Amos's River of Justice

Category: Christianity in the World

  • Miser Joe Manchin Offends Faith-Based Allies

    Catholic Democrat Joe Manchin’s position on the child tax credit has put him at odds with important allies such as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Orthodox Union.  Unfortunately, these groups are in a somewhat embarrassing position after objecting to the bill’s mandate that faith-run pre-kindergarten and childcare programs obey federal non-discrimination statutes.  Manchin used their objections as an excuse for his own objections, which have more to do with his dislike of helping those in need.

    Political negotiations first broke down when Manchin proposed to White House officials that the bill maintain elements of the original legislation but omit an expansion of the child tax credit.  Then, this week Manchin told reporters he supports the child tax credit, but only if there is a work requirement for the parents involved.

    Senator Manchin has been trumpeting his work requirement for months despite his religious allies’ prediction that if the requirement becomes part of the law families who don’t pay income tax due to lack of income would not receive the benefit.

    In a September 7 letter, bishops voiced support for the child tax credit expansion without the work requirement.

    “It is especially important that the credit remain fully refundable to ensure the most economically vulnerable children benefit from this family support.”

    The National Association of Evangelicals has not taken a position on the Build Back Better Act as a whole, but the group’s vice president for government relations, Galen Carey, has consistently expressed support for the child tax credit provision. He was asked this week about tying work requirements to the child tax credit.

    “We support making the child tax credit fully available to the families who need the help the most,” he said in a statement. “Work is critically important to human dignity but having a particular level of earned family income should not be a prerequisite to accessing support for their children. Full CTC refundability is what makes it such a powerful anti-poverty tool.”

    The Poor People’s Campaign, a faith-led activist group that often advocates for liberal-leaning legislation, has been protesting against Manchin’s position for months.   The Rev. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, called Manchin’s excuses a “regression back to the tired debate of deserving and undeserving poor.”

    Progressives may have forgotten what an incredible accomplishment the child tax credit was because it was just one item on a very long wish list.  We may have also forgotten to give the Biden administration credit for its implementation.

    This benefit was perfectly aimed at the most vulnerable members of society–children.  And it had the added benefit of demonstrating how valuable the nation’s children are to the President and the people alike.  In my opinion, if the child tax credit is all that can be salvaged from the Build Back Better Act, its survival will be a cause for celebration.

    President Biden has a clear mandate.  I urge his administration to extend the child tax credit–without  Manchin’s work requirement.

     

  • Progressive Goals and Christian Eschatology

     

    The last article left unanswered questions.  Should progressives hope for political success under the logic of Christian theology? How are Christians to understand failure and disappointment in this important work?

    Since the 2020 election, the question of the hour has been Where do we go from here?  The answer to this question depends on your view of reality.  From the secular point of view, we have heard sound political proposals and strategies.  In a video no longer available on YouTube, N.T. Wright answers it with Christian eschatology.  They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    “There is no excuse for Christians not being involved in the work here and now,” Wright says, but the question is, how? He begins by rejecting two common reactions to the current political situation.  The first one is, “There’s nothing we can do.”; the second one is, “Our clever planning will bring God’s kingdom.”

    Wright stresses that Christian eschatology is similar to Jewish eschatology.  He bases this on scriptures from the Old and New Testaments.  From the Book of  Daniel, chapters 2 and 7, he concludes that when God sets up his kingdom that can’t be shaken, He will set it up here on earth.

    Where is Heaven?

    The Jews were creational and conventional monotheists.  Therefore, they did not envision Heaven and Earth as two separate realms.  Heaven and earth  are meant to come together, but how, and in what form?

    The coming together of Heaven and Earth and the future renewal of creation will be like the resurrection of Jesus.  It will be the creation of something new out of the old.

    Paul’s eschatology shapes the mission of the Church.  Heaven and Earth, or the two ages, will overlap…or rather, they do overlap.

    “God has made the world so it will flourish under wise obedient human care.”

