to post this note?

Looking forward to some answers!

What's that?
Oh, I'm sorry, Sister.
I'm afraid you can't delete this post.
So sad.

And I get a lot more web hits than you do.

You really should have allowed the discussion to take place in the comments section of your blog, where at least the reading audience is smaller.

Now that you've called me "vituperative" without justification, is this a good place to mention that Pauline Books and Media blackballed my company several years ago, after it found out that I had a rival product to West's first TOB book (a new book - Sex and the Sacred City, endorsed by Peter Kreeft)?

Not only did Pauline Books and Media refuse to carry ANY of the products my company produced (indeed, one Pauline store was forced to send back an order of Bridegroom Press calendars!), they actually spread a nasty, unsigned samizdat critique of my TOB book to anyone who dared to walk up to a Pauline book counter to inquire about ordering it.

Tell me, Sister, did I ever mention that a friend of mine sent a copy of that slimy critique to me back when you were handing it out under the counter?

That, my friends, is how Catholic retailers deal with one another in the real world.

Needless to say, I was kind of shocked to find out.
I foolishly thought we were all in this together (a la Mark Shea), fighting the good fight, preaching the Gospel, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Yep, under that foolish inspiration, I sent a review copy of my book to Pauline Books and Media so their bookstore chain would carry it, not so that their anonymous reviewer(s?) would trash it, and trash it sotto voce, so that I wasn't even meant to see the response and could not reply to it in any case. What a surprise!

I'm sure Dawn Eden is quite surprised to be the subject of the verbal assaults she is undoubtedly experiencing.

For instance, while you and I now know Pauline Books is publicly trying to destroy her, one can only guess what they are trying to do to her under the counter. Literally.

And nowadays, it won't just be Pauline Books, will it?
After all, nowadays, a whole lot more people are making a whole lot more money off of Chris.
That's why he has so many supporters, don'cha' know?

Will Matt Pinto, of Ascension Press, join in the quiet slime detail?
Or will he go the public route, as he tried to with Dr. Schindler?

How about the inestimable Mark Shea, he of Catholic Exchange fame?

Surely Ignatius Press might join in sliming Dawn Eden?

After all, Ascension Press publishes Chris West and acolytes. What most people don't know is that Ignatius Press uses the same distributor as Ascension Press - Lynn Klika's "Catholic Word" distributing company.

This would not normally be a damning connection, but at one time, not so very long ago, if you dialed Catholic Word's 800 number, they would answer "Ascension Press", wouldn't they, Lynn?

A mistake, surely, since Lynn is, or at least was, the marketing officer and sole distributor for Ignatius Press.

And let's not forget Tom Monaghan's Ave Marie University, which employed Ignatius' founder, Fr. Fessio, as Provost.

Now, Tom has long been advised by Mother of God cultists. Yes, that's the same cult that "raped" Chris West (according to West's own description) and the same cult that infests Sacred Heart Seminary, home of (non) theologian Janet Smith and her advocate, canonist Ed Peters.

Tom, it should be pointed out, is also reputedly the sugar daddy that keeps Joe Pearce's St. Austin Review magazine in business. You might wonder how that magazine stays afloat when so many are tanking - it stays afloat the same way AMU does, by dipping into Tom's pockets.

Now, Joe Pearce is as qualified to be a university prof as Janet Smith is qualified to be a seminary theology prof. Which is to say, neither has any of the degrees normally considered relevant to hold their respective teaching positions. Not even a BA. But Joe and Carl Olson (of Ignatius Press fame) used StAR in a sneak attack on me shortly after Pauline Books and Media began blackballing me.

Why would they do that?

Well, I pointed out theological deficiencies in Ignatius' big money-maker, Olson's Da Vinci Code book. And Fr. Fessio worked at AMU. And I was competition to a Son of MoG, Chris West.

So Pearce (whose wife is, or rather was, a personal friend of mine) lured me into writing an article for him, then secretly gave Olson full access to it so Olson could cream me in the same StAR issue. Pearce published the works together and I found out when the issue hit the stands.

Dirty pool?
No.... that would be paranoia on my part.

It was just... convenient... for Monaghan's MoG cultists, for West's nascent cult, and for Fessio's Ignatius Press!

Not quite seven at one blow, but certainly convenient for ALL involved!
Everyone was a winner!

And I was meant to learn a lesson - don't go after the Big Boys' Big Money Makers.

So, Pauline Books, Ascension Press, Catholic Word, Ignatius Press, Tom Monaghan, Mother of God cult (don't forget Sacred Heart Seminary festering away in there).... all of them picking up dollars and donuts off the biggest money-maker of them all, the West TOB cult.

An incestuous little group isn't it?

And I've only scratched the surface - there are several more big names on the Catholic circuit today, and more behind-the-scenes players who comprise a money-making clique, or rather, THE money-making clique, designed to keep out all competition which has not at least tacitly agreed to follow the company line.

