Friday, 27 August 2010

Ceeing, Peeing & Essing

Part 2 of Waxing Nostalgic over CP&S:

Bruno. Portrait of a 'difficult' man. Clearly.

Too much water has been passed since part one of this series on 'Downhill'. And, yet again, I find myself pondering if I should quit CP&S, or not.

They are all nice people there, just like, no doubt, a lot of Republicans, Israelis or Saudi-Arabians are nice people, but they all all mired in their belief so deeply that there is little or no reasoning with them.

They ferociously defend the Church, right or wrong, doesn't matter. Criticism is not an option.

Same thing GBS said about patriotism,
"Saying, my country, right or wrong is like saying my Mother, drunk or sober."

Even Raven, among the least rabid on the blog, went to almost comical lengths to justify the obscene torture of a fellow man. And it took place four hundred years ago. Long memories here. He couldn't even bring himself to say, "Well, it was a fair bit ago, and they did things differently then." No, the man Bruno was 'difficult.' Yes, and his difficulty was that he was ahead of his time in believing something that is now accepted by every intelligent person.

He was, as Montaigne so memorably remarked,(not about Bruno himself) "Roasted over a difference of opinion."

At least Raven offered some sort of argument, unconvincing though I found it. It has got to the point where if I make some mild observation, the cries of 'spewing raw sewage', 'foaming at the mouth', and of being 'angry' and 'irritated' and 'hateful' are deafening.

Not that it bothers me, but it all smacks strongly of the sort of treatment people get if they are in any way critical of Jews or Muslims. And it also smacks strongly of the treatment Jews and Muslims dish out to anyone who 'offends' them. It is extreme. They are NeoCaths on CP&S. They would probably agree, and revel in it. Must ask them.

And yet, more than one person on 'Damian' and CP&S is frequently and cheerfully and viciously abusive of 'rival' fanatics. And they are spluttering mad if I 'criticise' any little Catholic foible, or Catholic polemicist.

Why, then, do I go on banging my head against the Vatican wall? I had a Catholic upbringing. I know a bit about it. And I truly believe that the CP&S mob, along with others of their kind, want to make their own brand of Heaven right here on earth for all of the rest of us.
Whether we want it or not. Just like the Muslims.
If they succeed, they will make a Hell.

I don't like the prospect, and will continue to say so.

Calmly, sanely and reasonably.
If possible.


JoyfulPapist said...

I'm not about to commit the sin of proxy morality, Paddy. What would I have done back then? Don't know. I see no point in feeling morally superior because we've all moved on ('even the Church', which has apologised for its part in executions, wars, censorship, etc etc). Mind you, I'm glad we have.

But 400 years from now things you and I take for granted as right and proper will no doubt horrify our descendants, and they'll feel very righteous that they would never do a thing like that.

Buzz said...

We love the Church because we are on the inside looking out. Its beauty is on the inside.

An outwardly dull and dreary building may possess the most beautiful stained glass windows, but you won't appreciate them until you come within.

My prescription is for you to drop all your cherished preconceptions, and beg God to help your unbelief.

The Truth can only be grasped by letting go.

A bit like you will only really believe in the efficacy of parachutes after you have jumped out at 20000ft attached to one. (I don't recommend doing a placebo controlled double blind trial on that).

Where is your spirit of adventure? Is it asleep in your bed?

You will lose nothing. Everything you drop will be returned to you a hundred fold.

The Raven (C. Corax) said...

I would have said "explained", myself; there's a fair distance between "explain" & "justify".

Buzz said...

As regards poor Bruno:

From the first, the Church has been in the business of SAVING SOULS for Heaven.

If some silly person, even if he has a brain the size of a planet, starts to thrash Mother Church over some side issue, like heliocentrism (yawn), and doesn't stop when politely asked to, then who is to blame when Mother's instincts, to protect her brood, overcome her and she hands him over to the local thug (who is very protective of old Mother C) to deal with?

(Sorry about the length of that sentence btw).

Of course, the thug has left town, and MC is much more mellow, now.

Patrick O'Gara said...

Buzz, bit late to answer this now, but if you think heliocentrism is, or ever was, a 'side issue' it is because you and I are living on different planets.

Br. Francis said...