    The creation knows it is meant to flourish under the wise rule of human beings…God has subjected the present creation to futility because He designed it to work properly under the image-bearers.

    So how are we to apply Paul’s eschatology to the efforts and disappointments of progressives?  N.T. Wright says Paul’s ‘monotheism and election’ is a new version of the Church’s mission in which we go out in prayer, expecting set-backs, and believing that God has a secret way to rescue the world.  In other words, this vision is not triumphalist. It starts with sharing the pain of the world

    We are justified in order to be justice-hungry people in an unjust world.  We are put right in order to be putting right people for the world.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Christianity Fears the New Age

    The world is stuck in the age of Pisces

    Is it possible that Christianity doesn’t know what is unique about its own teachings? The Pontifical Council’s document on New Age implies that Christianity fears the New Age. However, Aquarius may be more compatible with Christianity than Pisces was. There’s no need to fear the New Age. The real problem is that the world is stuck in the Age of Pisces. The Council should have addressed that problem instead. Evidence of the world’s wrong turn can be found in the increasing influence of Hermeticism at a time when it should be fading away.

    Read more: Christianity Fears the New Age

    Hermeticism Should Not be Increasing

    Hermeticism is not compatible with the Age of Aquarius. Siva/Hermes is associated with Hermeticism. Pisces was the age of Siva/Hermes. However, Saturn rules the Age of Aquarius. Saturn is the planet of Brahma. Brahma and Siva/Hermes have different characteristics and preside over different types of societies.

    Brahma, Hindu God, Creator
    Why Doesn’t the Pontifical Council Deal with These Things?

    Perhaps the Pontifical Council doubted that an astronomical age has real effects in the world. If so, Christians are right and wrong at the same time. The New Age will have real effects in the world, but the Church is the remedy.

    What does an Age of the World Mean to Jesus?

    I don’t consider Brahma and Siva/Hermes to be gods, but I think they have a type of reality. Jesus seems to have known that two competing orders of justice confront the human race. They are the Justice of the Rupture and the Justice of the Whole.  If that is the case, we need the Church (the Justice of the Rapture) to tell us how the human race is expected to exist in a cosmic order ruled by the Age of Aquarius (the Justice of the Whole).

    The Secular World is Equally, or maybe more, Mistaken

    How is it possible that the secular world’s expectations of the New Age are wrong? Maybe the secular world doesn’t understand the importance of the Planet Saturn in myth and religion. At the beginning of the Age of Pisces, Siva/Hermes claimed Saturn for himself because it was central to the religious system that legitimated his rule.  However, Saturn is not his Planet.  Saturn is Brahma’s planet.  Brahma will rule over the Age of Aquarius. This means she will reign over the cosmic order.  (Edward Moor called Brahma ‘she’.) ((Edward Moor F.R.S., The Hindu Pantheon, T. Bensley, Bolt-Court, Fleet Street, 1810))</p>

    Madame Blavatsky was Wrong

    The significance of the planet Saturn was either not understood by Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, or it was deliberately obscured. The result is that the Theosophists did not usher us in to the new age. They saddled us with a hashed-over version of Saivism. The entire effort was a waste of time because the coming age does not belong to Siva/Hermes. Madame Blavatsky was wrong.

    Blavatsky’s writings contributed to the racism of the Nazi Party. They were also influential in modern physics. Her determination to rehabilitate Lucifer/Siva as the god of the New Age turned him into the patron of the Bomb. This association is problematic, in spite of the fact that the age of Lucifer/Siva is over.

    It’s true that one of Siva’s names is The Destroyer, but Siva’s destruction is not annihilation. It is the destruction wrought by time. The Bomb on the other hand, is all about annihilation.

    What will the New Age Look Like?

    Christianity fears the New Age. However it seems to me that the Age of Aquarius is not in conflict with Christianity any more than Pisces was. Aquarius might even be more compatible with Christianity. New Age believers, on the other hand, believe it is opposed to the Church. The Church seems to have been confused with an age of the world.