Of course, they also keep mutually quiet about personal faux pas which might destroy the money makers in the group. Money makers like Chris West. And Chris, you've made rather more than one quiet little faux pas, haven't you?

I foolishly failed to prosecute you in Illinois. It would have sunk your career, it would have saved the Church a lot of heresy and embarrassment and it would have allowed John Paul II to rest easy in his grave.

Others have kept foolishly quiet about other career-sinking mistakes you've made.
They're still keeping quiet.
If any were to come forward.... well....

We could name more names in this money clique: Alan Napleton and his scheme to get in good with the bishops by publishing books he enticed them to write, his Catholic Marketing Network, Tom Allen's Catholic Exchange, Patrick Madrid and his endless financial shenanigans... it's an interesting list. But why go there?

The ones already mentioned are more than enough to sink Ms. Eden with the Catholic public, if they really get together on their message and sink their teeth into her. Chris West's cult memes are generating a LOT of money, and no one wants him killed by an upstart.

So, if you find me less than kind towards Chris West, Pauline Books, or, indeed, many of the Catholic lights, it may be due to the fact that I know them better than you do.

I once actually thought these people were Christians with whom I could deal in an adult, Christian manner.

They dissuaded me from holding that position.
In a sense, I guess you can say they evangelized me.

Howell is Back In

In an absolutely shocking development, the UIUC is offering Dr. Ken Howell his job back.

However, the university insists that the Diocese of Peoria is not to pay for the position - Howell's salary will come out of the UIUC faculty coffers from this point forward.

I am amazed.
I did not expect him to be teaching there again, nor did he.

Kudos to the Facebook support group and to all those involved in the negotiations, including Bishop Daniel Jenky and the Alliance Defense Fund, the Protestant legal group that was working with Dr. Howell to reverse UIUC's decision.

I am happy to see that this has come to a positive conclusion.

Now, some might still be upset with me about my earlier comments concerning Bishop Jenky's involvement, given the happy resolution of the case.

I stand by my opinion that the Newman Center's firing of Dr. Howell was far too hasty, and I stand by the opinion that it is highly unlikely Dr. Howell was fired from the Newman Center without the Bishop's knowledge and approval.

You may argue that this was merely a tactic to increase pressure on UIUC, that Bishop's heart was not really in it, and both those statements may well be true.

But, tactic or no, it didn't reflect well on the Bishop or on Newman Center.
The various strategies of the various parties involved have, however, come together so that Dr. Howell again has a position, fleeting as adjunct instruction is.

And that is certainly a good thing.

Captain Hook Goes Fishing

Was Andrew Breitbart set up to look like a racist? The evidence is building that this is EXACTLY what happened. Consider the timeline laid out by Noel Sheppard (Newsbusters) and others: 

1.  Breitbart receives word of the video several months ago, but sits on it because he can't verify the source. 
2.  Nancy Pelosi deliberately walks black Congressmen through a crowd of Tea Partiers trying to get them to say "Nigger." 
3.  As dozens of videos show, no one says the word, but several people, including Congressmen, accuse the Tea Partiers of having used that word anyway. When the video evidence comes forward, along with eye witnesses swearing that the word was never used, the Congressman back off their accusations, but the MSM continues to lay the claim as if it had been substantiated. 
4.  Breitbart, looking for some way to show the hypocrisy, remembers the video and contacts the source for the video. After receiving and viewing it, he decides there is enough there to do a compare-contrast. He throws up the video with no commentary. He does NOT call for anyone's resignation - in typical Breitbart fashion, he lets the video speak for itself. 
5.  The NAACP, which has the full video in its possession, is the first to condemn Sherrod. 
6.  The White House sends a henchman down to make sure she resigns.
7.  Sherrod resigns BEFORE ANYONE calls for her resignation (didn't SHE know what was on the video either?). 
8.  Fox and its commentators begin calling for a resignation, not knowing it has already happened.
9.  Only after Fox and commentators are on public record calling for the resignation, does the NAACP suddenly release the full video and instantly start piling on Fox and Breitbart for having destroyed a "good woman."
10.  Notice - it was literally only a few hours after everyone the liberals wanted dead had made a commitment that the NAACP released the video. They waited until the bait was taken, then they SET THE HOOK. 
11.   Sherrod, this post-racial "good woman" now claims that Breitbart's intent is to bring back slavery: in short, the classic liberal craptrap now has a hook. 

So, a few questions. Now, how is it that the White House that took weeks to get a "beer summit" together and months to actually NEVER get the nation's 20,000 oil skimmers to the Gulf, how is it that this same absolutely inept White House was able to act within HOURS to get Sherrod's resignation on its desk? 

