Progressive Trolling and … The Real McMurphy?
by Michael MoriartyI have, for weeks, had a mercifully short but accurate metaphor to deliver as an editorial titled America As Job.
However, my last two columns had to take precedence over America As Job. Recent headlines demanded I postpone any Biblical metaphors.

This time, however, another unavoidable delay has been inspired by a commenter mildly veiled as Snarkysnob opining on my editorial Catholics vs. Communists:
I am convinced that Moriarty’s work here is some of the greatest satire ever devised, of Swiftian quality. Either that, or he is in need of continuing electroshock therapy and heavy medication. There’s no serious dispute that priests have abused their parishioners, and that the hierarchy (local, national and international) have covered it up.
Electro-shock.
Yes.
In the Spring of 1964.
I was 23 years old.
In London, England.
There it is called ECT, electro-convulsive therapy.
The institution administering the treatment, ten of them, was called, ironically, The Priory.
The deeper irony is that it is … or was, at the time … ostensibly a Catholic nuthouse.
Yes, the occasional nun as nurse.
That same institution had already administered the same ungodly treatment, in punitive doses, 54 of them, to the American Communist, Paul Robson, in 1963.
What was that Big, Deep Red Baritone doing in a Catholic nuthouse?
Or was he actually taken there because The Priory was not merely Catholic but Progressive Catholic:
The Progressive Party
In 1948, Robeson was active in the presidential campaign to elect Progressive Party candidate Henry A. Wallace, who had served as Secretary of Agriculture, Vice President, and Secretary of Commerce in the administrations of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A Progressive re-indoctrination center, metaphorically run by the likes of Nancy Pelosi playing Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest?!
And am I possibly the real McMurphy?!!
Other celebrities … and even a politician have been treated with electro-shock.
Most were fighting depression.
I, however, was not in a depression.
Quite the opposite.
I had, while in Florence, Italy for the very first time, what is now known of as The Stendhal Syndrome, a quasi-manic state induced by, yes, the Renaissance richness and glories of the most astounding of Italian treasuries, home of Michelangelo’s David, the Uffizi Museum and … uh … in short, I suffered from The Stendhal Syndrome’s other name: Hyperkulturemia.
A Freudian version of too much culture.

I had, however, instead of being so “blown away” by Florence, was lifted into what is now and still is the most undeniably breathtaking and blissful certainty of God’s existence.
This, of course, to the ears of the very Progressive Priory was psychiatric heresy; and, to a Progressive Catholic like Pelosi, politically threatening. I might even begin to believe that abortion really is a cardinal sin.
“He has a major ‘father problem’”, was the advice of the Priory physicians to, of all people, my father, a surgeon.
Yes, I do have a “father problem” with Science as God.
Apparently and according to the intellectual supremacists of Progressive Science, the faith-driven, little people, use God as a neurotically and/or psychotically fictional father-figure to smooth over problems they should be facing all by themselves!
Something like that.
Hitler’s and Stalin’s “You will obey orders!!!” is being magically and, need I say, “fundamentally transformed” into the Progressive New World Order’s “do as the doctor tells you”.
However, according to Wikipedia, the Stendhal Syndrome was only named in 1979, when it was described by Italian psychiatrist Graziella Magherini, who observed and described more than 100 similar cases among tourists and visitors in Florence.
The syndrome was first diagnosed in 1982.
I was electro-shocked by the very Progressive Priory for “hypomania” in 1964.
Perhaps God knew that the only way to keep me from dying in Vietnam would be 10 electro-shock treatments.
However, after those ECT’s I was so depressed and incapacitated, I would have welcomed dying anywhere.
It took me ten years to recover.
That fact did, however, keep me out of military service.
Snarkysnob has the inside line to my life so I can’t wait for him to further inspire me with, for some people, very insightfully provocative lectures about the Progressive Psychiatric and SEIU Point of View.
Science and Labor vs. God.
Communists vs. Catholics.
Thugs with degrees … versus … the deluded Judeo-Christian Civilization!

In the Fifties and Sixties, of course, Progressive Britain was handing out ECT’s like aspirin.
I claim that these “enlightened despots,” as Voltaire would have labeled them, helped destroy both Paul Robson and Vivien Leigh with their ECT’s.
Odd and ironic that my tribute and support of the Catholic Church’s stand on abortion should so inspire a Progressive Troll like Snarkysnob whose knowledge of my medical past indicates a familiarity and closeness that would be disturbing if I hadn’t left Progressive America and its homicidal dreams of the future.
“Michael, is there anyone in Manhattan you have not insulted,” asked Dick Schapp.
I thought, “Yes, you Dick.”
You and, in Hollywood possibly, Snarkysnob.
My last article, Catholics vs. Communists, had obviously struck a chord with Snarkysnob who – rather like Charles Gibson looking over his glasses at Sarah Palin in the increasingly failed effort to discredit her – wishes to argue ad hominem.
This, dear and not so dear readers, is exactly the strategy the Obama government wishes to use against its own citizens with its control of American health and hospitals.
I guarantee you, every bit of information a Progressive government has on its citizens will, indeed, be used against them in more than a mere court of law.
If these citizens disagree in the slightest with a Progressive New World Order’s plans for the future, well, welcome to One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest!
Obama’s admiration for the film Godfather explains why the President wishes to obtain information about all of his citizens that would empower him to “make offers no sane person could refuse”.
I am now shamelessly 69 years of age and consider every second of life, following my heart attack over three years ago, as God’s gift.
I find the showdown now shaping up below the 49th parallel is something I saw coming 15 years ago, in 1993 when the impatiently Progressive Attorney General, Janet Reno, said, “I know Murder She Wrote has few violent scenes in it, but they talk about nothing but violence.”
With Nurse Ratched’s threatening smile and pianissimo voice, Reno watched the NBC execs quiver at the other end of the table.
Rather like McMurphy I thought, “To hell with this! The b—h is crazier than I am!”
Oh, as an irony of all ironies, I was selected to do the recorded reading of “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”.
It, like most of my films, has been lost in the same, seemingly terminal obscurity Nurse Ratched eventually placed McMurphy in.
I think you’d find my reading of Nurse Ratched, by the way, quite chilling in a charmingly camp sort of way.
Little did I know I’d actually meet a Nurse Ratched years later in Washington, D.C. as an Attorney General.
I wonder if A.G. Eric Holder has any similarly unforgettably cinematic alter egos.
Oh, perhaps Nurse Ratched’s superior at the Hospital is Dr. Snarkysnob.
I don’t remember ever seeing The Biggest Boss of Nurse Ratched on camera actually.
Bu then again we don’t see a lot of George Soros either.
“Dr. Soros, Dr. Soros! Wanted in emergency immediately!”






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
109 Comments
Thank you so much for sharing, sir! Sorry about the troll, those idiots are infesting the comments areas all over the internet.
They are incapable of disputing points or forming a coherent argument, instead they launch personal attacks and embarrass themselves with their inflated self image. Those poor pathetic people are deserving of our pity more than anything else.
Hope you had yourself a wonderful Independence Day weekend. God bless you.
Great Post Mr. Moriarity, and closer to the truth then most people would like to admit. Richard Hofstadter (a progressive indoctrinationali,,,, errrr Historian) used a book called "The Authoritarian Personality" by Theodor Adorno, which argued that American History is a tale of liberals slaying the American Facists (I.E. Patriotic Americans, buisness leaders and political leaders). This book was important to Progressives because it showed them how to conduct political critisism in psychiatric categories, to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of arguing and validating their points of views, instead of arguing with opponents they could simply dismiss them on psycological grounds. We see it all the time, Progressives love to use conditional resistence to change, hatred, and racism to derail opposition to their implimentation of the progressive/socialist wonderland that they want.
God bless you Mr. Moriarty, and keep up the good fight.
You'll forgive me for some additional irony. In 1977 Robert Ludlum wrote a novel called the Chancellor Manuscript about the government using secrets gathered by J. Edgar Hoover against them. You did an audio reading of that book as well.
Great post, sir. Always look forward to reading what you have to say.
