PC seems, to my eyes at least, seems most entrenched in what could be best described as the Protestant countries of Europe, and it's my belief that that the two are more than just casually linked.
It's my belief that that Protestant culture effectively puts into place conditions which allow PC to thrive.
As a Catholic, I have doctrinal differences with the Protestant religion, but perhaps Protestantism's most malign error lays not in its doctrine but in its understanding of man, namely in his capacity to think. It's what Paul Gottfried described as the "rationalist fallacy". The belief that everyman is a profound and clear thinker, able to objectively look at the facts without bias; It's the myth of the rational everyman.
The truth is that men are rational when things are simple to grasp, immediate and concrete in concept, but as the subject matter become more remote, abstract and non-pressing so does the capacity of men to rationalise well about them. In this regard, religion is more likely to be prone to intellectual errors simply due to its subject matter than the house plumbing.
Religions can be though of being both pure and applied, in that the real world application of the religion may sometimes be at odds with the divine message. The average man's conception and practice of religion may be at odds with the theology, simply because he does not understand or is incapable to bringing together separate strands of thought.
For example, Protestant critics of Catholicism frequently lay the charge the Catholicism is a form of crypto-paganism with Catholics worshiping other deities beside God. They, of course, base this charge on their observations of Catholics and their relation with saints, relics, and the Mother of God. "Pure" Catholic theology recognises that the only proper object of worship is God, however as a Catholic, I can understand the Protestant claims because many of the faithful behave in manner that justify them. Simple men, trying to grasp the complexities of Catholic thought, corrupt it into neo-pagan forms. They carry crucifixes for good luck, and celebrate, rather too fervently for my liking, saints and relics. This subject deserves several posts on its own, but suffice when Catholicism becomes corrupted it assumes a pagan flavour.
Just as Catholicism, in corruption, assumes a certain flavour, so does Protestantism. When a Catholic goes theologically bad, he goes pagan and become superstitious, when a Protestant goes bad, he becomes utilitarian and "ethical". It's not Protestantism per se which fosters political correctness but its practical corruption by the common folk.
In theory, the Protestant has a personal relationship with God, a good and reflective religious life, and free of Papal Authority, the Protestant is free to read the bible and apply it to his life. The assumption being that the average Protestant can do this objectively, logically and without bias. And it is true that amongst rigorous and honest thinkers, this can produce quite holy men, the problem is though that rigorous thinking is always exceptional in any society and in the end what happens is that average Protestant behaves like the average catholic, he pretends that he thinks and muddles things up.
The Rationalisation Hamster whilst nearly supreme in women also operates to a degree in men and the end result of its operation is contingent upon the cultural milieu in which it operates. In a religion that allows you to self-interpret the bible, strong willed men and women of shallow thought and objectivity will frequently find that their interpretation aligns with their feelings (Quelle surprise!); The end result is social sanctified practical utilitarianism. Once again this not Protestantism as it is meant to be, but its corruption by the average thinker.
This effect was mitigated somewhat whilst church attendance was practiced. The preacher, usually with some theological training, could sway the most shallow thinkers and prevent the most stupid errors by providing a convincing argument, but as church attendance has faded, the average man has been left with his own thoughts. The ship is adrift.
Religion is the basis of a society's culture and in a Protestant culture without a defacto central authority, morality becomes aligned with feelings. The Good God becomes the fluffy-bunny God in rudderless protestant cultures, because in the end, the human rationalisation hamster ensures that morality aligns with desired feelings. (Some people enjoy being miserable. Is Puritanism the inevitable product of miserable religious people in Protestant culture?) The religion goes "soft" and it's in this cultural milieu that PC establishes its roots.
However it would be a mistake to assume that a Protestant cultural environment causes political correctness. It doesn't. For PC to really establish itself something else is needed.
The second factor that needs to be considered is the societal cognitive process. i.e how a society as a group thinks. Now it needs to be understood that very few people, in any society, are independent thinkers, most people think along the lines that they have been taught. Here the pernicious effect of cultural Marxism rears its ugly head. The entrenchment of Marxist thought in our universities means that the products of that system--our future governing/managerial class--think along Marxist lines. This does not mean that the products of our universities are explicitly Marxist, rather the graduates tend to interpret life through the Marxist perspective In effect, what the universities ensure is that graduates end up with a de facto Marixist rationalisation hamster.