 These people barely know what day it is, they let the Black Panthers walk for violation of voters rights DESPITE video evidence AND a conviction, but Sherrod they want hung? Square that circle for me, someone. 

Why hang Sherrod so swiftly when so many other blacks have been given a free pass? When Justice has been explicitly told never to prosecute a black person? When ACORN was given months of rope to try to unhang themselves after a whole SERIES of previous Breitbart videos? THIS is the White House that nailed Sherrod to the wall within an hour or so of a single five minute video hitting Breitbart's site? It boggles the imagination. 

The only time the White House has moved THIS fast was when it sent Russian spies back home to keep them from testifying to how many Democratic fundraisers and Congressmen they had suborned. Obama only moves fast on an issue when it suits him - not otherwise. And why is it that the NAACP couldn't find the video until AFTER Sherrod resigned? Why did they condemn a black person so quickly, so adamantly?

This is the same NAACP that has NEVER condemned Louis Farrakhan, but they want Sherrod on a rail with tar and feathers? C'MON! Why has no one in the MSM noticed the unusual competencies and failures here? OK, that's the easiest question to answer - they're all incompetent themselves. But, now that Journolist conspiracy has been exposed, along with nearly every prominent reporter in the media, someone needed to nail the conservative media equally hard, to take the Journolist media conspiracy out of the headlines. And they have. 

Sherrod is at least an unwitting victim, and at worst she's in on the scheme. But in any case, this was definitely a scheme and it has definitely worked. Journolist and the oil leak are off the table. Reagan was the Teflon President. Obama is Captain Hook.

The Single Life

I've had many people ask me if single life is considered a vocation.

This is all I've ever been able to find on it.
As you can see, according to the Magisterial documents, single life is NOT a vocation.
In fact, the Magisterial documents don't really talk about single life at all.
It's not even listed as a state in life.

Apparently, adult human life is always meant to be lived in some kind of community under some kind of vow.

Indeed, according to the documents, living without this community life is considered a poverty.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1658 We must also remember the great number of single persons who, because of the particular circumstances in which they have to live - often not of their choosing - are especially close to Jesus' heart and therefore deserve the special affection and active solicitude of the Church, especially of pastors. Many remain without a human family often due to conditions of poverty. Some live their situation in the spirit of the Beatitudes, serving God and neighbor in exemplary fashion. The doors of homes, the "domestic churches," and of the great family which is the Church must be open to all of them. "No one is without a family in this world: the Church is a home and family for everyone, especially those who 'labor and are heavy laden.'"

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION,
CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI
"ON THE VOCATION AND THE MISSION OF THE LAY FAITHFUL IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD"

The Various Vocations in the Lay State
56. ... Along the same line the Second Vatican Council states: "This lay spirituality should take its particular character from the circumstances of one's state in life (married and familylife, celibacy, widowhood), from one's state of health and from one's professional and social activity. All should not cease to develop earnestly the qualities and talents bestowed on them in accord with these conditions of life and should make use of the gifts which they have received from the Holy Spirit"(208)

I know this isn't fun to hear for a lot of people, and I'd be happy to hear that there are some references I've missed which flesh this out better, but this is all I've been able to find.

Cult of the Expert

You can always tell when someone encounters a popular rendition of the Theology of the Body for the first time. It's like watching someone smitten by a movie star, or joining a new and powerful cult movement: they burble about things which are, upon further contemplation, manifestly absurd.

As Scripture says, it tastes sweet in the mouth, but it is sour in the stomach.

The newest burble is occasioned by William May's recent article in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly.

Dr. Jeff Mirus, of CatholicCulture.org, after having read May's analysis, concludes,

In its femininity and masculinity, the human body is an image of the Trinity, which is Itself an eternal relationship of love. Moreover, Christ’s body, taken on and freely given for others, is a further sign of man’s Divine call to love.

Now, God bless Dr. Mirus and William May, but need we recall that May is definitely not orthodox in his understanding of how the hierarchy of good works?

Specifically, Dr. May denies that there IS any hierarchy of goods.

That's a problem.

Instead, he asserts all things are equally good. This, of course, is just the converse of the Protestant position that all sins are equally bad - there is no mortal vs. venial sin.

Clearly, May is not a Thomist.

Which is not surprising, given that St. Thomas SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY condemns as manifestly absurd the idea that the body images the Trinity as anything more than a trace:

Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 93, Article 6

It would seem that the image of God is not only in man's mind.

Objection 2.

Further, it is written (Gen1:27) God created man to His own image, to the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. But the distinction of male and female is in the body. Therefore the image of God is also in the body, and not only in the mind.

I answer that, While in all creatures there is some kind of likeness to God, in the rational creature alone we find a likeness of image as we have explained above; but in other creatures we find a likeness by way of a trace.

Reply to Objection 2.

