A chocolate sculpture of Jesus crucified sans the traditional loincloth is causing plenty of outrage among Catholics.
Update: The exhibition has been canceled.
News Clips: March 2007 Archives
A Japanese billionaire has handed his multi-million dollar homes over to several homeless women. Not for keeps, though; they will live rent-free for up to ten years. However, they will have to pay their own utility bills. As those who saw the piece on Al Gore's utility bills, those could be mammoth, and I expect they will be deal-breakers.
This is a good opportunity to promote one of my favorite charities, Habitat for Humanity. They build and provide homes to the poor and homeless on favorable terms. Volunteers (some professions, some amateurs) and candidates build the homes. If you want to be just a little like this billionaire, donating either time or money to Habitat is an excellent way to do it.
What I want to know is why didn't they talk to his bishop first? This is not the kind of issue you bring up to the Pope. First, his bishop. If he doesn't take care of it, you talk to the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio, who would contact the Congregation for the Clergy. This is like complaining to the CEO of General Electric because an hourly worker is misbehaving.
Some Mennonites are facing a dilemma now that photos are unconditionally required for driver's licenses in Missouri. The reason? They consider photographs to be graven images. I had heard some Muslims believed in this but this is the first I've heard Christians believe this. Apparently there are some Jews who believe this as well.
Some are planning on moving to Arkansas which has a religious exemption. I'm not sure what I think. I'm certainly in favor of religious liberty, and applying it generously. Maybe there is a compromise, for example, you have to prove you are a Mennonite, or live in a recognized Mennonite community, in order to get an exemption from it.
The problem with that is if you extend it to Muslims, some of whom as I mentioned take this position, you are effectively gutting the anti-terrorism purpose of it.
One would think there would be a lawsuit in the works.
Homiletic and Pastoral Review (a magazine targeted to priests) had an interesting article about why Catholics become Evangelicals. I agree with all the points the author makes. He cites four main reasons:
1) Lack of active participation
2) Lack of scriptural and theological sophistication
3) Lack of appropriate and effective Catholic catechesis
4) Anemic parishes and preaching
Now, being an Evangelical is good, and I'd much rather someone be a good Evangelical than a bad (lapsed or inactive and unevangelized) Catholic. But the fact is we should be providing what Evangelical churches provide, chiefly, a dynamic and effective presentation of the Gospel (followed by parishes that meet our needs by expounding the Word of God and providing fellowship). For the most part I frankly don't blame people for leaving. Being a Christian in today's Catholic parishes is a trial. I've given up on expecting a homily that challenges me; the best I hope for is one that interests me and maybe has one or two relevant points I hadn't thought of before. I'm a Catholic in spite of my local parish instead of because of it. (My parish is not awful; except for a few mildly positive points and a few negative points, it's just blah.)
One big problem is we have, frankly, a lot of dead wood! You'd be lucky if 5% of the people of the parish are zealously living out their faith and "get it" with respect to evangelization. Trying to convince the other 95% (or even just the leader who run the show) is virtually impossible. Again, it's hard to have a dynamic, thriving parish that meets everyone's needs when 95% are not participating beyond Sunday Mass and have no personal commitment to live as a Christian.
Well I guess we just have to pray that the Holy Spirit be poured out upon our parishes.
Episcopalians take one step closer to schism by rejecting an ultimatum against ordaining gay clergy and performing gay unions imposed by the rest of the Anglican Communion. "If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision," they said. They also said, "We cannot accept what would be injurious to the church and could well lead to its permanent division," but it's hard to imagine a worse division than the one they are precipitating by their decision.
I'm not sure how it would work out if the Anglican Communion excommunicated the Episcopal Church. The most obvious problem would be how to re-establish an Anglican presence in the U.S. Certainly, you might start with the conservative churches, but you'd have a property fight on your hands. Maybe they could have a kind of amicable "divorce" settlement where parishes would have a right to withdraw from the Episcopal church with their property. Would they establish missions here? Who would do it, the Africans?
(The photo is of the Church of the Advent in Boston, one of the most conservative Episcopal parishes in the country.)