A digression. The Left is far more represented by graduates of the arts and the social sciences than by the STEM majors. Why? In my opinion, it's the strict empiricism of the STEM courses that provide a de facto inoculation against structuralist thinking; it's very hard to find oppression in chemistry or physics. Thinking along stucturalist lines in these disciplines results in failure.
PC can then be thought of a fusion product, resulting from the convergence of abuse of Protestant Christianity into "Christian-fluffy-bunny" utilitarianism and Marxist cognitive interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Lots of stuff in this entry. I am a Protestant with a few major gripes with Protestantism and a good deal of respect for Catholicism. Particularly, I am an outspoken critic of every-man-and-his-bible-for-himself-ism, and you do a great job of explaining some of the reasons why.
PC can then be thought of a fusion product, resulting from the convergence of abuse of Protestant Christianity into "Christian-fluffy-bunny" utilitarianism and Marxist cognitive interpretation.
"Feminism is a Christian heresy" - I read that somewhere during the past year. I think it's true.
Like Samson, I am a Protestant with a few major gripes. I think a lot of it, at least in modern society, comes down to who is leading your church. I'm an Episcopalian and my particular church is one of the few Episcopal denominations in the US that is growing. My priest doesn't pass the Dalrock test on divorce, but he speaks harshly of it. Recentl, during a class, the priest handed out a sheets of paper. Someone said, "Oh no. Is this a quiz?" The priest replied that it was a test and those who failed would be kicked out and handed over to the Muslims. My church doesn't bob on the seas of fads and is growing. Surely there is no correlation between those two facts.
Overall, though, I think the Protestant demise is best summed up in the words of Father Booty (? Not sure on spelling as it was in last week's sermon). He decried the 'empty body' and churches who were beholden to business-like decision making and popularity. When churches outsource their doctrine to those who have no interest in the church outside of its utility as a bludgeon for their political beliefs, passing fads and secular mushiness become the calling cards. Expediency and decline soon follow.
Sloppy commenting. We're one of the only Episcopal churches, not denominations, that is growing.
The main problem this man sees with this so called educated writing is ...I didn't see the name 'JESUS" Not one time.....but I'm just a man.....wait isn't that how we all get to heaven?????? Isn't that what all these great men and women were written about? Jesus.....the rest sounds good but I want a relationship with a risen Savior!!!!!! not head knowledge or a history lesson...he's real and alive today
That's whats great about NO religion but "a relationship" ....you don't need to be indoctrinated into any religion... he's a relationship.....not a learned experience.... Think all the ways he's been taught...(except from this article) The Holy Spirit always straightens it out......un-anointed men need to stop trying to convince others through writings on paper and just let the Holy Spirit do his job!!!!!
of course this is just the opinion of one man ...just like his
Conversely, I'm a Catholic with a few gripes with "cafeteria Catholicism" and a good deal of respect for Protestantism, particularly the mainstream churches that resist to be subverted by liberalism. I consider them allies in the Kulturkampf.
Now, regarding PC, it's always interesting to trace its genealogy. Essentially, PC is what is left of puritanism when you remove the theological component. This absence of the divine is what makes it appear so nihilistic and arbitrary. Yet still it keeps many of its core elements, such as the "moral high ground," something that liberals particularly obsess with.
@Dirichelet
Conversely, I'm a Catholic with a few gripes with "cafeteria Catholicism" and a good deal of respect for Protestantism, particularly the mainstream churches that resist to be subverted by liberalism. I consider them allies in the Kulturkampf.
I don't want people to think that I'm bashing Protestants. Like you, I'm Catholic and I've got gripes with the cafeteria Catholics and the rigid traditionalists. I've got a lot of respect for the honest Protestant. Protestantism, when practiced properly, seems to produce quite exceptional men. And like you I agree that they are allies in the battle.