As Augustine says (De Trinitas, 12:5) some have thought that the image of God was not in man individually, but severally. They held that "the man represents the Person of the Father; those born of man denote the person of the Son; and that the woman is a third person in likeness to the Holy Ghost, since she so proceeded from man as not to be his son or daughter." All of this is manifestly absurd: [Aquinas doesn't mince words here] first, because it would follow that the Holy Ghost is the principle of the Son, as the woman is the principle of the man's offspring; secondly, because one man would be only the image of one Person; thirdly, because in that case Scripture should not have mentioned the image of God in man until after the birth of the offspring. Therefore we must understand that when Scripture had said to the image of God He created him, it added, male and female He created them, not to imply that the image of God came through the distinction of sex, [emphasis added] but that the image of God is common to both sexes, since it is in the mind, wherein there is no distinction of sexes. [How many Theology of the Body promoters have said that the image of God is in the sex?] And so the Apostle (Col 3:10), after saying According to the image of Him that created him, added, Where there is neither male nor female.

Reply to Objection 3.

Although the image of God in man is not to be found in his bodily shape, yet because "the body of man alone among terrestrial animals is not inclined prone to the ground, but is adapted to look upward to heaven, for this reason we may rightly say that it is made to God's image and likeness, rather than the bodies of other animals," as Augustine remarks. But this is not to be understood as though the image of God were in man's body, but in the sense that the very shape of the human body represents the image of God in the soul by way of a trace. [Notice that: insofar as anything in the body images God, it does so by way of a trace]

So, like Christopher West - who, coincidentally, attended the institution at which Dr. William May teaches - we now have the home of Diogenes infected with the anti-Thomist, anti-JP II meme that JP II is somehow out of step with the Angelic Doctor.

And, of course, we do have a choice.

We could stick with the ancient teachings of the Church from time immemorial and the writings of the man whose Summa Theologica was enshrined on the altar at the Council of Trent along with the Sacred Scriptures.

Or we could go with the personal interpretations of a pair of media hucksters (George Weigel and Chris West) and an American theologian (William May) concerning a set of prudentially inept Wednesday audiences which have been referenced by Magisterial documents less than a half-dozen times in the intervening 30 years.

Well, it's obvious what we should choose!

According to these cultists, we're supposed to toss the Summa and doggedly follow their highly idiosyncratic, highly personal (though not very personalist) interpretation of Pope John Paul II's virtually unreadable Wednesday audiences.

And the beauty of those Wednesday audiences is precisely that they are so obscure. For reasons which no one really knows, the newly elevated John Paul II apparently thought it a good idea to throw a bunch of scholarly jargon into his first series of Wednesday audiences. Precisely because JP II was not a particularly lucid writer, especially in his earliest papal works, anyone can read anything they want into those audiences and who will contradict it?

Rather than admit that this was a huge mistake in judgement which has subsequently been hijacked by a group of heterodox Catholics (of which group, Dr. May and Chris West form a nucleus), we are all supposed to think that this was a smart move on John Paul II's part. And, yes, I know Dr. May supported Humane Vitae when few others did. But that doesn't keep him from being theologically loopy, as a quick glance at his position on the hierarchy of goods readily demonstrates.

The cult of the expert has replaced the cult of the saints. Instead of following millennia worth of examples of the lives of the saints, we follow people like Maciel, May, Monaghan and West. They aren't holy, they are in many respects barely Catholic, but because they are excellent at marketing themselves and their cause, they gain adherents. Instead of teaching the Catholic Faith, they hijack it for their own ends: a remunerative religious order here, a profitable real estate deal there, a lucrative book deal in the corner.

Could someone explain to me again how TOB is not a cult, on the order of Maciel's Legion, or the cultic Mother of God community from which Chris West sprang and from which Tom Monaghan took so much advice?


Addendum:
Before nitpickers begin commenting, I should add that I fully realize Thomas was not correct in every particular of what he taught. In that same Summa, for instance, he is famously claimed to have denied the Immaculate Conception.

Of course, anyone who actually takes the time to read what he wrote, discovers this claim is false. He did not deny the Immaculate Conception, he only denied that Mary could have been sanctified before the infusion of her rational soul - a perfectly reasonable theological position. We don't baptize dogs because dogs don't have rational souls. We don't sacramentally anoint chairs or tables because they don't have souls at all.

If Thomas had known the infusion of the rational soul took place at conception - which is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception implies - he would have instantly agreed that the Immaculate Conception was a reasonable teaching:

Article 2: Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?

I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.[emphasis added]

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin.[emphasis added] And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

Update:
Found this gem in article 4 of one of John Paul II's homilies. Notice, the theory espoused here by Saint JP II is precisely what Aquinas called "manifestly absurd". 

Christian families exist to form a communion of persons in love. As such, the Church and the family are, each in its own way, living representations in human history of the eternal loving communion of the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

So, who do you believe? 