Wow. Deep and personal. Yet you talk of it the way only survivors can. You thrive, in fact. I love that!
I've always enjoyed your work. I saw you and DeNiro in that baseball movie when I was a kid — never forgot that soul that came through. Still does. God Bless ya, brother!
PS- Go deep sea fishing. Throw Nurse Ratched — and that troll — over the side. Works for me!
I was in Florence the summer of 1964. Wished I had run into you. My cousin had shock threatment. I don't know if graduating from Harvard had anything to do with it. (Probably did.)
Great article. I'm a big fan of yours. Keep the articles coming.
God bless!
Interesting tale. When I was in high school my mother's psychiatrist proscribed shock therapy as a treatment for depression. If you ask me, all it accomplished was to completely erase huge swaths of her recent long term memory for ever.
And I can relate to your idea about every second of life being a gift from God. When I was born I wasn't expected to live through the night. I was Baptized on the spot, and my birth certificate still lists my name as Baby Boy. The way I look at it is I've been living on borrowed time since the day I was born.
Perhaps that's the reason I don't suffer fools gladly.
Typical Statist thought pattern: "With proper medication, counseling, and education, all the lesser minds of the world can think precisely as I do."
[...] post: Progressive Trolling and … The Real McMurphy? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
In the future, today's over-diagnosed ADHD cases and the over-prescribed drugs for treating it will be viewed as just as barbaric and misguided a chapter as the electro-shock therapy era.
Both brought about by "liberal" and "progressive" medicine, I might add.
Also might explain the courage of your intellect!
God Bless,
Michael
Precisely!
GB,
M
Maybe they were just educated beyond their mental capacity — where's Dr. Zeke when you need him?
The way I look at it is I'll shut up when I'm dead. Till then, there are minds to be changed, facts to be stated, and ideas to be shared.
So I better get started.
"Unable to discuss facts in any logical, coherent way, or even engage in civil discourse, the modern left has two modes of argumentation: tu quoque and ad hominem. The former roughly translates from Latin as “and so are you,” while the latter means to attack the person instead of the point. In logic, both of these tactics are considered the lowest form of debate, but for the intellectually bankrupt and emotionally overwrought left, they’re the only tactics they have." – Frank Ross, Big Journalism.
One wonders when the left's outrage at the rampant teacher-student sex crimes in the public schools will spill over, forcing everyone to bring much needed reform. There are roughly 30 times more cases of child abuse in the public schools than in the Catholic Church – and that only accounts for the reported cases that were not covered up. Considering the Progressive choice in "Safe Schools Czar", Kevin Jennings, a fellow who distributes pamphlets and holds seminars for middle schoolers on 'safe fisting' – my guess is never. Suffice it to say that whether church or school, the amount of corruption in any institution is directly proportionate to the amount of Leftism therein. God save our children from the Pelosi Catholic, the Reverend Wrights, and the cloistered teacher's union.
Thank you for the Frank Ross quote.
Separate corners of life, same conclusion.
Yes, the sexual nightmares in the Progressive Public School System of the U.S.
If they can allow themselves to abort children, they can certainly do anything else as well.
God Bless,
Michael
The "Science" of brainwashing.
I'm sure they are now handing out degrees for that somewhere … and taxpayer funded salaries.
Their problem is that God indeed DOES exist … and He is Eternally there to embarrass them.
God Bless,
M
Harvard, eh?
Dartmouth here.
Hmmm … the Fulbright watchdogs … Leftist brainwashing … "God" is a forbidden word … no Ivy Leaguer may even say it, let alone believe in God, unless, of course, they're running for office.
Hmmm … interesting line of inquiry.
God Bless,
Michael
You left out Hemingway on the EST casualty list.
ADHD is pandemic, if medicine cabinets in schools were to be counted. it's the medical and pharmaceutical excuse for not PARENTING.
CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME is the medical and pharmaceutical alternative to "YOU'RE GETTING OLD, YOUR BODY IS WEARING OUT AND IT SUCKS."
There are no guarantees your life will be pain free, harm free, or that bad things won't happen to you for no reason at all. Life is not fair. Never was, never will be. Deal with that and the rest is a cakewalk….the rest being anything life throws at us.
"Tuesdays with Morrie" was one excellent example of that and Eli Wiesel as well when he saidl:
"We are NOT defined by our circumstances, but by our RESPONSE to them." If someone who survived YEARS in Nazi death camps can embrace that…..anyone can.
Reality's a bitch, life is hard, and your chances of winnin the lottery are about the same, whether you buy a ticket or not…..
And none of that matters to people happy inside their skin.
Did electro-shock therapy stop Hemingway from committing suicide?
No, so what good is it even for the depressed?
GB,
M
A great post, awash in personal insight, pain and devoid of illusion.
Mr. Moriarty has contemporary liberalism's number.
Mr. Moriarty's extraodinarily honest and moving story speaks for many of us stubborn conservatives who endured years of progressive indoctrination-whether through shock therapy, 'talk therapy' or just the 'help' of well meaning friends. When I think of the time (and money!!) wasted listening to people tell me how much happier and better I'd be if I only became more like them, and give up my anachronistic ideas about Christ and the sacredness of life and the greatness of our country. My biggest 'breakthrough' came when I stopped being depressed and started getting pissed at all the progressive bullying. And thanks to Mr. Moriarty and his 'gentle readers', I've discovered there are more than a few folks out there like me who see through the hypocrisy and reject the stupidity.
I'm no psychiatrist, but the description of Stendhal Syndrome sounds an awful lot like what was once called 'mysticism' or 'awakening'- moments when our encounter with art or nature or prayer enable us to break through the 'noise' of life and experience Our ever-present God in an intensely intimate and personal way. Many of the greatest saints and mystics of history lived on the precipice of 'sanity'.
Your description sounds like the story of my life!
Yes, sir, we are "free at last"!
"God almighty, free at last!!!"
GB,
M
Hey, MG,
Yeh…..like lobotomies EST is for when "nothin else works so we just opt to kill of the part that offends and hope what's left is viable" or as I call it, the "life at any price" solution.
Stendhal Syndrome eh? Mysticism does not exist for psychiatrists. As a young man you learned a hard lesson. I have attended that school. Thank you for your bravery against such low attacks. You set a brilliant example.
It’s truly, “A Brave New World,’ as Aldous Huxley so brilliantly pointed out so many years ago…SOMA takes on so many different forms. Love your articles Michael, as far as the trolls just point and laugh.
It's a small world Ed, my mum also had shock therapy and to be even more weird I should never have been born. My dad was exposed to agent orange in Vietnam and my brother was concived after his return and he was born with only half of his left arm. As was done at the time my mum had her tubes tied and lol and behold I was born less then 2 years later!
Progressive Thought…
A public school teacher having sex with a student is not to be questioned. The teacher had his or her own reasons for the sexual encounter(s) and we'll stick by our teachers and their unions 100% Now, if it were a private school teacher not affiliated with a union, get out the media and the lawyers to show this wicked non-union teacher to be the scum of the earth.
Life always finds a way.
Every time I see a single blade of grass poking up through a crack in a field of asphalt (parking lots) I smile. It's the miracle of life.
By the way, next time you see your dad tell him I said thanks for his service to his country.
Expose Soros!
Every American should know the name George Soros and should know what he and his family do. Shine a light on these cockroaches!
Yes life does find a way. As to my dad, thanks for the thought but he served his country a lot better then he ever served his family, after my mum got sick he left and I've only seen him 2 times since I was 9. That's life!
Apologies for bringing up a sad subject. As you can tell from the Big sites, on the 4th of July, America looks to cook outs, parties and fireworks, but also looks towards those who served in time of war.
On the upside, its good to see you haven't let that define your life. I know several who have. And that is really sad to see some one throw away their life and use some other ass' actions as an excuse. Congratulations on manning up and doing it yourself!
That's an interesting way to look at it. I don't think I would have put it that way, but I think I still agree.
If you ask me, I think science has been used as crutch of sorts to give intellectually lazy people an easy excuse for not searching into religion and themselves deep enough and long enough to honestly come to the conclusion there is no God.
