Asymmetric Catholic

My most glaring philosophical inconsistency is that I advocate for laissez-faire economics and small, local government while, at the same time, I'm a Catholic in good standing.

Big government and universal, hierarchical religions share some features:

1. They both tend towards the inefficient.
2. They can both be power-hungry and prone to power's corrupting influence; and exclusivist concerning competing philosophies and agencies. The relevant examples are opposition to school vouchers or privatization of any kind for big government types and the Inquisition for Catholicism.
3. They both love their flock while, at the same time, feel that the same people they love would be lost without them. In other words, both big government and the Catholic Church can be elitist and patronizing. As a reference, I'll direct you to Barack Obama for big government and Name of the Rose for a popular portrayal of Church snobbishness (whether true or not).

The Name of the Rose

The Name of the Rose (Everyman's Library (Cloth)) by Umberto Eco

So, why one and not the other? The difference is that, dogmatically, the Church does know better because God says so. Not only "better" but "solely," since there can only be one wholly true Truth. On temporal matters, including tax rates, foreign policy, and Church architecture, the Church is as fallible as anybody and I always take anything they have to say about such things as a guide. The same Church that built Notre Dame constructed the Los Angeles monstrosity and didn't do all it could to deal with the sex-abuse scandal.

Yes, I've seen it up close. Uninspiring.

Since the government, by definition, deals only with practical matters, I'm especially weary of its "solutions" (perpetuations of power) for it has all of a universal Church's faults without its saving grace, so to speak.

Catholics are free to believe in evolution and a billions year-old Earth provided that they believe, among other things (here), that there was an actual Adam and Eve.

This interesting article says that evidence does indeed exist for a "mitochondrial Eve:"

Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

From the looks of Eve, this wasn't her first apple.

I didn't get to see too much of Benedict's visit because of the Army, but he seems to have made a good impression. I'm glad that he addressed the pedophile crisis, although I wish he would have made enabler Cardinal Mahoney walk around his unspectacular church on his knees. A friend of mine wanted to know why the Pope isn't asking Mahoney to release some documents related to the abuse scandal. I wish I could ask him. I'm sorry- this thing will be a problem for many years.

The Pope praised freedom of religion in general and America as an example of a nation that has guaranteed people the ability to practice their faith. I'm reading a very long history of the Catholic Church, but I'm only up to David in the Old Testament. Now, I don't think that the Church has always encouraged freedom on religion when it was in a position to limit it. I'll try to find out an explanation for this seeming contradiction.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_married_priests_2

If the Pope invites me to lunch during his visit, I'd humbly give my opinion, between bites, on the Western-rite clergy and celibacy.

It's something that he's already thought about. The Pope discusses celibacy in this article. History of celibacy, an article from newadvent.org explains that celibacy amongst priests was officially enacted in 1215 to fight corruption, especially involving the property of the church, and making it, therefore, a discipline and not a dogma. I know that arguments exist for celibacy and that celibacy can have a good effect on some people, but the Pope, in my humble opinion, should lift the ban.

The first reason is the severe demographic decline of many nominally Catholic countries including Spain, France, and Italy where birth rates are not even at replacement levels. Now, besides the wider societal consequence of lowering the number of births even more, which family would wish to extinguish its name by giving up its only son to the priesthood? An ability to marry would not only increase recruitment, but increase Catholics.

Another reason to allow priests to marry would be to prevent the horrible scandal of pedophilia-inclined gay (No, not all gays) priests who may be attracted to the priesthood in order to avoid having to explain their disinterest in women. Of course, those priests who don't marry would be under greater suspicion, but at least one would have greater confidence leaving their kids with some priests. Those married could be in charge of youth programs and such. Anyways, in 2008, married priests is the way forward, it seems to this layman.

Many people, like Bill Maher, couldn't care less about the truth. He, like some people I know personally, called the Pope a Nazi (or, former Nazi). Not true. It's also not true that the Pope covered up sex scandals. Not that Bill Maher would ever apologize.

Maher has the anti-honor of joining the Nazis in mocking the Church (No, you're not a Nazi for criticizing the Church, but you have than in common with them.).

Hey, I just thought of something:

Did any of the people who criticized McCain for accepting pastor Hagee's support condemn Maher?

Story here.

"It is a great suffering for the church in the United States and for the church in general and for me personally that this could happen," Benedict said. "It is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betray in this way their mission ... to these children."

"I am deeply ashamed and we will do what is possible so this cannot happen again in the future," the pope said.

Good for the Pope. I believe him too. Clergy who were in a position to stop the abuse like Cardinal Mahoney should be more than ashamed.

In his Evolution of Religious Bigotry article on Fitna, the Dutch anti-Koran movie, and people who place Darwin fish symbols on their cars, Jonah Goldberg makes two points:

1. That it's rude for people to put anti-anything symbols on their cars.

2. That people who do so are cowardly because they'd never offend the religion whose adherents would actually harm them, and hypocritical because they condemn the nice religion.

Some thoughts:

1. I always thought the Darwin fish were in bad taste and hypocritical as well as an unnecessary disturber of the public peace. The Christian fish itself is inoffensive- a positive message that only implies that non-believers will go to Hell. People who'd use the Darwin bumper sticker (I know such people.) would counter that Christianity is a worthy target of wrath because it places more value on fetuses than women's freedom and wants to include some sort of non-materialistic ideas on biological history.

2. As for the bravery of placing the Darwin sticker: Of course! Unless you're Jeremiah Wright, you must precede any political statement with a risk-assessment: "What are Christians going to do, thump me with a Bible?" I'm hesitant to decorate my bumper with my "Vets for McCain" sticker. I don't think anybody in Los Angeles would have a sticker that says, "Graffiti isn't nice."

Christophobes might say that they don't consider faraway Jihadists dangerous at all. That doing so only plays into the hands of Bush-loving Neo-Cons, Neo-Nazis (conservatives) Halliburton, and the Jewish lobby.

3. Expanding the conversation beyond mere hate: Is there a law on bumper stickers? Some have obscenities on them: Is that legal?

4. Who cares what Christophobes do? They probably like it when people that won't hurt them complain, "Ha, look at them get mad. I'm a rebel!"

We can all agree that something like this happened.

Even Christopher Hitchens can agree that on a Friday just before Passover, approximately 1975 years ago, the Roman authorities crucified a person named Jesus Christ who claimed to be the son of God and whom some believed. It's what happened on Sunday that people disagree about.

"If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless" (1 Cor. 15:14)

Eject ad:

Turn away ad:

Obviously, the Church of Christ (Obama and Jeremiah Wright's denomination) feels that its biggest selling point is its complete lack of standards, "Join us: we don't care what the hell you do (if hell even exists)!"

Let's leave aside whether intolerating intolerance is still intolerance. Is the ad true? Do other churches turn people away? Do they "eject" sinners from their churches? Of course not! I think most traditional churches would love to have even the worst sinners attend their services. After all, most churches, protestant or Catholic, have prison ministries and murder is way up there. The difference is that traditional or "conservative" churches want the imperfect (everybody, no?) to improve their behavior according to Christ's goals for us- to overcome our sinful nature. The Church of Christ invites sinners as well, but instead of helping them follow Christ's teachings, applauds their contrary choices.

Obviously, the Church of Christ tolerates dishonest advertising as well as alternative lifestyles.

Whew! Computer games, talk radio, McDonald's, blogging, and Stargate didn't make it; I'm safe for now.

When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Girotti denounced "certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations."

He also mentioned drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that "cause an unbearable social injustice."

Story here.