A saintly Pope or the greatest Doctor the Church has ever produced?

Philadelphia Freedom

I used to be a rolling stone
You know if the cause was right
I'd leave to find the answer on the road
I used to be a heart beating for someone
But the times have changed
The less I say the more my work gets done.

Elton John's Philadelphia Freedom is the theme song at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Few people know how the arrangement between Dr. Ken Howell, the Catholic Diocese of Peoria and the UIUC actually worked. The Chicago Tribune accurately explains the situation:

Kenneth Howell taught "Introduction to Catholicism" and "Modern Catholic Thought" in university classrooms, but served on the payroll of the St. John's Catholic Newman Center funded by the diocese of Peoria.

The church has maintained control over how Catholic theory was taught, selecting the instructors and paying their salaries. Although the university has amended the agreement over the years to exercise more control, the arrangement has left the Catholic component of the school's otherwise secular religious studies curriculum susceptible to church influence.

Horrors!
We wouldn't want the Catholic Church influencing how a course on Catholic Faith is taught!
That's nearly as bad as allowing a mathematical accrediting society to influence how math is taught, or the APA influencing how psychology is taught!

Those kinds of outside influences are obviously bad, as university professors explained:

Faculty and administrators now will review that policy to determine if it violates the separation of church and state or threatens academic integrity. They hope to conclude their investigation before the fall semester begins.

"I have very strong inclinations that this is where things went wrong in the first place," said Nicholas Burbules, a member of the Faculty Senate's General University Policy Committee, which will review the relationship, along with others. "This line is going to get blurred and was blurred repeatedly over a long period of time."

No doubt. Why, just the other day, some economics professor - accredited through an outside "professional" organization of some kind - was teaching his students that Barack Obama's policies were actually detrimental to the nation! And he was teaching it as FACT, not just one more opinion or position.

This is the problem with outside funding and outside influences. That's why NONE of the research labs at UIUC takes a DIME of funding from ANYONE except the administrators of UIUC.

Such outside funding would create undue influence.
The rules someone must stick to in order to be a member of a "professional" organization might create a breach of academic integrity.

No, it's best to just levy money from the taxpayer, and make sure that same taxpayer doesn't worry his pretty little head about how we academics spend the money that is properly ours, the money that would have been ours from the beginning, if that grubby little taxpayer hadn't laid his grubby little hands on it first.

The nerve. He'll be investigated next, of course, along with the economics prof, but for right now...

Scholars are troubled both by the university's agreement with the church and by what they consider a lack of due process in Howell's dismissal.

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said the circumstances of Howell's employment don't void his right to due process.

"Outside control is very dangerous," said Nelson, an English professor at the University of Illinois. "If the control is not clearly with the university, ordinarily that's something we just wouldn't tolerate."

Exactly. As Marx said, a man cannot serve two masters. At least, I'm pretty sure it was Marx. Whoever it was, he was certainly a faculty member at UIUC that said it, I know that. We don't allow anyone to think thoughts that aren't controlled by the university - that's something we just don't tolerate. The very fact that I attended UIUC and had that thought about two masters shows the thought originated at UIUC. QED.

And you grubby little meddlers all need to shut up, by the way.

I hear you muttering! "But the very term professor comes from the Catholic Church! It means one who professes the Catholic Faith, it was given to teachers at the original universities, the university systems invented by the Catholic Church in Europe, and the title indicated the person had promised to teach only that which was in accord with Catholic Faith."

That's all a pack of papist LIES!
We are university professors who DON'T believe, so belief isn't necessary anymore, hear?
Oh, and it never WAS necessary!
The idea that it was is a LIE.
The Catholic Church influences history instructors and then they teach these LIES.
All the more reason to recognize that:

"The university needs to have complete control over who teaches," Price said. "This agreement should not exist."

Yes. That's why the university completely ignores all outside organizations when it comes to deciding who teaches at a university. No accreditation will sway us, and we don't permit endowed chairs AT ALL. Too much outside control. No self-respecting university would allow that kind of influence on their curriculum.

Indeed, Ayesha Khan, legal director for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said the arrangement is rife for pitfalls.

"You can imagine a person hired by the diocese (but) being put in a public institution having, at a minimum, a conflict of interest," Khan said. "That's an untenable situation and it's not surprising it led to this."

Obviously a reference to both endowed chairs in general and this particular endowed chair.

Burbules said the university committee recognizes the urgency of the situation and will respond quickly.

"I don't need to itemize the ways in which this can go wrong," he said. "We will be reporting fairly quickly on lessons we can learn from this situation — whether we should continue (such teaching arrangements) at all or whether they need to be managed or regulated more closely in the future."

Lay people don't understand how the priesthood of academia works.
Academic freedom is like Philadelphia Freedom.