It's really easy to just say 'I believe in science, and science can't prove God exists, therefore God can't exist.'
Which is usually followed by 'My room mate is out of town and I've got some great etchings, come on back to my pad and we can chill.'
There is no doubt science can not be used to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science wasn't invented to measure things like faith. And its not just faith that science can't measure.
Science is great for measuring and calculating the physical world around us, but that's pretty much all it can do. Science offers no help at all when it comes to things like love, beauty, art, compassion, empathy, sympathy, or the vast majority of the realm of what it means to be a human. That's why people turn to religion.
Science tries to answer the question "How." Religion tries to answer the question "Why."
And that's why, in my opinion, they rightfully should be separate.
Mr. Moriarty, it's tragic what psychology has done to human beings in the name of science. Thanks for sharing such a painful event to prove a point about where "progressive" thought is willing to go (inside your mind).
I think as far as the Church goes we've reached a very dark place. In some instances the American progressive government has wormed it's way inside the Church in our Catholic hospitals and more recently I saw examples of it in the Church as a direct result of the abuse "scandals". The abuse in the church was mainly done by priests but the Church's response to this problem as been to create programs that require any adults working with to be finger printed and to follow a guide put out by "Child Protective Services" (insidious government program in my opinion). In fact, this weekend I saw something about this in our bulletin that said that anyone who wanted to know about how the Washington Arch Diocese feels about child abuse they can go to a website sponsored by Child Protective Services. Which means that a government program is involved in the church "child abuse problem" and by involved I mean that suddenly all parents are suspects and must go through training and be fingerprinted in order to help out with their child's first communion classes or confirmation classes. So in DC we are using the government created "child protection" program as a basis for how we approach the Church "abuse" problem– a government system that abuses children who languish in a foster care situation a program so inept that like the school system they continue to throw money at it and it's abuses of children and families get worse. So, the progressives are here and the child abuse scandal has opened the door in a big way for the governments wing of "protective services" to come in. This is how the Church is currently addressing the abuse problem. I don't know if it's nation wide but it's def in the DC area. This won't stop until we Catholics start asking how fingerprinting parents deals with the abuse issue.
That's cool there is no way to know, you have to move on and get on with your life and try to be a better person. We know about the 4th of July not just from the Big Sites but from American TV and movies, the fireworks, food, parades etc.
We do it a little different, we recognize the troops past and present (and drink to honour them) on ANZAC day (April 25th) and we have Australia Day (January 26th) to celebrate the country where we too cook dead animals and drink a lot. We tend to be less overtly patriotic then Americans, though that is slowly changing, but so is the labelling of the more patriotic displays as being racist! But we mostly ignore those idiots.
In America, the 4th of July isn't just about remembering fallen patriots, it's America''s birthday party. And as most things American's do, we tend to go over board. And you know what, we mostly think, yeah, so what?
)))))
Yesterday my family went up to a small cookout/picnic with my sister, her kids and her grandchild (yikes, I'm 4 years younger than a grandma!). On the way up the highway (55 mph speed limit) some old Cadillac from the 1970's blows past us doing 80 or even faster.
My wife starts bitching, and I say there's just something about the 4th of July in America that makes Americans want to flip the bird to authority. My 17 year old daughter in the back seat completely agreed.
There is something special about it. If you're are on a walk about (always wanted to say that) and can make it over, I highly recommend it.
While I'm not sure it's gone entirely to the same degree, in California we are close on the heels. Fingerprinting and mandated classes, not allowing parents to even sit in on a catechism class with their child without it. Their are new restrictions constantly being put into place, as well as lessons being forced into the catechism program pertaining to abuse, etc. And these are volunteer teachers that now have to teach this. This also goes for ANY volunteering at most Church events in which children participate.
Our school systems are just as ridiculous. It's just a way to insert the "government" between the parent and their child. Their reasoning sounds legitimate, HOWEVER is it logical to assume that the "bad guy" is going to be on the school bus with their kid on the way to a field trip and try to abuse a child? Better we pull teachers out of the classrooms and hire substitutes for their classes so they can go on the field trip bus because they are fingerprinted and "safer". Oh yes, and heaven forbid you volunteer with more than one group because EACH group be it the Catholic Diocese, the School District, Girl Scouts, etc. will require you to be fingerprinted (at a cost) for their group. All of this is to address an abuse problem. Take more parental responsibility away and place it with "those that know better."
As a Catholic this makes me very, very sad and very, very concerned. Like you said, when are Catholics going to stand up for themselves, and where are the Church Leaders on this? (I know the answer and while I guess it can be understood, it is horrendously frustrating.)
They deserve more than our pity or at least something much darker. Remember, these are the loons running the asylum now, and they feel no pity for us. If they could, you and I, and anyone else who dares to have an occasional "thought crime" would be put to the electroshock grind until we couldn't even remember our own names.
My upbringing was that the Fourth was a day to celebrate the birth of the nation. Part of that is honoring the military that protects our continued freedoms. In my family Memorial Day is the big day to honor the fallen and those who have served (we also honor all our ancestors, but espeically the vets). Memorial Day is strictly for that although many Americans now view it as simply a day to have another BBQ and an extra day off.
Very true. I still say they deserve pity, but yeah, stay on guard (and they do need to be fought on whatever battlefield they choose to infest).
My Mom used to keep a picture hanging in our kitchen…it was a bunch of violets, growing out of the side of a mountain cliff, with the following caption:
"The pursuit of excellence, in the face of adversity, is invariably matched by the glory of the result !"
"My upbringing was that the Fourth was a day to celebrate the birth of the nation."
I think this is why Americans are so patriotic, you had to fight for your country, when Australia became a country we did so with the blessing of the British (you guys made them see the light) so we are more laid back about it.
Sounds like a lot more fun then work, which is where I was at. Nothing wrong with going overboard, especially when you are talking about food, drink and fireworks, in those cases bigger is better.
I cannot go walkabout, apart from the fact I'm not aboriginal, I have a mortgage! But one day, I'll make my way over.
I agree exactly!
Please, please read: "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson. Vanity Kills.
I think I may have to disagree with you here. With the proper perspective, science can aid in the "why." However, in the West, the artificial separation of science and religion is a result of a far more detailed set of circumstances. Though we can't lay it at the feet of one person, Aquinas must surely take a fair amount of the blame. After all when, in the "Summa," he introduced the heresy that outside of what Rome declared, all that man could know about the world was through "contemplation of the natural world." This was a break from centuries of Christian tradition and writing. Aquinas may have not come up with the idea, but the prominence of his "Summa" and his role as regent master of theology in Paris (two terms) meant that he had a strong influence in what was taught by the church of Rome in its schools. It's not difficult to see the influence this had and, over the years, what his epistemological dualism morphed into. (After all, if all the "God stuff" was merely an addendum to what we could learn ourselves, why not just excise it, following Occam's razor?)
The West (as a mindset, mind you, not necessarily a geo-political identification) has long suffered from this epistemological dualism, which is where this science versus faith nonsense comes from.
I agree that science, devoid of Truth as it is in the Western mindset, cannot prove or disprove God. However, to eliminate it from any aspect of "why" is to only continue the inappropriate mindset that gave us the dualism in the first place.
the sinner,
Patrick
We are both parents and I am sure that both of us as parents don't want our children or anyone else's child to be abused.
But the progressive movement has used the word child abuse and distorted it, as they do with so many words, to place the government in the middle of families.
The problem is that when everyone becomes a possible "child abuse suspect" (which is what we are saying when everyone has to be fingerprinted before looking at a child) we breed a culture of fear and distrust in our children. I cannot walk into a room now where my children are being taught something without being "cleared" by the proper authorities first? Where do we go next?
All of the progressives are up in arms about Arizona requiring the proper paperwork from illegals but all of the sudden the same progressives who hate Arizona's paperwork, who tell us that our "fetuses" are not valid human beings , are telling us that once we have these "fetuses" we are not good enough to raise them or be a part of the important events they go through at church or school without the proper paperwork?