    Don’t Fear the New Age

    Section 6 of the Pontifical Council’s document says, there is a choice to be made between Aquarius and Christ. I agree. It can be argued that there is an attempt to oppose Christ to Aquarius. Interpretations of Aquarius may have led to the current belief that the ancient separation of male and female will no longer be in force. Some say humans ‘should be systematically called to take on an androgynous form of life. This will allow the two sides of the brain to be used in harmony at the right time. This is one instance where the Church is seen as opposition to the new age. The phrase, ‘should be systematically called’ might explain the motive and exuberance behind the transgender movement.

    Conclusion

    New Age movements have been celebrating the coming of Aquarius. However, Aquarius doesn’t look so promising at this time. I’m sure believers didn’t expect it to begin with an environmental and economic crisis. That’s one of the risks of making predictions. The New Age movements seem to be obeying their own erroneous interpretation of the cosmic order. In this way, they’ve turned it into dogma. Does an age of the world need humans to implement it? I don’t think so. Maybe the secular world is the one that lacks faith in the power and nature of the ages. They think Aquarius will be their age and they prefer to face it without the Church. But the planets are indifferent to human thriving.

    Christianity fears the New Age. Or maybe the Christians merely fear the human interpretation of it.

    See Also: the Shechinah, divine attribute of kingship

    (more…)

  • Justice of the Rupture

    Lately I’ve been thinking about the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness.  He fasted for 40 days and was hungry, and during this time in the wilderness the devil tempted him three times.  The first temptation had to do with Jesus’s hunger. The second temptation, as I understand it, was connected with the human need for validation in the eyes of other people.  But the third temptation was something else altogether.  Verses 8 and 9 imply that the ‘devil’ has the power to bestow ‘the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,’ if we will only worship him.  Jesus’s resistance to these temptations represents the justice of the rupture.

    And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

    But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

    And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

    Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them:

    And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

    Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Matthew 4: 1-10) 

    The Prince of This World

    In recent years I’ve begun to think of the earth as surrounded by a closed system and ruled by a sort of cosmic tyranny.  I imagine at the head of this cosmic order sits the ‘prince of this world.’  You can call him whatever you want–Matthew called him ‘the devil’.  It follows that when Jesus resisted the devil’s temptations, he was waging a cosmic resistance.  According to an article by J. Leavitt Pearl, this cosmic resistance represents the justice of the rupture.  If I understand it correctly, this resistance remains the central drama of mortal life.  It is the fundamental necessity of the entire human race–the only path to freedom.

    Who is the God Worshipped by Both Christians and Jews?

    I believe that this is what the Christians mean when they say they worship the same god that the Jews worship.  There is a cosmic order that wields power over the Earth and her inhabitants, and there is another power directly opposed to the cosmic order.  (I am not talking about Jewish or Christian esotericism and the loosely related secret societies that capitulate to the cosmic order.)

    The Boundaries Between These Figures Don’t Seem Clear Enough

    Unfortunately, the major religions of our day have taken on much of the lore of the cosmic order.  This happened quite early in Christianity’s journey through history.  Also unfortunate is the fact that the so-called Christian ‘reformers’ failed to recognize this problem.  This is doubly unfortunate because it is not only the central problem of religion.  It is the central problem of mortal existence.  The failure to recognize this fact taints everything, including the current political environment.

    Cosmic Resistance and the Baptism of Jesus

    J. Leavitt Pearl sees this cosmic resistance in the scripture that tells about Jesus’s baptism.

    John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.  And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.  Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.  He proclaimed, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals.  I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy spirit.”  In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.  And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.  And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:4-11, as quoted by J. Leavitt Pearl)

    For Pearl the key phrase is, “He saw the heavens torn apart.”  It is too easy for most of us to pass over this phrase. Perhaps we overlook it because it comes with the dramatic description of the Spirit descending like a dove. And this was accompanied by a voice coming from heaven and saying to Jesus, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”  According to Pearl, “The tearing open of the cosmic order is the descent of the True Justice of God. The empires of this world rule under the banner of ‘order and justice,’ but this type of ‘justice’ is always only violence and oppression.”