As a late and rather uninformed observer of this debate and someone with the utmost respect for this Downhill Struggler:

Of COURSE heliocentrism is a side issue. Everyone knows--or should know--that I AM the center of the universe! :)

Seriously, though, a couple thoughts follow--the first a passage I recently ran across and spoken by Jesuit theologian Walter Burghardt during a baptism homily for an infant girl. The second is a link to something I posted on my blog about a year and a half ago.

In both cases, CHRIST--the same yesterday, today, and forever--is the only answer worth considering. Everything else is a side issue. And yes, that makes it a paradox. Reality always is.

Confused? So am I. Aren't we all?

Br. Francis Wagner, O.S.B.

"Sonia Marie, before we welcome you through symbol and ritual into this paradoxical people, this community of contradictions, let me make an uncommonly honest confession. In the course of half a century (and more), I have seen more Catholic corruption that most Catholics read of. I have tasted it. I have been reasonably corrupt myself. And yet I find joy in this Church, this living, throbbing, sinning people of God; I love it with crucifying passion. Why? For all the Catholic hate, I experience here a community of LOVE. For all the institutional idiocy, I find here a tradition of REASON. For all the individual repressions, I breathe here an air of FREEDOM. For all the fear of sex, I discover here the redemption of my BODY. In an age so inhuman, I touch here the tears of COMPASSION. In a world so grim and humorless, I share here rich JOY and earthly LAUGHTER. In the midst of death, I hear here an incomparable stress on LIFE. For all the apparent absence of God, I sense here the presence of CHRIST."


Patrick O'Gara said...

I don't know, Brother Francis.

After all, despite what you say about Christ yesterday, today and tomorrow, he's only been around a couple of thousand years. What about before him?
What about the countless millions who back then, and who, even now, live and die and never hear his name? What use is he to them? Are they all merely a 'side issue?'

Caroline said...

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. I think you are being deliberately disingenuous, and it really doesn't become you because you are just too intelligent to pull it off decently!

Christ has been here forever, of course, as part of the Trinity. [But you already knew that.]

And as for "the countless millions," JPII addresses this issue in the chapter of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" entitled "Why So Many Religions?" He cites the V2 document "Nostra aetate," saying that "From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man." Later, he references the Aborigines of Australia and the fact that their religious tradition is more ancient than that of Abraham and Moses, concluding the chapter by saying that "Christ came into the world for all these peoples. He redeemed them all and has His own ways of reaching each of them in the present eschatological phase of salvation history. In fact, in those regions, many accept Him and many more have an implicit faith in Him (cf.Heb 11:6)." [But you already knew that, too; if I thought you didn't, I would tell you to go get an Education!]

You just love to jerk peoples' chains, don't you?! ;-)

Patrick O'Gara said...

Well, Caroline,
First it's good to hear from you. No word on CP&S from you for ages. I was getting concerned, especially in view of the Donkey being dead, and all.
But I must plead the depth of ignorance that you rightly suspect me of having.
I thought Christ said, "If you are not born of water and the Holy Ghost, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven."
If I have got that wrong, someone will surely put me right. But that seems fairly definite, doesn't it?

And were'nt Aquinas and co. concerned that ancient 'good guys' like Vergil would not be allowed into Heaven? Is that so?

I read some Rahner who thought along the lines of your comment. But apparently he got his knuckles rapped for his trouble. It also leads to some interesting speculation regarding, say, Muslim fanatics. For me, at least.
Yes, I do like to jerk folk's chains, but I also would like some answers, and thank you for trying to provide them.
I always think, not of the Australian Aboriginals, but the Incas. If one was born an Inca, and believed in killing a virgin every day to ensure the Sunrise - and then decided not to one day, because of simple laziness or whatever, would that be a sin? Would that Inca go to Inca Hell?
Silly question, probably, I know.

(Thinking of a look at miracles on 'downhill' soon.)

Caroline said...

Thank you for your kind concern.

"Donkey being dead." Good Heavens; not literally, I hope?! But then I have taken a break from it for awhile. The tendonitis, though true, was sort of an excuse. "Sort of." There I go equivocating again. It did not prevent me from reading or eating. But sometimes the porridge is just too hot or too cold....

"Depth of ignorance." there you go--jerking the chain again. Rahner, read too much. But do you know the story of Saint Guinefort?