That doesn't make any logical sense to me as a solution to child abuse– unless your "solution" isn't about abuse and it's more about control. Saying every parent is a suspected abuser until proven otherwise makes no sense to me as a solution to a problem but it is exactly what the government views as the solution and now my Church is following that line of thought lock-step.
The Church leaders are too busy CYA-ing to realize the culture of distrust this "solution" creates.
The way you destroy a culture is to put the government in place of parents in the lives of children.
See any totalitarian regime– see Russia, See Nazi Germany, the list goes on. We parents need to wake up and realize how the government is encroaching in our families in the name of child abuse and understand that as far as the government is concerned we are all "possible abusers".
It makes me upset they've come into the Church but I have no idea how (as one woman) I can stop it.
Also, there's a great guy Steven Krason,PhD. He's a professor at Stuebenville in Ohio, he's Catholic, and he's done two decades worth of research on how Child Protective Services destroys families. He's mentioned in this article (which is worth reading BTW) and he's done amazing reasearch about what needs to be done with the disastrous government system known as Child Protective Services. You should def google him. Great perspective on why we shouldn't go where we're going in the church. Here's an article featuring him: http://www.examiner.com/a-1413553~Is_it_child_pro...
I am in total agreement with you on all of this. Of course I would never want any child be harmed by the evil that exists in some. There is no question or debate on that.
But the overreaction solutions that have become commonplace throughout our society are what is destroying it. It seems that just the minuscule and/or smallest possibility that something can happen (and let's face it – it could) has overridden common logic and responsibility for our own lives. I felt offended and irritated when faced with this this while my children were in elementary school and I was trying to be active and volunteering at the school. But having a law enforcement background I forced myself to try to be patient and see it as a positive thing. As my kids got older and the "government" (be it at the school level or wherever) become even more and more paranoid thereby enacting more and more ridiculous hurdles to even try to help, I came to the conclusion that it is less about the children and more as you say about the power. By the time you have put up all of these roadblocks and restrictions on good people who want to help and assist, and have succeeded in turning them away, well then you can say that without those "helpers" in class, the teachers, administrators and schools need more help which in turn means more money. Money equals power. And away we go.
My kids are older now, but at the high school level some of the stuff they come home with that they are being taught is staggering. They know enough not to buy into a lot of it and have a strong religious base so common sense prevails in most instances in our home. But as a parent to feel like you have to defend your beliefs versus what is taught in schools is terrifying to me.
Also, the Church which I have counted on as being something to hang onto while everything else is insane, can't seem to stand on it's own two feet anymore. It has become a business and/or bureaucracy with all it entails, especially the CYA at every turn. I think it's great that recently my particular parish seems to be allowing itself to be stronger and/or louder on our pro-life beliefs, but they I believe they still have a long way to go too. I teach catechism with my teenager daughter to young kids, and again the CYA hoops and jumps just to be able to do that is ridiculous.
I have always wanted to be The Parent to my kids, and believe I am perfectly smart enough and capable enough to do so, even to protecting them from evil. What I can't do I believe that God can. My kids understand that. I am offended that the government feels it can do a better job with anything pertaining to me or my family – especially in light of what I see every day. Maybe they could do a better job dealing with bad guys, which should be their job and it wouldn't have to trickle down to me. Oh but I guess if you try to actually follow the law (see AZ) that would be wrong too. It makes me so angry.
I'm trying very hard to believe in my Church, but every day I worry about the road we are going down in this country, and the lack of strength I see coming from the Church. I'm heartened by a lot that I read here both articles and comments, and on a few other websites. But a lot days it just feels scary.
I will definitely check it out. As I said my family has been in law enforcement (not just in CA) for some time and I/we are very aware of how Child Protective Services works in a couple states around here. I will check it out! Thank you.
Janet Reno, the Nurse Ratched of my piece, destroyed the lives of a few Floridians when she was their Attorney General, falsely accusing them of child abuse. Those charges were not corroborated but the damage was done!
God Bless,
Michael
I am very sorry to hear about what happened to you. I tend to agree regarding Ms. Vivien Leigh.
I am very glad you recovered and you have a ton of guts to talk about this, I am sure it is quite hard to go back to that ground.
Not all of your films are obscure, either. Many middle and high schools show your film on the Wright Brothers. From science to history to shop classes (the wood and mechanical engineering stuff in particular) it remains quite popular, at least here in New Jersey.
Good luck and best to you, I hope you have had a wonderful Fourth of July and are having a wonderful day today.
I've read your post about three times and it still goes pretty much nowhere. You give no example of how science can aid in the why, just that to think otherwise is "dualism." This tells the reader nothing.
You also assert that Aquinas promoted heresy. Heresy from whose perspective?
What other source of knowledge is there about the natural world than the natural world itself? Instead of just saying what's wrong, how about explaining what's right?
The concept that human reasoning is so superior that empirical evidence is unnecessary goes back to ancient Greek. So much for Aristotle and Socrates. The idea the human mind is so resourceful that experimentation is unnecessary.
St. Thomas was mining that vein with Summa, and if you ask me, considering what logical and scientific tools he had available to him at the time, he did a pretty good job with them.
Here's what I mean. I can use calculus to calculate the necessary trajectory and force needed to hurl a space ship to the moon, orbit it, and bring it back home.
What's the mathematical formula for love? How do you measure the pain when a loved one dies? Prove to me scientifically that Bach is mathematically superior to Beethoven.
It can't be done because science does not work that way.
And when think about it, that is the vast majority of life, the human condition. Science may be used to make the physical world around us more amicable, but it can not help humans deal with what it's like to emotionally and spiritually be human.
That's the realm where religion begins. Where science ends.
That has to be one of the best posts I've read in a very long time. Thank you.
You should really be teaching somewhere or at least writing a book.
The same thing happened in Washington State when a bunch of psychologists decided that children had "recovered" memories of child abuse. The people accused were fully acquitted by the facts in the case but their lives were never the same. The reason they were acquitted is because the psychologists were taped coaxing the children on their "recovered" memories. Not shock therapy but another way that psychologists/ psychiatrists with progressive thinking "help" with their "science". Thanks for writing this piece. Your work here is refreshing, poignant, thought provoking and it's incredibly important that we keep talking about what the left wants to do to life in the name of "safety".
Meanwhile these same people vote regularly to destroy gestating infants and don't consider that child abuse.
GB,
M
Hi Mr. M
as ever, your authenticity profoundly moves so many of your readers in this community……in other words…
you're clear as a bell! (( thank you !! ))
GB,
Laura
Referencing (The Gift Of Stern Angels)…when I read your account of what it was like for you to be in that meeting with those NBC execs and Reno…I was awestruck by the Clinton Administration's dark, manipulative progressiveness which had such destructive forcefulness at its heart.
Some years later, Janet Reno diagnosed with Parkinson's; ironic that one of the symptoms in latter stages is dementia; mental impairment…although I don't intend to occur as cruel, but I must say that what goes around seems to come back around indeed…
GB dear Mr M
Laura
Hi dear Ed,
hon…you rock!!
GB,
Laura
wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! way to go there dear TexasStomp!!
way cool…love it!
God Bless,
Laura
((standing and cheering! ))
by the time I get to this site, ya'll have said so many things I truly believe in that all I can do is say YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!
GB,
Laura
I'm usually a latecomer, too! Happened to be off work yesterday. And your "YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!" was most welcome!! Thank you both for your kind replies.
My God, you've read Gift of Stern Angels?!
If you still own the copy of that book, don't give it up!
It will prove a collector's item!!
It is now, on the internet, priced at $60!!
As for \”what goes around … \” YES!
The irony … or prescience of her condition is that the Obama Nation is now already as mad as she … they just look sane.
GB,
M
teehee…ya betcha!
(gazing over at our bookcase of fave books)..let's see…oh yes…a most wonderful bit o' MM penned fiction…JC Kaminer mystery…The Voyeur..as well as Gift Of Stern Angels…!
also…Sweet n' Gritty (Jay Leonhart is one mighty fine double bassist too).. & the MM Quintet Live At Fat Tuesday…amen!
there's so much more to MM (M-squared) than 'Mr. Ben Stone' who is the heart & soul of L&O. Over the years you've made a lot of us deeee-lighted; entertained us and spoiled us rotten with a wealth of multimedia…
and now we are blessed to have you right here…
sorry to talk your ear off LOL!