Not that I've exactly been a raving advocate of concern over global warming, here's a view on the other side of things, scientists who criticize Gore for being alarmist.
I certainly think he deserves criticism. He's obviously a scaremonger and I'd discount his threats significantly. For example, he spoke of the ocean level rising 20 feet, and portrayed it as if it were immanent, when the real maximum is — hold your breath — 23 inches. (Not that this wouldn't cause major damage in some places, but much less than 20 feet.) He's predicted massive storms, but this past hurricane season was a bust. Some scientists therefore are concerned, even those who aren't Republicans!
On the other hand, if this article is to be believed, he still commands a lot of respect and admiration from scientists. Their portrayal was that the critics were definitely a small minority.
Here is the latest update on a controversy involving the National Association of Evangelicals and global warming. Seem some rightward members, including James Dobson whom I respect, have accused the policy director of NAE, Rev. Richard Cizik, who is involved in the campaign against global warming, of “using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time,” which they defined as abortion, homosexuality and teaching children sexual morality and abstinence.
Now as I've said I'm not sure where I stand on global warming, but I do believe that the environment is a legitimate concern for Christians. The implication of what Dr. Dobson and his colleagues are saying, though, to me is that Christians can't attempt to address any other issue than abortion, homosexuality, and sexual morality until they solve those issues. This is patently absurd. There is a wide array of issues that Christians should be addressing and to me it is inexcusable to judge someone for not focusing on the particular issue you have a heart for (unless the issue they are focusing on is wholly illegitimate). We are fighting a culture war on many fronts; just because someone isn't fighting on the main front doesn't mean they aren't supporting the cause. I have heard non-believers criticize Christians for focusing strictly on certain popular issues; now I know where they get this impression. (But despite this deplorable attitude, Christians do focus on other issues.)
This is like saying that because we have a shortage of doctors (I am making this up) that everyone should be a doctor. This is (I hate to say it) a narrow minded view. I think one can see this even if one does not agree that global warming should be emphasized.
Christianity embraces a wide variety of issues that impinge on public policy. Are we to totally ignore all those issues except for the highest priority ones? I'm tempted to ask whether Dr. Dobson believes we should expend effort feeding the poor and clothing the naked and taking care of orphans and widows, or even spreading the gospel. But I suspect he's confining himself to public policy advocacy. (Not, however, that taking care of the poor is unrelated to public policy.) Interestingly he didn't include embryonic stem cell research, unless he includes that under abortion.
Now anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I am the first at condeming abortion, homosexual practices, and other sexual immorality, and first at promoting abstinence. There is no question I am 100% behind him on those issues, so I'm not dissembling. I just think there are many more than three or four issues Christians need to address in public policy!
What is misandry, you might ask? Even those among you astute enough to guess what it is have to agree the word is obscure. So obscure, I had to look it up to resolve the nagging doubt whether I had formed it correctly — "formed", as in, not pulled from memory like nearly every other word, but constructed from scratch Greek parts.
For the love of God, Eric, what does it mean? Misandry is the counterpart to misogyny; it means "hatred of men". And it is illustrated by a few choice examples from this article about the Vagina Monologues.
Point number one: Men are forbidden, by the playwright, to appear onstage during the play, on pain of losing one's approval to perform the play.
Point number two: Even these provocateurs discussed in this article (who are breaking this taboo) express misandry: One describes the men's role in the play as "nothing but props." Hmmm. How dignified; how — shall we say? — androphilic. Women were once (wrongly) treated as nothing but chattel; today feminists treat men has nothing but props. (For the record, if I had to choose between being treated as chattel and being treated as props, I'd choose the chattel.)
Point number three: The same provocateur said she chose to include men to represent patriarchal institutions and also to show that men can be feminists. That is, to portray the enemy, but also to portray those who choose to toe the line laid down by the play. In other words, here are the good men who say yes to our philosophy.
This shows the truth about the feminist movement. Nothing but a hatefest towards men rather than promoting the equal dignity of both. Let us step on you so we may ascend. Treat us equally, until we get a foothold, then we shall ascend over you.