    The Gospel of Mark is an Apocalyptic Text

    Pearl calls the gospel of Mark an apocalyptic text and describes John as an apocalyptic figure. But his focus is on what happened in the heavens.  “…the tearing apart of the heavens is a locus classicus of apocalyptic imagery, found in both…Isaiah 64:1, and…Revelation 6:14.”  (The heavens of the cosmic order are not exactly friendly to this tearing apart.)

    The heavens of the Biblical world were not only a spiritual domain and the home of God and other spiritual beings. “They were equally the heavens above–the skies, the vault across which the stars moved in their predictable patterns.  In other words, the heavens were the domain of order and regularity. Despite their extreme complexity, their interpretation could be mastered by a skilled astrologist.”

    When this domain is torn open with Jesus’s baptism, it indicates a “rupture, a radical inbreaking of something genuinely new.  But, this arrival of the new necessarily takes the form of a disruption of the delicate harmony of the cosmos, epitomized by the heavens.”

    The Justice of the Whole and the Justice of the Rupture

    Pearl goes on to explain that these two opposing forces–the cosmic order and the order represented by Jesus–represent two kinds of justice. One is the Justice of the whole. The other is the Justice of the rupture.  To further explain his argument, he cites Slavoj Zizek’s book, The Fragile Absolute, and Zizek’s description of the cosmic order represented by paganism:

    Against the ‘pagan notions of cosmic Justice and Balance,’ wherein ‘an individual is ‘good’ when he acts in accordance with his special place in the social edifice…and Evil occurs when some particular strata or individuals are no longer satisfied with this place, ‘Zizek contrasts Christianity, which ‘asserts as the highest act precisely what pagan wisdom condemns as the source of evil: the gesture of separation, of drawing the line, of clinging to an element that disturbs the balance of the All’ (118-121, as quoted by Pearl)

    One Kind of Justice is Pagan

    Pearl tells us that the pagan as described by Zizek is no different from Edmund Burke in his Reflection on the Revolution in France, or white moderates who condemned Martin Luther King Jr.’s tactics as ‘extremist,’ or Fox News pundits who bemoaned the ‘disruption’ of Black Lives Matter protests.  They call these revolutionary tactics ‘evil’ because they disrupt a stable order.

    Martin Heidegger’s Definition of Justice Contrasted with Jacques Derrida

    Pearl admits that the rupture represents a risk but, alternatively, the path of supposed safety leads to the Justice of the whole. This is exemplified by the philosopher Martin Heidegger who interprets ‘justice’ as ‘Compliance–that is harmonization.’  In fact, Heidegger elevates compliance and harmony to ontological principles.  The writings of Heidegger were influential in the rise of Nazism.

    Pearl contrasts Heidegger’s justice with an alternative account of justice, a justice of the rupture.  For this he cites Jacques Derrida, for whom justice is the domain of the future.

    Justice emerges as a call or a demand for responsibility to the Other.  It cannot be calculated or anticipated, because justice, if there is such a thing, is always a risk, as Derrida notes in, “The Force of Law.” (947)

    Justice in Isaiah and the Book of Revelation

    The prophet Isaiah, (64:1-2), and the Book of Revelation (6:12-15) each describe a similar view of justice as that of Derrida.  It is a justice that casts down the powerful, the oppressors.  It is a justice that destroys the class and caste boundaries that order our world, so that ‘everyone, slave and free’ find themselves on an equal footing.  For John, any social, political, or economic order that is built on oppression, built on the backs of ‘slaves–and human lives’ (Revelation 18:13) is an order that must be torn open.