GB,
Laura
You almost have me blushing now … but I'm too old to blush. My heart can barely get my blood to my feet … let alone my cheeks.
Ya did putta smile on ma face!!!
GB,
M
Scott…thanks so much for your posts
God bless you!
Laura
ADHD is a mis-diagnosis, overused to over medicate our best and brightest, and bring them down to the same level and learning style as everyone else. They use Ritalin and Prozac to shave the edges off of the square pegs and force them through the round holes in the board, just so they don't have to adjust their teaching style in the slightest. I know; I was diagnosed with it, and they tried medicating it away, but the only thing that worked was changing the way that I was being schooled.
You are dead on, of course, about no guarantees as to how it works out. That's the difference between conservatives/libertarians and Liberals; we know that life is hard, dangerous, dirty, and those who work the hardest to get through it reap the greatest rewards. There is no such thing as "fair", when it comes to life.
Two of my favorite quotes from the movie world sum it up nicely:
"Life IS pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." -The Princess Bride
——
"That's not FAIR!
You say that so often! I wonder what your basis for comparison is." – Labyrinth
Yes. And for your quotation repartee……add this one from William Saroyan
My greatest happiness is in knowing I do not necessarily require happiness.
Very freeing.
And my father's advice to anyone about most everything
Ah hell, just take two asprin and sit in a different chair.
))))))))))))))
Thank you so much Laura, appreciate your comment about my comments!
One of the major attractions of the site from the first time I came here is the comments section. It takes a good blog and makes it great.
Well, try reading it again – maybe you'll get it. (Hehehehe . . . just kidding). If science is performed with the proper approach/mindset – one that sees it as simply one other aspect of knowledge, NOT as a *separate* source of knowledge, then it can aid. The post should have at least told you that, and if not, I apologize.
The source of True Knowledge, even of the created world, according to original Christianity, was God. Not in a "He's whispering in my ear through an angel" sorta way. But original Christianity had a notion of participation in God, though not in his essence. Grace was not a created thing until Rome's break from Holy Tradition. Originally, Grace was understood as part and parcel of God, though NOT His essence – it was His Uncreated Energies. To think of it as created (or, as "different from God as the gift is from the giver" as the Vatican maintains) is to see God as insufficient in His original form and in need of changing in order to interact with man. God had to create something that had not existed before because God was incapable of communing with man. That is why Aquinas' epistemology, derived directly from his theological heresies/novelties that expounded and exacerbated the mistakes of St. Augustine, was necessarily dualistic.
For Aquinas, God had to be completely simple – Aquinas, mired as he was in even an early form of naturalism, convinced of God's complete separation from all existence, could only conceive of a God that, if you look at it, could have no actual, personal relationship with any created thing. He could "only" create Grace as a response and, through such a mediator, commune with man.
Originally, Christianity saw participation (the more accurate translation of the original Greek in the NT that is often mistranslated as "remembrance" when we come to the passages on Christ's establishment of the Eucharist) in God, though not in His essence, as the ultimate source of physical and spiritual transformation (as evidenced several times in the NT, not the least of which was the Transfiguration).
Aquinas rejected this notion, and, relying as heavily as he did on Aristotle (nearly as much as St. Augustine), saw the world through a completely materialist, dualistic mindset. Thus, what he wrote and taught was very much heretical in that it was novel and not consistent with the Faith delivered to the saints once for all.
the sinner,
Patrick
And Aquinas relied on Aristotle more than any other source other than St. Augustine. And, if'n I may, the problem also lies in this: "logic" is not a separate entity or ends or set or subset of anything – it is a *method*. "Logic" is, itself, a tool. The use of the word "logic" as some sort of self-sustaining ends or defined set of anything is something I call the "Spocking" of the word. I'm not so sure you're going full Spock, here, but it's awfully close (apparently, mind you).
In reading the rest of your response, it suffers from the very thing I'm talking about: the dualism! You limit both science and faith into to respective spheres from the very start. I don't think this is necessarily appropriate – NOT, in any event, from what original Christianity taught. True Knowledge of both spiritual and material existences (which, in and of themselves, were not so utterly separate – the English translations and misunderstanding of the NT, suffering under the heresy and myth of "sola scriptura," have gone a long way in embedding the notion of such a separation in Western culture) is not through any sort of self-sufficiency of the human intellect. True, it requires effort on our part, but only through theosis can, or *may*, really, such Truth be imparted.
If you read the Philokalia, you'll see works of Fathers going back to the 3rd and 4th century that are pretty explicit about this. It gets even more explicit in the writings of those like St. Gregory Palamas who had to defend Holy Tradition from such dualism centuries later. (Though these writings did NOT represent "innovation," but a continuity with the tradition stretching back to Christ, Himself).
Science, practice with the right mindset, so to speak (and here I don't simply mean the right "motivation"), within the proper context, can aid and support that Truth which is learned directly from participation in the Uncreated Energies of God, aka Grace (see my earlier response to Buck, please). Any science AS WE (typically, in the West) KNOW IT – that is, limited to simply observation/experimentation rooted in created existence and artificially separated from the Faith – will fail in the manner you have described. But that isn't a failure, necessarily, of science, but of the epistemological methodology we employ in the West.
It isn't in the method of science, but in the *starting assumptions* regarding knowledge that the West is infected by.
Yeah, I know, this probably isn't that clear. Please forgive me.
the sinner,
Patrick
This is happening in most churches, not just the Catholic Church. In our Methodist Church the program is called, "Safe Sanctuary" and it defines how adults can and cannot interact with children and youth. Most of it is common sense and meant to protect the child from harm and to protect the adult from baseless accusations. However, when my teenagers volunteered to help with younger children, they were told not to allow toddlers to sit in their lap during story time–good grief! At our church this was driven by the insurance company underwriting our liability policy. We had to prove that we had written guidelines and training in place and that we make a good faith effort to monitor adherence. This is life in the modern world–I admire the Amish way of life more and more.
I'M SO SORRY! I should have covered this last point, since it may make what I've written both clearer to you and to EdSki below.
I don't not wish to put words in your mouth, so I'll simply say that it *appears* that you also are starting from the assumption of *ontological* dualism as well as *epistemological* dualism. That is, crudely, that the physical and spiritual worlds are separate. This is a typically common Western (again, not in a geo-political/nationalistic sense, but in a mindset) starting assumption. That is: that "religion" and "faith" deal with only spiritual things, whilst science deals with the natural world. This, too, is a (most likely unforseen and unwanted) result of Aquinas' epistemological dualism.
In the original Christian tradition, and most non-Western religions/sects, there is no such separation. This brings me to an example: the Unmercenaries of the Church, like Sst. Cosmas and Damianos – physicians who used both science and the unseparated, if you will, physical manifestation of the Faith (no small "f" here) in their healing work. There are many, many such saints in the history of the Church, and they are living (God is the God of the living, not the dead) examples of how science and Faith, in original Christianity, are not separate and how they actually work together.
If one does not embrace the two key dualisms, here, of ontology and epistemology, as *starting assumptions*, and does embrace the original Christian perspective/mindset, then I think my point, my opinion, gets a little clearer. I hope this helps.
the sinner,
Patrick
Please see my post to Buck regarding ontological dualism – it may help clarify my statements. Thanks.
the sinner,
Patrick
My education is in electrical engineering, computer science and networking. So for me logic is a separate sphere. I even had to take a philosophy class called Logic. So consider me "Spocked."
At the time of the early Church leaders, science was not yet a separate academic discipline, everything was still considered philosophy. I don't believe they even started calling it Natural Philosophies till the Renascence. Only in the last 300 – 400 years was it spun off as applied sciences.
Personally I don't see how identifying them as separate spheres of thought harms either one. Rather I think it helps clarify them. I tend to follow the thinking of the ancient Greeks when it comes to religion. They decided that it was impossible to either prove or disprove God, so there fore there was no reason to debate the subject, so they closed that door.
