Priests, prophets, and kings

Dividuals finds this revealing bit of history:

[Tony] Benn’s mother, Margaret Wedgwood Benn (née Holmes, 1897–1991), was a theologian, feminist and the founder President of the Congregational Federation. She was a member of the League of the Church Militant, which was the predecessor of theMovement for the Ordination of Women; in 1925, she was rebuked by Randall Davidson, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for advocating the ordination of women. His mother’s theology had a profound influence on Benn, as she taught him that the stories in the Bible were based around the struggle between the prophets and the kings and that he ought in his life to support the prophets over the kings, who had power, as the prophets taught righteousness.

Continue reading

A parable of seed thrown on bad soil

Can anyone explain this mystery to me?

God to Arab Muslim:  Strap a bomb to your chest and blow yourself up in a crowded space.

Arab Muslim:  God is great!

God to Catholic couple: Have unsterilized sex and have lots of cute babies.

Catholic couple:  But, but, but….our freedom!!!

Am I just fooled by (a particular strand of) Muslim devoutness being so much more spectacular than Catholic devoutness?  But there are an awful lot of young Muslims who, although not signing up for suicide missions, are fired up over the same causes.  The population of Catholics of suicide-bomber-age who are fired up for fighting the Church’s fights and making babies seems to be just nonexistent.

Spirit of Vatican II:  We just need to ask even less of them!

 

The laity’s day, or night

Vatican II, together with the movement preceding and following it, destroyed all the laity’s major means of agency.

  1. It repudiated “integralism” the movement for the laity to demand doctrinal accountability from the clergy.  From now on, the priest may spew forth any heresy he likes from the pulpit, and parishioners can take it or leave.
  2. It inaugurated a new opaque style of discourse based on European continental philosophy whereby nobody can ever know exactly what Catholic doctrine is.  Not only are we to avoid privately interpreting the Bible; we cannot even privately interpret magisterial documents.  (Uppity laity confronting priests with creeds and encyclicals are called “Catholic fundamentalists”, and their behavior is regarded as a sign of immaturity.)  Indeed, the need for interpretive mediation never seems to end, so that doctrine never reaches the actual minds of the faithful, at least not to the extent that we could ever reason from it.  Our only virtue is docility to the post-conciliar clergy, who may proclaim any teaching or directive they like, its connection to the supposedly public deposit of revelation being forever unfathomable to us.
  3. It repudiated Catholic monarchists and conservative/reactionary political parties, the lay movements aimed at defending the Church from hostile forces and returning society to traditional Catholic prescriptions.
  4. It had nothing but scorn for lay Catholics resisting secularism even in voluntary, cultural arenas (e.g. the Legion of Decency).
  5. It undermined the authority of fathers, the spiritual heads of households.
  6. It continually works to undermine the sacrament of which the laity is the distinct custodian:  marriage.

Our opportunities to fight for God were taken away, and in exchange we were given indulgence to sin.  The pre-Vatican II Church considered all its members to be called to holiness.  The post-Vatican II Church repudiates this by calling into question whether we must obey the moral law’s demands.

Continue reading

Does the post-Vatican II Church demand cultural genocide?

“He who thinks only of building walls and not bridges is not Christian.”

What an incredibly asinine thing to say.  I mean, I’ve heard open boarders arguments that sound intelligent, but only a complete imbecile talks like this.  It’s right up with “You can’t hug with nuclear arms.”

Continue reading

The conquest of 2016: a prediction

2015:  the year the university ceded its authority, surrendering to the army of shrieking blacks.  But why was the conquest so easy?  And who has the conquering army put in power?

Two reasons the conquest was easy.

  1. Faculty and administrators are all Leftists and so couldn’t in good conscience defend their institutions against even the most unreasonable attacks from a designated victim group.
  2. Most faculty assume that they can work below the radar, that groveling to nonwhites and perverts (which they morally approve) won’t affect their serious work, because SJWs don’t care about things like STEM.

There are now two sources of status–and, therefore, at least potential legitimacy–in academia, what one may call “epistemic status” and “moral status”.  Epistemic status is what mathematics, physics, biology, electrical engineering, and the like have:  the presumption that they indisputably have delivered and will continue to deliver objective truths about the world.  Moral status belongs to those disciplines that have evolved into naked social justice advocacy, without even a pretense of objectivity.  (Note that, since I’m talking about status, we are dealing with perceptions rather than realities.  I, of course, don’t agree that imposing the evil ideology of Leftism is moral, and I’m willing to consider arguments that the objectivity and success of science is overstated.  However, there is certainly a consensus among those that matter that science gives us truth and that social justice advocacy is morally exemplary.)  Which source of status carries the ultimate weight in the university?  I don’t think this ambiguity will be allowed to stand much longer.

That the attack will come this year is just my guess and might be proved wrong by historical accidents.  There is no doubt if it does come which side will do the attacking, nor any doubt about which side will win.  By December, scientists will be figuratively curled up in a fetal position, crying and begging for mercy, having no idea what hit them.

Consider

  • The advocacy departments are strengthened by the way some prominent biologists and physicists have been shilling for Leftism.  One source of science’s authority is that its conclusions don’t depend on ideology; people of differing ideologies can all agree what an experiment’s results mean.  If, as so many scientists are eager to tell us, Leftism is Reason itself, is in fact a part of the scientific worldview, then the mastery of social justice over science is inescapable:  it holds both the crown of truth and the crown of morality.  Science is in no way ideologically bigger and has no claim to independence.  (Also, non-Leftists will have good reason to mistrust scientists.  I’m surprised they don’t see this.  So many scientists complain about conservatives not “trusting science” and don’t realize how more conservative scientists, especially in outreach roles, would help this.)
  • We are vulnerable.  Scientists give lip service to Leftism, but when money is on the line (grant awards, faculty hiring, tenure, promotion, postdoc appointments) “diversity” counts for little, so fields are dominated by white and Asian men.  Any survey of scientists discussed in textbooks or having laws or equations named after them would show a heavy weighting toward white men.  Most science majors are heterosexual, so the few women students in departments undoubtedly get more attention than they want.  Critics will easily make demands that would consume a large fraction of time and resources.
  • Most scientists have no idea what social opprobium is like.  They whine about the public not appreciating them properly, but I can tell you that the way society regards me as an astrophysicist and the way it regards me as a reactionary Catholic is like day and night.  Astronomers and physicists don’t appreciate at all the incredible good will we currently enjoy from the public, including that half of the public my colleagues routinely speak of with scorn.  Scientists like to think of how brave they are sticking it to powerless, low-status creationists.  They are not psychologically prepared for an attack from a powerful, high-status, ruthless adversary within academia.  Look at how little it takes to destroy Nobel prize-winning biologists.