When I'm a university professor, "The less I say the more my work gets done."

"Shut Up!' They Explained

Professor Kenneth Howell has been fired from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Department of Religion because he dared to teach - in a course dedicated to the exploration and explanation of Catholic theology - that according to Catholic belief, homosexuality is wrong.

Welcome to academic freedom in the 21st century!

It mattered not that Dr. Howell has won several awards for excellence in teaching from that same august institution. He has spoken ill of the dead (morally dead, anyway), and so must be punished!

Now, this by itself would not be particularly big news.
Universities are renowned for their hatred of things Catholic.
What a lot of people don't realize is that, for over 60 years, the UIUC campus has hosted the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Conference. The largest conference of its kind in the world, once every three years evangelical Christians from across the nation gather at UIUC for short summer courses that discussed how best to evangelize the nation and the world to Christianity. The last conference was in 2009. The UIUC happily rented classroom, auditoria and dormitory space to these evangelical Christians with nary so much as a whimper. They did, after all, at least embrace contraception with open arms.

Money has reasons which ethics knows not.
Apparently, however, ethics eventually triumphed because it looks like UIUC has kicked out the IVC, who ultimately had to relocate a short way down the road to St. Louis. If you can dump the income from 16,000 evangelical Christians, then dumping one Catholic professor should be easy. It has the added bonus of potentially scaring all the other Christian faculty into silence.


According to my sources, Dr. Howell, upon being notified of his dismissal, went back to the Newman Center and told the sad tale. In recognition of the terrible narrow-mindedness shown by UIUC, the Newman Center patted the good doctor on the back, commiserated with him for a few moments, then fired him as well.

Why?
Well, because he had been hired to teach UIUC courses, and now that the horse had thrown the rider, there was no need for the rider, you see.

Dr. Howell reportedly pointed out that the classes could still be offered through the Newman Center, if they were accredited through a Catholic college and the credits were then transferred back to UIUC - a reasonable solution, if you were really interested in accurately teaching Catholic theology on campus.

"No, oh NO!" replied the Newman Center, "That would NEVER do!"

The plan was then pitched to the Bishop's office - the good Bishop Jenky and his lay woman chancellor.

"No, oh NO!" replied the bishop's office, "That would NEVER do!"

And so it is, dear readers, that Dr. Kenneth Howell has to rely on the good offices of a Protestant legal defense fund because his own department at the UIUC refused to endorse academic freedom, the Newman Center saw nothing Newman-like in Dr. Howell's presentation, and the bishop's office saw no reason to employ or even to support a Catholic professor who accurately teaches Catholic theology.

Oh, did I mention?

Bishop Jenky is from Notre Dame (founded by the CSC), is himself a CSC (Congregation of the Holy Cross), and is himself a fellow of that fine institution. It may also be of mild interest that he is one of the men who stayed conspicuously silent when Barack came calling for his Ph.D. in law last year.

What a COINCIDENCE!

The Social Gospel: Spread the Wealth

Over at CatholicCulture.org, the general opinion is that that new 18% Boston archdiocesan chancery tax on parishes will cause more parishes to close.

While I don't doubt a few more parishes WILL close as a result of the tax, that isn't where the closures are really going to take place.

Parochial schools suck up to 90% of parish revenue if given the opportunity.
Most dioceses have rules in place that will limit the damage to 50% of parish revenue - the rest has to be made up by tuition and donations.

But regardless of the precise percentage, the largest single ravenous maw in the parish belly is the parish school.

Now, if a parish suddenly sees its chancery tax (the amount of money it pays to the chancery each year to keep the chancery functioning and pay all the salaries for those... employees...) raised, the funds to pay that money has to come from somewhere.

And the biggest hole in the revenue stream is always going to be the parish school.

My apologies to Diogenes, but Boston isn't going to close parishes, or at least, it won't begin by closing parishes.
The last thing any bishop closes is a parish.
No, it will begin by closing down the parochial schools.

Now, this will increase homeschooling, as Catholic parents desperately try to keep their kids out of failing public schools, but most parents aren't interested in homeschooling, and there aren't enough private schools in Boston to absorb the influx.

So, the vast majority of the newly displaced population will end up in the public school system, which will have to increase property taxes in order to make up the shortfall from the increased costs of the new students.

You can see where this is headed.

Ultimately, Boston WASPs will pay for the Catholic sexual abuse scandal.

And thus, the tenets of the social gospel will be fulfilled: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

If anyone wanted to see "social justice" in action, meditate on Boston.

A Growing Economy

Private companies experienced robust growth in the United States over the last ten years, adding over two million jobs to their payrolls. Businesses across the nation pooled their resources and chipped in to provide jobs with excellent pay, marvelous benefits and spectacularly good working hours. None of that minimum wage stuff when it came to THESE two million positions!