I simply decide to open it back up and have a look around.
The way I view it is God created the universe. And God did so in such a way that nature is orderly, predictable, and therefore can be studied, figured out and manipulated. But that's all still with the understanding its God's creation.
A lot of people who say they don't believe in God because of science, because of science I believe in God. My debating style on this subject may come off as confrontational, but that comes from years of defending my beliefs to other libertarians. Libertarians tend to think of faith as proof of a weak mind. And when they trot that argument out, and give it right back to them.
I don't need any scientific proof of the existence of God. I have faith.
I think your statements are pretty clear. But I still believe what I believe.
I think its more confusing when people try to use religion to explain science just as I believe its confusing trying to explain science using religion. Just muddies everything up.
Let me see if this helps clarify. I don't think of religion on one side and science on the other, but rather religion in top and science underneath it.
The above post was to explain the lame excuse I hear from so many religiously lazy people. Those people, in most cases, don't even realize the limits of science. But science is indeed severely limited. Even scientists admit they haven't the slightest clue what came before the big bang, and aren't even going to try.
So much of life is subjective, and science is objective. Science only covers what can be measured repeatedly. And that is such a small part of the human experience.
Science can not measure love. But St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians nails it perfectly.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
Let's see Einstein top that!
absolutely, hon! spot on! we rock as a community…w00t
oh…btw…I hope that you are enjoying your Winter…seriously it is so HOT here in our latitude…one could fry an egg on the pavement…guess that's why they call us HOTlanta, Georgia
GB,
Laura
I completely understand where you're coming from. I also have no intention to say that "if you don't think like I do, you're an idiot!" (a la Richard Dawkins). I'm simply saying that as a broader, cultural inheritance, I think there has been a lot of spiritual damage done in the West because of the twin developments of ontological and epistemological dualism. Not only that, it is inconsistent with original Christianity, as evidenced by both the NT and the supporting evidence of Church Fathers, reflecting the Faith, Itself, throughout the subsequent centuries. For a much more detailed, and wise, discussion, I'd point to both "The Greek East and the Latin West" by Philip Sherrard and the works of Blessed Seraphim Rose.
As far as logic goes – it still functions as a tool, in the philosophical sense. There are "rules," but these "rules" in the realm of logic don't point to a *necessary* end result. Only in the latest centuries has the word logic become shorthand for, basically, utilitarian perspectives (very popular with libertarians) or, even worse, for the "everybody knows" version of what is "good" (usually, some watered-down, egocentric concept of Christian morality).
That said, depending on your starting assumptions, which have nothing to do with the operation of logic, logic can take you any number of places. If you *assume*, at the start, that members of a certain race are less than others and, in fact, are "parasites," to use a pretty extreme (though illuminating) example, then it can be "logical" to insist that the removal, by whatever means, of the members of said race is beneficial to a society/culture as a whole.
I also agree regarding what you are calling scientific proof and the existence of God – but, I must again point to my second post to Buck. What you are calling scientific proof is already defined by your starting assumption regarding the dualism – both ontological and epistemological – of reality. Christianity, originally, made no such separation. In fact, and I may be repeating myself here – forgive me – True Knowledge, even of the created world, did not come from contemplation of the created world. It came through theosis.
the sinner,
Patrick
I appreciate the debate, and I believe we are debating, not really disagreeing. Which I think is great. I love debating intelligent people. That is extremely rare on the left. They usually prefer to eject people who disagree with the party line.
I think our differences are with the definitions of science and logic. With the rise of the information revolution some definitions of the term logic have become quite concrete. Computer chips are also known in the business as logic chips. There's an old saying when I used to work for IBM 'We don't use logic we sell it.'
When I say logic, I refer to the definition that is, well, logically verifiable. Not the definition used in the past which is much less loser.
For me logic is a box with certain rules that apply, and if ideas can't fit into it, they don't belong. Faith is far too large to fit into such a small box.
"God is the God of the living, not the dead"
Uh oh! Sounds, um, dualistic to me. You can hide behind loads of gobbledygook but it does not mask the fact that you haven't answered from whose perspective Aquinas is a heretic. This is because you are without authority to say. As an Orthodox Christian, obviously you hate the idea of allegiance to the Pope, but without such a final authority, you are left to compare Augustine and Aquinas with Cosmas and Damian – two saints known for their piety and selflessness but not for their writings. I would venture to say that Cosmas and Damian found a use for medicines and ankle splints; they didn't just pray over their patients like some oddball Christian Scientist. So participation in God for them was not the only source of "physical and spiritual transformation." They made use of the tools at their disposal in the physical world to treat physical ailments. Of course they did not rule out prayer. No Christian does. Not even Aquinas.
To make the leap that Aquinas was a heretic, you simply misrepresent his position. "Another aspect" vs. "separate source" of knowledge: semantical balderdash. Aquinas did not conceive of God as entirely separate from existence, and to suggest that he did is rubbish. God is the source of existence. Even Deism, which posits God's entire separation from Creation, does not say God is separate from existence. And Aquinas did not go anywhere near as far as Deism. As the Creator who loved the universe into existence, yes, God is separate and transcendent but also necessarily ever-present in Creation. Aquinas did not say otherwise. Neither did EdSki.
I have an automobile and a hat. I use the automobile to get from point A to point B. I use my hat to keep the sun off my head. To use these different things for the purposes for which they are suited is not dualism. Neither is the use of the scientific method to reverse-engineer Creation,or the use of theology to discover the nature of the Creator. Obviously each can inform the other, just as wearing my hat can provide me shade with the top down and just as my car can take me to the haberdasher.
BTW, the discussion of gift and giver in Aquinas' Summa is a discussion of the nature of the Holy Spirit, which although a separate person from the Father, is not separate from God, since the Holy Spirit is God. Three divine *persons,* one *God.* The Holy Spirit is a gift of the Father but also of himself. You can look it up. "Gift' imports a personal distinction, in so far as gift imports something belonging to another through its origin. Nevertheless, the Holy Ghost gives Himself, inasmuch as He is His own, and can use or rather enjoy Himself; as also a free man belongs to himself."
BRAVO!
GB,
M
Crowded House wrote a song about Melbourne's weather called 'Four Seasons In One Day' about how it can change at a minutes notice, but now it's is just one season and that is winter. So far it has been the coldest winter in a decade and for the first time in ages I'm feeling it, I'm usually a shorts and t-shirt guy during winter but I have had to rug up a bit. Oh well, it makes it harder for people to argue for Global Warming.
I'd still prefer our cold at the moment to your Atlanta heat. Enjoy!
Part I
Dualistic? Not really. In fact, not at all. THAT is little more than semantic nonsense. And you can call it whatever you want, but you still haven't addressed it.
Yes, I did, re: Aquinas. He *promoted* a heresy, though he isn't necessarily a heretic. Some have said that you must first know the True Faith before you can reject it and be a heretic – yet, at the same time, you can promote and create heresies. From the Church's perspective, the original Church, not Rome, Aquinas' ideas are clearly heretical.
Uh, yeah, Aquinas did see God as completely separate from creation. God was utterly simple and self-contained – therefore, he could have not actual contact with creation. That isn't to say He had no influence – I'm not accusing Aquinas of deism, mind you. But he had not direct contact – he couldn't, in Aquinas' conception of God. And that's straight from the "Summa."
Re: the bishop of Rome. I have no problem with allegiance to one's bishop. But claiming to be "the bishop of bishops?" Such an idea once prompted St. Gregory the Dialogist (bishop of Rome) to write: "Anyone who calls himself the bishop of bishops is the forerunner to the antichrist." The heresy and novelty of papal infallibility and authority (just read the acts of the Council of Chalcedon and you'll see that the other patriarchal sees didn't just roll over when the bishop of Rome declared something. In fact, the other bishops at the council basically just ignored the papal legates in said case.