And the man who caught them in the act is The examination of John Paul's life, virtues and reputation for holiness by the diocese of Rome has concluded. It remains for the Holy See to make a similar study, but this still represents the end of a critical step for his beatification.
News articles say that something will be announced at the anniversary of his death this year.
This is too funny. Apparently there is an 80 year-old, Prohibition-era law that prohibits social dancing in bars and other venues in New York City, and it's been upheld by the courts against those who argue that dancing is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.
I have to agree with the courts, not because I think dancing should be illegal, but because, frankly, social dancing should not be a First Amendment right, and because I think if you want to get rid of the law, you should repeal it through legislative means, not by making specious arguments before the courts.
Why isn't social dancing a First Amendment right? First of all, what are you saying? Does a dance communicate a meaningful message (except, perhaps, "I want you baby")? Most people aren't consciously trying to communicate a message to the world by their dancing. It's a form of entertainment, and a way to meet people, typically for romantic purposes. While it's quite obsolete, I can certainly see why people 80 years ago would want to ban it (because they thought it was lewd), and that's their prerogative. Now let's work on repealing it.
Newsweek published a story this week about Professor Steve Prothero at Boston University, who argues that Americans are ignorant of religion.
Newsweek has a quiz to test your religious literacy, give it a try. It's funny though; he claims that Americans are ignorant of religion, but the results from the Newsweek quiz show that only 16% got under 70%, and 71% got 80% or above. That's pretty impressive if you ask me.
Pope Benedict reveals his horror at John Paul's 1997 appearance with Bob Dylan. As John Paul's right-hand man, he tried his utmost what he saw as a appaling travesty, but did not prevail against John Paul. Dylan sang Knocking on Heaven's Door and some other songs. He did not sing Blowing In The Wind, but John Paul used its lyrics to illustrate a point (and to reach out to non-believers).
John Paul was a fan of pop. Benedict strictly goes for classical. I can see why Benedict was appalled. I don't necessarily agree with him, although I am not sure I am enthused about the concert either (this is the first I've heard of it). It was a very un-papal thing to do; not necessarily becoming of a pope, and conferring a potentially problematic amount of glory on someone who arguably didn't deserve it. On the other hand it undoubtedly had a positive influence on a number of people, so it was a win for evangelization. I am reminded of St. Paul's words, "I am all things to all people so that at least some might be saved."
Actually I'm not sure that's the legal terminology, but in any case a woman is suing Planned Parenthood because a doctor failed to successfully abort her child, resulting in its unexpected birth. She is suing for child rearing expenses.
Here is an interesting article about professed young earth creationists studying and working in scientific fields that contradict their beliefs, and certain questions the academic world is grappling with, for example, is it right to deny someone an advanced degree if they believe in creationism, or is it obligatory (or forbidden) for universities to consider how students will use the degrees they earn. Some of them live quite compartmentalized lives; they may write a well-respected book within the paradigm of mainstream thought, but personally believe young earth creationism.
It brings up an important question: Do you have to believe the stuff you study, or can you know it from an academic perspective without personally embracing it, as, for example, a Christian might study and even become an expert in Islam without believing it?
A row has arisen over a city's decision — several years ago — to rename the Easter Bunny "Spring Bunny". This happened in 2003 precipitated by a complaint from a Jewish resident who heard about their egg hunt that the city might be "sponsoring an event linked to religion."
Ok, where do I start? I'm sorry, anyone who thinks that an city egg hunt is religious because it refers to the "Easter Bunny" is either exceedingly ignorant or being disingenuous. Everyone knows what an Easter egg hunt is and no one thinks it's even remotely religious, unless it is at one of the one tenth of one percent of churches that try to relate Easter egg hunts to the faith.
That being said, there is no love lost between me and the "Easter bunny". That rabbit has nothing to do with Easter save for, ah, their associations with spring. I am all for disassociating the bunny from Easter. Heck, I'm all for dissocating Easter from the Resurrection of Christ; the term comes from the name of a pagan goddess. (In my church we call it Pascha, a term I prefer.)