Or, in other words:

"Over the 10-year period between March 2000 and March 2010, the private sector lost over three million jobs, while the public sector gained nearly two million jobs"

Dissonance
Business leaders are like everyone else. They tend to act in their own best interests. Keep this in mind when you hear people talk about the incredible economic engine that is the American economy, because the American economy is an incredible economic engine. But, for at least the last century, that economy has been built, at least in part, on the indispensable incompetence of arrogant fools.

We all complain that government employment is nothing but a leech on the economy, useless positions which do nothing for businesses but whose salaries and benefits are paid for by businesses, thus dragging the general economy into the dirt.

It is true. Yet, if this were unequivocally bad, wouldn't it be in the best interests of business to make sure their own employees were well-informed about the virtues of small government? Wouldn't businesses spend millions of dollars to sway the opinions of all employed people towards self-reliance, good personal finance, and similar virtues? Wouldn't business always have done this? And if all employers always did this, how would contrary concepts arise?

Do we wish to argue that the same people who successfully sell millions of people on the virtues of a particular style of jeans or jeeps, who have successfully changed the lifestyles of millions of Americans for over a century, that these same business leaders are incompetent in selling the virtue of virtue? This seems unlikely.

Perhaps there is a reason business does not really like any of the virtues it extols.

The Corporate Dole
Consider what would happen if business were actually to follow the advice they so clamorously insist they would like to follow.

Imagine a business with a successful program of teaching their employees the virtues of self-reliance and good personal financial sense. What would such employees look like?

To begin with, they would not long remain employed. Employees who actually understand their rights and obligations, who actually take on and live adult responsibility, will soon leave the corporate paycheck. They will see flaws in the business plan of the people they work for. They will go off and start their own businesses, become competitors, remove themselves from the corporate dole.

A virtuous people is an entrepreneurial people.
Corporations don't like entrepreneurs.

Business doesn't just tolerate big government, it encourages big government, because big government is a necessary cost in limiting competition.

But big government doesn't just limit competition.

Government also serves as a flak-jacket, a way to outsource problems you don't want to deal with. Bureaucracy is famously a flak jacket for CEO's, a way to deny responsibility and blame it on faceless peons who can take the blame. The best flak jacket is a rental - if you can point to someone else's bureaucracy as the source of the problem, all the better.

So, yes, business chooses to hire a growing portion of its work force as government employees, that is to say, as leeches, because it beats having those same employees as competitors. As a bonus, when things go wrong, business can outsource the blame to the government. If the rabble, that is to say, if the employees, can be gotten angry enough at the government, the corporation will not be the sole focus of blame.

Better yet, precisely because government employee pay ultimately comes from the corporate paymaster, the government employee will create regulations, indeed, will create a veritable culture, that will stifle corporate competition, and, in a really beautiful turn of events, the nascent entrepreneurs can be made to pay for their own stifling through taxes. Wherever new avenues for competition rear their ugly heads, the government can be counted to cut off the heads and set fires to the neck stumps.

To this end, when hiring for a government position, it is critical to make sure you hire men and women who are arrogant, narcissistic, highly-educated idiots with a supreme sense of self. If they do not begin so, they must at least become so during the course of their training for the job and their time in the job. Only these kinds of people can be expected to endure the constant well-deserved insults for doing what they are best at doing: being incompetent.

Government is a corporation with a critically important set of tasks. It's job is to stifle competition and be the scapegoat for all that goes wrong. And precisely because it is incompetent, precisely because it is staffed by incompetents, precisely because it is both powerful and incompetent, it truly is to blame for stifling competition, for general incompetence. It is supremely suited to its task, which is why it is so successful.

Government growth really took off in this country at the same time that corporate growth took off. Both began their meteoric growth for the same reason: they need one another. When a company spins off a subsidiary, that subsidiary continues to work with the original company. It does real work, but it really is independent of the original company. Government is a spin-off of the corporate world.

So, the next time you hear corporate leaders lament the increase of government jobs at the expense of the private sector, keep all this in mind.

Incompetence and scapegoating have been America's fastest growing industry for the last several decades, and, especially under this president, it shows no signs of abating.