St. Augustine isn't the same as Aquinas, nor are either of them the same as Sst. Cosmas and Damianos. You clearly still don't get what I'm talking about, and, for that, I apologize. Or, maybe you wrote this before you read my follow up post below. I think that if you do, you'll realize that your "assumption" regarding medicine for physical things and the use of prayer somehow, again, divides the spiritual and physical worlds – ontological dualism. That is why I think my point isn't getting across.
True Knowledge doesn't come from studying (there have been illiterate saints who knew more about scripture and the Faith and learned "doctors" of theology). Reading and such can help, but it will always fall short of True Knowledge – of both spiritual and physical existence. Thus, the epistemological dualism of someone like Aquinas necessarily leads to the ontological dualism of later . . . thinkers, I guess. Not to say that Aquinas didn't aid in that in separating God from man the way he did (by exacerbating the theological mistakes of St. Augustine and mans' "complete fall" that utterly and completely separated him from God, which was not an original Christian belief).
LOL
You might try thyroid and a vegan diet for a couple months to see what happens to your circulation!!
Just as you can't tell when I'm joking (my poke at your God of the living etc as "dualistic" was in jest), I can't tell if you argue from ignorance or simply bad faith. Gregory the Great, or as you call him, the Dialogist, clearly asserted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. He simply did so in the most politic way possible, calling himself, by virtue of that office, the "servant of the servants of God." Notice how even in that humble sounding appellation, the See of Peter is held out as unique.
It is no secret that the Eastern Patriarchs often bristled at that notion, as have other bishops everywhere from time to time (even today in the Catholic Church there are renegade bishops). But Gregory referred to his office as "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches", and in another of his many letters (Epistle 5.154), he remarks, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church." But wait! There's more: "As regards the Church of Constantinople," Gregory wrote in Epistle 9.12, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it."
The primacy of the See of Peter was recognized from the outset. Thus: "The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…" Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).
I could go on, but there'd be no sport in it.
As for Aquinas, you can't point me to where the Summa says what you claim, unless maybe it is in one of the objections that Aquinas set up to knock down. (I guarantee you haven't even glanced at the actual Summa to know how Aquinas sets out his arguments.) Aquinas does not say God "cannot have actual contact with creation." The suggestion that he did is manifestly absurd. Aquinas' answer to such an objection is "I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things since it is formal in respect of everything found in a thing, as was shown above (Question 7, Article 1). Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly."
Whatever garbage you are reading, throw it out.
Garbage? Like the Summa, itself? Yeah, I'm drawing directly from the Summa, which I recently *re-read*. So, your criticisms are worthless. I don't have it in front of me, but will later. I can cite, directly, what he stated later. Please be patient.
Second, you're clearly misreading St. Gregory the Dialogist. His comment was in direct relation to ANY bishop calling himself the bishop of bishops. And you, I'm guessing, haven't read the acts from any of the Ecumenical Councils (they only exist in complete form from the Fourth, on). I have. In fact, I got a copy of the first modern translation of the Fourth Ec. Council before it was published. Try reading it, you can find it for sale on Amazon, I'm sure. And if you want a direct refutation of your obviously dictated understanding of St. Gregory the Dialogist, I'd suggest Abbe Guetee's work on the fallacies of the papal claims (although, you do have to get past the snark. I didn't like that, but I can tell you, I have never read a compelling argument against his points). It is clear that the bishops of Rome often had delusions of grandeur, though others fought against it. Rome was always first in honor, but as the capitol, NOT for any other reason (as when Rome didn't object to the reason that Constantinople was made, eventually, second in honor – because it was the new capitol and that Rome was first in honor as the old capitol – Rome just didn't like the idea of Constantinople being second in honor. Rome NEVER raised, at the time, the idea of papal authority when it opposed that canon).
I'm re-reading St. Irenaeus (been a few years), and what I find fascinating is that even in what you're quoting, the saint is talking about the FAITH they preached conferring a type of authority. This was NOT an organizational authority, as you are claiming, but an authority by example. Never, even with this saint, was a dictatorial/monarchical concept accepted or argued. Of course, St. Peter was bishop of Antioch first. (Eusebius). Why not Antioch as the primary see?
So, until I can get Guetee (and "I'll guarantee" you'll look him up and see that, as a former Latin, he's greatly hated amongst the followers of Rome and a lot of vitriol is thrown his way, with little to no substance), St. Gregory's and St. Iranaeus' writings, which "I'll gurantee" I've read (I'll make no such claim for you, either way, since I'm not God), we'll just have to wait.
the sinner,
Patrick
I can at least start with this:
From St. Jerome, from the Latin tradition, wrote this:
It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. (Letter CXLVI to Evangelus)
Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons: The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things which concern his own parish and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all. For so there will be oneness of mind and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus): This city [Constantinople] is the eye of the world. The most distant nations press toward her from all parts, and they draw from her as from a spring the principles of the Faith. (Greg. Naz. 42d dis., §10, col..470, Migne's edit.) Sounds a lot like St. Ignaitus, doesn't it?
Sport? Oh, yeah, there's sport. There's a LOT that I'm sure you can't find in a quick-reference chart of supporting quotes. I'll get you more when I can.
the sinner,
Patrick
Oh, yeah, and Linus was already bishop of Rome when St. Peter arrived.
Actually, instead of pages and pages of quotes, I'll just give you this:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapa...
I'd actually read through the whole thing first before commenting.
the sinner,
Patrick
Oh, and, you know, this one last little tidbit: the same word the Latin apologists translate as meaning "agree with" in St. Iranaeus is the same word they translate as "crowding to" or "pressing to" with St. Gregory the Theologian. Same word, two different translations. I think it might just have something to do with the fact that one referenced Rome and one referenced Constantinople, but that is just an opinion.
And, from the link I gave you, at page 28: St. Cyprian writes thus (who also, in an epistle to the bishop of Rome, called him "brother," and asked for counsel, NOT a "ruling") – Let each one give his opinion without judging any one and without separating from the Communion those who are not of his opinion; for none of us sets himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor compels his brethren to obey him by means of tyrannical terror, every bishop having full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another. Let us all wait the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our conduct.
the sinner,
Patrick
Busy day at work, I see.
In response to my direct quote of Aquinas' position from the Summa regarding God's omnipresence in Creation, you make no refutation of substance. You merely insist that you have read the Summa. Your copy must have been missing that page.
But I guess after seeing you mischaracterize Aquinas I should not be surprised that now you mischaracterize me. I did not even talk about the Pope's authority as organizational, although it does have some organizational dimension. He is definitely not some CEO who can hire and fire other bishops at will. For the most part, the Pope is "first among equals." However, the Pope is considered infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals Ex Cathedra, from the chair (which is relatively rare), and is the only bishop so regarded. But Ecumenical Councils are the source of most of Catholic dogma. The notion of Papal infallibility is actually quite limited, and you seem to think it is regarded as more expansive than it is. The Pope is not a "one man show." But as the successor of Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Pope is incapable of making a heretical ex cathedra pronouncement. The Pope himself might otherwise be a great sinner or a rank heretic. But when the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals ex cathedra, the Holy Spirit is really the one doing the talking
Neither Jerome nor Canon 34 contradict this. Canon 34 acknowledges the Pope as the first. It is the Pope who calls ecumenical councils. Canon 34 stipulates what is necessary for a decree of an ecumenical council. The bishops must be in accord and the Pope must approve the decree. So even there is the primacy of the See of Peter.
Cyprian calling a Pope "brother" and seeking his "counsel" hardly diminishes the Pope. The fact is the Cyprian sought out the Pope, not vice versa. I have already pointed out that from the beginning Rome was regarded as the First See. Even Cyprian agrees: "On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church, c. AD 251) Only by contrived parsing and re-interpretation of very plain quotes of Church Fathers can one argue against them. It must wear you out.
Another example: Pope Damasus in the fourth century declared at a synod that "the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Savior in the gospel." He also was referring to Matt. 16:15-19, "who do you say that I am . . . thou art Peter," etc. Or if you prefer, λέγει αὐτοῖς: ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν: σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ: μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Peter spoke himself of who Jesus was. He did not merely affirm the consensus of the rest of the apostles. So there's clear precedent for infallible ex cathedra pronouncements.