Of course, this is exactly the same thing that's happening to "Merry Christmas", which I don't approve of there. Am I encouraging secularism if I support this name change?
And does anyone else think of a spring roll when he hears "Spring Bunny"?
What do you do as a pastor when a sex offender wants to join your church?
Great quote from the associate pastor: "Clearly, we are called to love. But is it safe to love this particular person up close?"
Even sex offenders have a right to come to church if they have upright intentions. Discerning that may be difficult, though. Undoubtedly a lot of people would leave, though, if you permitted him to come.
For the sex offender, he's unlikely to make any friends at the church. So it may be a wash for him. (Not that people without minor children shouldn't try to reach out to him.) Do you declare him excused from Mass attendance? If so will anyone bring him communion? Hopefully someone would.
Well it seems the New York Times deserves some praise. In a refreshing balance to the popular phenomena, they published an article about recent religion-bashing atheists being taken to task by their fellow atheists for shoddy thought. They are not mincing words as they expose the hypocrisy — or at least gross inconsistencies — of best-selling authors such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. They criticize them, for example, for knowing little about theology but having no fear to speak with arrogant confidence about religion. And for focusing so much on alleged negative consequences of religion as to ignore the substantial positive impact it's had in many areas. One critic pointed out how Dawkins was skeptical toward traditional proofs of the existence of God but put a little too much confidence in his own "Ultimate Boeing 747" argument. Most importantly, the critics point out that these popular atheists are taking a simplistic view of religion — dismissing all religious people as simptletons and refusing to engage the significant philosophical tradition many religions have and their thinkers. It's as if we were all idiots and thinking was foreign to us, but anyone who has studied our history would be disabused of that. This is one of my chief complaints about these people. I was reading an article once about one of them (Sam Harris I think) and they made some comment about Christians not being rational that really made me wonder seriously if they had never heard of or studied philosophy. While it is true that some parts of Christianity are opposed to philosophy (which, after all, means "love of wisdom"), they are very much in the minority.
Let's hope Harris, Dawkins, et al. don't get too heady with fame and adulation and actually pay attention and take this criticism to heart. And God bless the atheists who can think clearly enough to speak objectively about these arguments. It is truly a humble thinker who, far from clinging to any argument that buttresses his opinion, can recognize a bad argument even when it's in his favor. (May we all have such virtue.)
Here is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal about children raised in secular homes who become believers and the struggles those families face.
Such a change can cause an awkward dynamic. I know I had this issue growing up. My stepmother derisively called me a "holy roller". I felt there was a part of myself I had to hide from my parents. But consider the child who's an Orthodox Jew and refuses to eat in his own parents' home.
In one part, the article comments, "Clergy are in the difficult position of trying to guide young people toward devoutness without dishonoring their families. The reluctance of parents to accept their children's choices can be a source of frustration for some youths and their pastors. 'My joke is, they liked them better when they were on drugs,' says Pastor Peter La Joy, who directs the student ministry at Calvary Chapel in Tucson, Ariz."
Some conflicts come because the children want to do low-paying ministry work instead of something more lucrative; this is especially true in immigrant families.
Here is an interesting quote: "But in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks — and the racial profiling of Muslims that ensued — some young people have gravitated toward their religion as a show of ancestral pride and an act of defiance against a society they see as discriminatory. Young Muslims [a Muslim student group], for example, says it has seen participation double since 2000 to more than 1,000 people." That is scary.
The article is mostly negative about this phenomenon, but not in a significant way, and has some upsides as well. Anyway, it is an interesting read.
I've got to admit, in terms of a clever headline that is true in one sense but ridicules the church in the obvious sense, "Pope is warned of a green Antichrist is pretty effective.
The story pertains to a cardinal whom I had never heard of (Giacomo Biffi, formerly of Bologna), described as an "arch-conservative". Handpicked by the Pope to give meditations to the hierarchs, he warned of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”, citing Vladimir Solovyov.
It's possible he had reasonable things to say, but you couldn't really tell for sure from the article. I did like the explanation for his choice given by some — the Pope figured his verbal fireworks would keep people awake.