    My Conclusion and a Warning

    I don’t want to end this article without mentioning Pearl’s examples of the risks involved in the justice of the rupture.  These include the Terror of the French Revolution and the Stalinism that resulted from the October Revolution.  I don’t think any of us are willing to risk such things if we can avoid them, and there are things that must be understood if we want to make these kinds of failure less likely.  But they might occur in spite of our best efforts. The challenge to the cosmic order represented by Jesus’s response to his temptations in the wilderness are central to this understanding.  We must know which order we serve and which order we fight.  Otherwise, failure is almost certain.  The cosmic order stands ever ready to creep in and take over from those who remain unaware.

    In addition, I have learned since publishing this article that Derrida was a Heideggerian. Also there is an older book with the title of Political Theology. It was originally written by Carl Schmitt. Perhaps the website that inspired this article is reworking this concept. Again, caution is advised.

  • Christian Grace

    It’s disconcerting to talk about Christian grace in a blog like this.  You think about it later and worry about how you phrased it, or how others might take it. There is the fear that it will be misunderstood in the context of common assumptions about what is required to be successful in this life—that it will be interpreted as boasting.  

    And I realized after publishing the last post that I didn’t mention Jesus.  Or did I?  

    Grace is the love of God shown to the unlovely; the peace of God given to the restless; the unmerited favor of God…Grace is the opposite of karma, which is all about getting what you deserve.  Grace is getting what you don’t deserve, and not getting what you do deserve. [Grace] is Jesus Christ in redeeming action

    By the world’s standards grace is extraordinary, strange, and counterintuitive.  

    Christian Grace
    Merry Christmas

    A lot like if the incarnate deity, veiled in flesh, were born in a manger in Bethlehem. 

    Religion must guide the political moment.

  • Prophecy and Other Inconveniences

    Isaiah was encouraging in chapter 58. He addresses the same people in chapter 59, but with a marked difference.

    Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

    But your iniquites have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

    For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.

    None calleth for justice, nor any pledeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.

    They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.

    Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are words of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.

    Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.

    The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

    Therefore is judgement far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.

    We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.

    We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.

    For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;

    In transgressing and lying against the Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.

    And judgement is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

    Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

    And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

    For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.

    According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.

    So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him.

    And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.

    As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever. (Isaiah 59)

  • What’s a Nice Guy Like You Doing in a Place Like This?

    I’m pretty sure that when you chose your vocation you were an idealist.  How long was it, I wonder, before you realized they had groomed you to keep their wealthy donors happy?  And that’s not even the worst of it.  They expect you to make nice with a bunch of silver-tongued dingbats who are doing the same thing you’re doing but without your scruples.  Unless I’m terribly mistaken about you, your association with one such dingbat must be excruciating.  I’m talking about the guy who refuses to say if he believes in God and then while he’s dancing around the question it gradually becomes clear that he’s congratulating himself for being more moral than people who profess their beliefs–like you.  What’s a nice guy like you doing in a place like this?

    He argues that it’s audacious to say one believes in God because one must live a perfect life in order to make such a claim.  (I would like to hear you address that claim by the way, but you’re not free to do so, are you.) He references Nietzsche and Slavoj Zizek and Jesus on the cross as justification for his prevarication and then he expounds on what it really means to believe–according to him.

    I assume you see through him; that you would like to tell him that he’s got it wrong, that humans are not supermen.  I really think you know he’s got it backwards–that part of believing is acknowledging one’s weakness.  But then it must also have occurred to you that he doesn’t necessarily mean what he says.  He just wants to keep the money rolling in.  So he frames his hollow cynicism as existential anguish and you keep your thoughts to yourself.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Richard Dawkins and the Sadducees

    Recently, a video of an old debate between Cardinal George Pell and Richard Dawkins appeared in my YouTube news feed. (Please see the video below.) I had to watch it twice to be sure I understood what I was seeing, but you can guess my impression of the debate from the title of this post.

    The Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, the existence of spirits, and the obligation of oral tradition, and emphasized acceptance of the written law alone. I call Dawkins a Sadducee because he denied the validity of metaphysical propositions, claiming that ‘life’ is sufficiently explained by Charles Darwin. In my opinion, this is very similar to the stance of the Sadducees. However, what I learned from this debate is that the Church addresses this line of thought with sympathy and compassion.