It is irrelevant where Peter started out. As the above from Matthew shows, it was Peter himself who was the primate. If Peter left Antioch and someone took over there, obviously he didn't lose his primacy because he left a city. When he went to Rome, whether Linus was a bishop there first (not sure your source for this – not consistent with Irenaeus or anyone else) or not is irrelevant. The primacy was Peter's and Rome became his See. The Pope could move to, say, Avignon, and still be Pope. In fact, that actually happened! He could conceivably move to Istanbul, too, but he'd have to become a Turkish citizen.
Finally, your observation that "the saint is talking about the FAITH they preached conferring a type of authority" contradicts your own argument that the primacy of the Pope is tied to the city of Rome, while it supports me completely. Thanks a bunch.
Uh, yeah. Linus was, according to Eusebius. Regarding the FAITH – no, it doesn't support your position. The statement had to do with the excellent example the church in Rome was setting, at that time. The exact same observation was made of Constantinople (which, of course, Rome helped trash during the Fourth Crusade). The primacy in honor was originally granted because it was the capitol city. St. Iranaeus was speaking in a specific context, not in an IMMUTABLE CONDITION. Thus, anywhere, even Rome, could lose any authority if it lost the Faith; that is, if it failed to keep the Faith delivered once for all to the saints. HE SAYS THIS OUTRIGHT:
"as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops." NOTE: he doesn't say "bishops OF ROME." And it is the Faith (big "f") that is the standard, NOT THE SEAT OF THE SEE.
More: "the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." So, the Faith is everywhere, the faithful are everywhere, and in that they imitate those in Rome who *also* MUST BE keeping the same Faith, they are in agreement. So, this quote doesn't exactly say what you think it says.
And you're trotting out that tired old argument about St. Peter and "on this rock?" Read Guettee, he goes into detail regarding the interpretation of that verse. Christ doesn't say on "you." St. Peter gets his name as a reflection of the CONFESSION OF THE FAITH that Christ is God, and it is on the CONFESSION, not on St. Peter as an individual, that the Church is built. It would be ridiculous for Christ to say the He is the way, the Truth, and the life, and that the Church is the Body of Christ, and then say the Body of Christ depends on St. Peter, a man.
By the by, Christ called St. Peter "Petros," and the rock "petra." He didn't say on this "Peter," or on this "Petros," but on this rock, this "petra." So, yeah, I gots me a an interlinear Bible too, son. Don't mean a whole lot.
And your snide remark about Turkey? Well, better to live in the true Faith and under the yolk of worldly oppression than free and in a lie.
the sinner,
Patrick
Uh, no. The pope does NOT call the Councils. The emperor does, which is why there hasn't been an Ecumenical Council in a long, long time.
St. Cyprian's statement, repeated regularly by other bishops, is just one of many examples of how the bishop of Rome was NOT considered the "bishop of bishops." And, yes, any clear reading of St. Cyprian or St. Jerome's statements OBVIOUSLY contradict your, and the papal, claims. You keep going back to claims that are what you believe, with little to no support other than a few disjointed quotes. And, regarding The Unity of the Church by St. Cyprian, again, read Guettee.
the sinner,
Patrick
Re: Aquinas
First, I think you need to re-read my posts. I talk about the CONSEQUENCES of what Aquinas wrote, and that he didn’t take it as far as it eventually went under those who he influenced. He, in all likelihood, would have abhorred the conclusions drawn from his theories. However, it was a very natural result of what Aquinas wrote
Your limited quotation misses the point. God is in all things only in a *sense*. After all, as will be shown, God is simple in His essence to Aquinas, and there is no part of God’s essence that can be shared or experienced by any other existence (something the Orthodox agree with). Since Aquinas, severed from original Holy Tradition, knew little, if anything, regarding the long-standing tradition of God’s Uncreated Energies, aka Grace, Aquinas couldn’t conceive of such a thing without dividing God or, in the alternative, allowing for participation in God’s essence. Since, as previously stated, Aquinas started with the assumption that God was simple and only essence (although in Three Persons). Thus, you failed to quote this part which comes in Aquinas’ reply to the objections (yeah, you see, I have read it, so you can drop your pretense of superiority):
Reply Obj. 1: God is above all things by the excellence of His nature; nevertheless, He is in all things as the cause of the being of all things; as was shown above in this article.
Reply Obj. 3: No action of an agent, however powerful it may be, acts at a distance, except through a medium. But it belongs to the great power of God that He acts immediately in all things. Hence nothing is distant from Him, *as if it could be without God in itself.* [And here’s the kicker] But things are said to be distant from God by the unlikeness to Him in nature or grace; as also He is above all by the excellence of His own nature.
THIS IS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. Clearly, you don’t understand the difference between presence and the older, original Christian understanding of Grace as God’s Uncreated Energies. God acts immediately for Aquinas, but not out of anything that is actually God – only through created aspects. God’s power is a created thing, God’s grace is a created thing, for Aquinas. This is necessarily true because Aquinas sees God as ONLY essence (again, in Three Persons). That is, completely simple – Summa, Part I, Question 3, Article 7, et seq. This, of course, only follows the theological mistakes of St. Augustine.
Further, Aquinas admits that God’s presence in all things is AS THEIR CAUSE. This isn’t the same thing as participation in Uncreated Energies, aka Grace. This is a more philosophically oriented notion regarding the relationship between creator and creation, which can be *considered* a present, ongoing thing, but only mentally. I’m talking about a present, ongoing, ontological presence.
Again, Aquinas, himself, didn’t take this logic down the road to deism. I’ve stated this already, and you seemed to not have read that. What I’m talking about, and hope I’ve made clearer here, is that the original belief in the Church was that of a direct, immediate contact with God – not in His essence, but God nonetheless. Not His presence, or His contact “as creator.” But an actual, ontological contact, real and transformative, not a created grace that, again, the Vatican, to this day, sees as different from God as a gift is from the giver.
So, yeah, your poor sarcasm aside, I have the entire book. I have read it. And now that I've had a chance to get to it, I've quoted from it.
the sinner,
Patrick
Specifically with regard to objections to Constantinople being "second in honor," once again you are wrong. Pope Leo did raise papal authority when he wrote the the Emperor, ""Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its glory, and, under the protection of God's right hand, long enjoy the rule of your clemency. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine, and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due loses what is his own. Let it be enough for him [Anatolius] that by your piety, and by my gracious favor, he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a royal city, though he cannot make it an apostolic see; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others." (Leo, Ep. 104, to the Emperor Marcian, P.L. 54.993.)
Man, you don't quit getting obvious meanings exactly backwards.
"Reply Obj. 3: No action of an agent, however powerful it may be, acts at a distance, except through a medium. But it belongs to the great power of God that He acts immediately in all things. Hence nothing is distant from Him, *as if it could be without God in itself.* [And here’s the kicker] But things are said to be distant from God by the unlikeness to Him in nature or grace; as also He is above all by the excellence of His own nature.
Here he is not saying God is separate from grace. He is saying that things are "distant" from God only in the sense that they are unlike him, but not distant in the sense that God is actually absent from the vicinity. He isn't talking about the nature of grace at all here.
And frankly, what Ecumenical Council defined grace as uncreated energies anyway? Without that, you hardly have any basis to claim that a different view of grace is heretical.
"as also He is above all by the excellence of His own nature" God is everywhere yet completely transcendent.
See, these are mysteries, paradoxes.
Actually there have been many Ecumenical Councils called by popes. You are just behind the times. And as for the early councils called by emperors, they were often at the Pope's behest. Regardless, who calls it is not essential to its designation as ecumenical, so "which is why there hasn't been an Ecumenical Council in a long, long time" is another fallacy.
As for knocking me off the primacy of the Pope, forget it. You are trying to prove a negative in the face of mountains of contrary evidence. Your arguments follow the same logic as those of the "new atheists" who say Jesus never lived because some quasi-contemporary historian never mentions him. I don't need to read Guettee when I can simply read Cyprian.
You must be logged in to post a comment.