Forked Things

Just received this FASCINATING news item from a friend:

Why is ultra-libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel (see also here) sitting on the First Things finance committee (along with George Weigel, Robert P. George, Frederic Clark, and William Burleigh)? Named one of the 10 Most Powerful Gays by Out magazine, Thiel is a transhumanist who supports technology to "save" human beings by turning them into robots. (See MercatorNet's op-ed on this.) His Thiel Foundation also supports utopian "seasteading" and human embryonic stem cell research. He has written that democracy and freedom are incompatible. Could Thiel's involvement have anything to do with FT's recent shift away from articles that support marriage? One more note about Thiel: He's created a group called Imitatio to promote the "mimetic theory" of Rene Girard. FT once published an article (by Servais Pinckaers, I think) critical of Girard, but it's gone whole hog on him during the past year--check its archives. Here are some notes on Thiel and Girard from The Guardian:

What about his philosophy? I listened to a podcast of an address Thiel gave about his ideas for the future. His philosophy, briefly, is this: since the 17th century, certain enlightened thinkers have been taking the world away from the old-fashioned nature-bound life, and here he quotes Thomas Hobbes' famous characterisation of life as "nasty, brutish and short", and towards a new virtual world where we have conquered nature. Value now exists in imaginary things. Thiel says that PayPal was motivated by this belief: that you can find value not in real manufactured objects, but in the relations between human beings. PayPal was a way of moving money around the world with no restriction. Bloomberg Markets puts it like this: "For Thiel, PayPal was all about freedom: it would enable people to skirt currency controls and move money around the globe."

Clearly, Facebook is another uber-capitalist experiment: can you make money out of friendship? Can you create communities free of national boundaries - and then sell Coca-Cola to them? Facebook is profoundly uncreative. It makes nothing at all. It simply mediates in relationships that were happening anyway.

Thiel's philosophical mentor is one René Girard of Stanford University, proponent of a theory of human behaviour called mimetic desire. Girard reckons that people are essentially sheep-like and will copy one another without much reflection. The theory would also seem to be proved correct in the case of Thiel's virtual worlds: the desired object is irrelevant; all you need to know is that human beings will tend to move in flocks. Hence financial bubbles. Hence the enormous popularity of Facebook. Girard is a regular at Thiel's intellectual soirees. What you don't hear about in Thiel's philosophy, by the way, are old-fashioned real-world concepts such as art, beauty, love, pleasure and truth.

I've said before that George Weigel is a sycophant. I am of the personal opinion that he is a spineless snake. Now we find him sitting in a cozy relationship with one of the major underminers of Catholic Faith in the United States. 

UPDATE: 

Several people have asked why I dislike George Weigel so much. I heard him speak once in Peoria, Il, where he mentioned that pro-abort politicians got voted into office because Catholics voted them in. Thus, it was really the fault of Catholic laity that such politicians were so prominent. We were to blame. Mea culpa, mea culpa, etc. Everyone in the audience was ashamed of themselves. Except I wasn't buying that crap. During the Q & A, I publicly asked him how he could maintain that position, given that:

1. the bishops had put pro-aborts on their own national review board following the sex abuse scandal (the board was only a year or so old at that point, and this was fresh then),
2. the bishops had REFUSED to act in solidarity to refuse communion to pro-abort politicians (you couldn't receive on your knees in some diocese, but you could certainly receive if you supported killing babies - we have to show liturgical solidarity, after all),
3. many bishops used public language that could easily be interpreted by Catholic laity to mean that we should have no qualms with voting for pro-abort politicians as long as they were "good on other issues."

I pointed out that a Catholic was only as good as his leader, and asked him to explain what a Catholic in the pew was supposed to think, given the honors, accolades and language of the American Catholic bishops. How were Catholic laity culpable for voting badly given how badly the bishops led? Wasn't it the job of the bishop to teach, preach, lead by example, help us understand these issues? When he says "it's the fault of the laity" isn't he really saying, "It's the fault of the bishops."? 

But our spineless Weigel snake just kept repeating, "I cannot explain the actions of the bishops" until his friend, the priest who had brought him in for the talk (perhaps stung by the direction of that last question, given that George's thesis was precisely that it wasn't the fault of the bishops), suddenly stood up and said, "The time for questions is now closed." 

Now, George knew damned well why the bishops acted the way they did. The vast majority of them are freaking heretics. But George didn't want to urinate in his rice bowl by saying it aloud. So, he took the boot-licker's way out and punted. He's a sycophant. The man has no spine, no guts. You've got to remember that George was nothing but another ignorant journalist when he got tapped to write JP II's biography. He got in not because of his depth of theological knowledge, but because he happened to have the right friends and he hit it off with the Pope on a personal level, in much the same way Maciel did. Think about that.

We've treated Weigel like some kind of deeply insightful Catholic saint since JP II and he became buddies, but Weigel has never really advanced beyond his ignorant journalist stage. He just has access to some bishops who give him inside scoops (much as Amy Welborn built her blog reputation on the inside scoops her ex-priest husband's contacts gave her), so he seems like a man who can be trusted. For my money, there isn't any real evidence that George is more than a mouthpiece for bishops who want to get their opinions out but don't want their fingerprints on the essays. If he loses that access, he won't have any more grist for his books. Loss of income is a terrible thing, especially in this economy. Maybe that's why Weigel is on the finance board at FT. As for Rene Girard, I don't know anything about him, but I did find these couple of gems: See this. And this rather interesting review of Girard.