Don't ask me why, but sometimes I imagine myself in the Middle East—in somewhere like Erbil or Mosul—and I imagine getting kidnapped by terrorists. I imagine being held in some secret ISIS detention center, bound and malnourished, maybe bloodied by mistreatment, tortured, and awaiting certain death. I imagine the swell of emotions I would feel trying to steady my resolve in the face of imminent doom, dealing with regrets of things left undone, sadness at leaving those I love so prematurely, and preparing my soul for judgment. I imagine the simple but fervent prayers I would likely make in such a harrowing ordeal.
Sunday, September 29, 2024
Sunday, September 22, 2024
The Nuance Required Reading Historical Texts
Peter Kwasniewski recently kicked up a hornet's nest with two articles on his substack Tradition and Sanity lauding well-ordered social dances as a wholesome past time for Catholic youth (see "Why Catholics Should Learn to Dance" and "The Great Good of Social Dancing"). This innocuous suggestion was met with fierce pushback from people who insisted that dancing is sinful.
I am not particularly interested in weighing in on the argument about dancing, which Dr. Kwasniewski has discussed thoroughly in his two articles quoted above and which I concur with. I am more concerned with the hermeneutics of the contrarians arguing against dancing, because I think it illustrates an important lesson about how not to read Church documents. In following the discussion on social media, I noticed the contrarians typically argued their point by posting a slur of quotations from popes and saints, insisting that "the Magisterium has condemned dances." Now, I personally learned long ago that strings of quotations mean little without supporting context; many statements that seem to say one thing actually say something different when read in historical context. Or a statement that seems absolute turns out to not be as universal as initially assumed. Context is everything; as Scott Hahn says, a text without a context is a pretext.
I am not particularly interested in weighing in on the argument about dancing, which Dr. Kwasniewski has discussed thoroughly in his two articles quoted above and which I concur with. I am more concerned with the hermeneutics of the contrarians arguing against dancing, because I think it illustrates an important lesson about how not to read Church documents. In following the discussion on social media, I noticed the contrarians typically argued their point by posting a slur of quotations from popes and saints, insisting that "the Magisterium has condemned dances." Now, I personally learned long ago that strings of quotations mean little without supporting context; many statements that seem to say one thing actually say something different when read in historical context. Or a statement that seems absolute turns out to not be as universal as initially assumed. Context is everything; as Scott Hahn says, a text without a context is a pretext.
Friday, September 13, 2024
Two Deaths and Two Masses: The Healing Power of the Requiem
The following is a guest post submitted by a friend of this blog who wishes his reflections to remain anonymous.
Sunday, September 08, 2024
Let's Talk About Married Priests
Let's talk about married priests. Well, not married priests per se, but our attitudes toward married priests. I had a very unpleasant interaction with a reader the other day that has left me sort of fuming and feeling like there's some issues that need to be cleared up. So, be warned, I'm a bit saucy.
Monday, September 02, 2024
Belloc: How Status Protects Labor
In his classic 1937 work The Crisis of Civilization, Hilaire Belloc convincing argues that the rejection of the Catholic Church at the time of the Protestant Revolt is directly responsible for the social and economic troubles of modernity. According to Belloc, the most pressing economic problem is that the vast majority of people are wage-earners to a small owner class who have a disproportionate control of the means of production. This situation Belloc calls 'Proletarianism.' While modern wage-earners have political rights, full economic freedom eludes them because they are too dependent upon those who pay their wages. Unlike the Communists who assert that private ownership of property is the fundamental evil, Belloc states the problem is not that capital is owned and utilized by so few, but that so many are proletarian wage-earners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)