    The statement that started me thinking about the Sadducees did not come from Richard Dawkins. It came from the moderator who asked Cardinal Pell whether atheists can go to heaven (Part 4). The context was a caller who stated that he was an atheist and wanted to know what the Cardinal thought would happen to him when he died. Cardinal Pell answered that of course Atheists can go to Heaven.

    The more I thought about it, the more I saw the question as a trick question. As I understand it, the whole point of being an atheist is that you are not worried about whether you will go to Heaven. I concluded that the moderator must really be questioning the extent of Pell’s, and therefore the Church’s, good will and compassion. Until I watched this exchange a second time I had the impression that Pell felt pressured to answer the way he did. I no longer think so.

    Jesus was asked trick questions during his ministry. According to an article entitled Four Questions: Four Questions: Matthew 22:15-46, they came from three distinct groups of people: Herodians, Sadducees and Pharisees. The Herodians asked a political question; the Sadducees asked a doctrinal question; and the Pharisees asked an ethical question.

    The Sadducees were a wealthy, aristocratic party. They said when you’re dead, you’re dead, so don’t worry about it. They were very logical, and said since there’s no proof, they won’t believe it, and if the Bible isn’t logical in some point, they will always choose logic over the Bible. And many today say that where science disagrees with the Bible in some point they will choose science over it…

    At least I was right about one thing. When the moderator asked Mr. Dawkins’ opinion on this matter, Dawkins said it all depends on whether you are cremated, buried, etc. When asked whether he thought there might be some part of his mind that would wonder if there wasn’t something more, Dawkins answered that since it’s the brain that wonders such things, that would be impossible. The brain rots after you die.

    I will admit that I sort of expected the Cardinal to respond to Dawkins with more force. I partly blame the debate format and the audience responses but I see now that I wasn’t thinking like a pastor. It gradually became clear to me that Pell wasn’t trying to win a contest. He was a pastor and more than a pastor–he was a fisherman. He was inviting Richard Dawkins and everyone who was listening to think about other possibilities.

    It may be true that the logic of atheism indicates indifference, or at least the claim of indifference, as to what happens to you after you die, but Pell was probably thinking of people he actually knows, including Richard Dawkins. He may also have been thinking about the family members of atheists who have already passed away. Cardinal Pell believes and hopes they will go to Heaven. And this is not just his personal belief.

    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)…

    …we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Peter 3:13).

    Cardinal Pell, who was in the process of cleaning up corruption at the Vatican Bank, has been convicted by a court in Australia of molesting two boys. He was recently sentenced to 6 years in prison.

    See also: Progressives in the World

  • Catholic Conservatives and Their Prodigal Brothers

    A recent interview on YouTube reminds me that the main concern of Catholic Conservatives is not so much the sex abuse scandal but the Church’s teachings about marriage. I don’t have a stake in the marriage debate but this interview reminded me of certain realities that I have come across in my studies. And I have to say, the struggle between Catholic Conservatives and the Church’s leadership is getting old.

    The interviewee is concerned that changes in the Church’s teachings make God look like a trickster who handed down a set of difficult rules only to change his mind two thousand years later. He is concerned that it might begin to look like the rules never really mattered. He is also concerned that a changing church makes it difficult to know how to behave.

    I wonder about his reasons. Lately I get the impression that conservatives know better than the Pope how to behave. Perhaps the real problem is that they feel their own rewards are diminished if other people who don’t follow the rules are allowed to be members in good standing. That’s how the brother of the prodigal son felt (Luke 15:11-32). The moral of the story: the brother got it wrong.

     

  • Penitents and Cynics: Are We Seeing a Civilization in its Death Throes?

    I’ve found more English language videos on the proceedings of the conference on the protection of minors, and I think I had the wrong impression. I was working off of a liturgy that was not in English.

error: Content is protected !!