I actually feel sorry for a lot of them, they're better than the majority of their leadership. I've got this great Anglo Baptist couple that come to see me as patients, Salt of the Earth type of people. They've had to leave their church for decades because they got some new "anti war" pastor who refused to allow WW2 veterans casks to be draped in the Australian flag. (Some bullshit about glorifying war!) They're now attending a Church composed of predominantly Tongan and Polynesian Protestants who are more traditional with their faith. These people are more concerned about being true to God than being true to the Crowd. She, particularly, did a lot of work around the Church and they were really distressed by the course of events.
@Uylsses, Samson, David
The leadearship of the Protestant Churches is a big problem, but I think one of the inherent problems in Protestantism is that its reason of being, by de facto, legitimises the religious rationalisation hamster. It's an inherently unstable religion prone to fissuring and continual doctrinal innovation due to pressures of contemporary external forces. The net result is that Protestantism as whole tends to bend with the societal wind. Small and isolated pockets may be able to resist, but taken as a whole, the body flexes.
Since every Protestant has a direct line to God through his reading of the Bible and faith, all it takes is for him to convince himself that he is acting in "faith" for him to be considered doctrinally legitimate. The possibilities for self delusion are endless. Once again, this is not a bash at Protestantism rather an exposition of what I think are it's inherent weaknesses.
Just came across your site a little while ago. Interesting reading and perspective. Thank you for your posting.
In an effort to better understand your thinking, who (other than T.A.) are your major influences of thought? I'm curious to understand it better.
As far as some of your points, I would agree that it's really hard to be a good Christian, and while I don't have any experience trying to be one as a Catholic, as a Prod it's a real struggle almost every day. It is true that it's essential to have a good pastor/shepard, and to attend church regularly, in order to maintain a good spiritual life. Even then it's really hard. I tend to think you're right in your basic point that PC is religion without God, from my experience that seems a good summary.
Thanks!
@Dan in Philly
Who's T.A?
Thomas Aquinas, who I just started to study a bit last year. His stuff was so dense I had to stop for a while to cool my brain down, if you know what I mean.
Hey Doc,
I just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful commentary. Please keep up the good work.
@Dan in Philly:
I recommend Edward Feser's Aquinas, which is probably the best introduction to the topic. Feser writes for the layman, but takes care of covering the topic with depth and rigor.
@Dan in Philly
I suppose that my thought is the product of many complex influences.
The guy that has had the biggest influence on my thinking is James V Schall. You've got to understand that half of me grew up in "happy clappy Catholicism" and I was educated to the typical low intellectual standard that was characteristic of progressive Catholic education. So I can say quite sincerely that I had never been formally exposed to any of the great ideas of Western thought by the time I finished high school
He wrote a book called Another Sort of Learning. I picked the book up after the cover piqued my interest because it was so hideous, but it was one of those life changing events, it basically showed me the way to the big ideas of Western thought. If there is any man that I owe a debt of gratitude to, it is this Jesuit from Iowa whom I've never met. He pointed the way.
The personages who most influenced me, in terms of thinking, were G.K Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Plato, Thomas Aquinas and George Orwell. Two other special mentions include Correlli Barnett and Wilhelm Rhopke.
A lot of what they said influenced me but more importantly, how, they thought about the subject influenced me more.
The other influence on my thinking was the culture in which I grew up in. Although I grew up in Australia, I grew up in a defacto Mitteleuropean enclave and was by peculiar circumstances exposed to the last whiffs of that culture. It was Catholic and it was petit bourgeoisie But it wasn't Catholic in the Irish sense of being a tribal thing, but more an intellectual approach to the world, a way of thinking. The Old Europe was not a place, it was a state of mind, and I was fortunate to have been exposed to those ideas. That culture is now effectively dead.
Work too, has been a big influence. Dealing intimately with the public rapidly dispels any pretty illusions one has with regard to human nature. The assumptions which modern political theory is based are simply false.
There are other influences but these, on reflection, seem to be the main ones.
Thanks. I'm saving these titles and I've already ordered Another Sort of Learning. I appreciate you sharing, and I look forward to reading up on this.
I also find it interesting that you list work as a major influence on your thought. The fact that our thoughts are heavily influenced by our work is a truth so self-evident that few seem to realize it.
Perhaps it is due to being under the weather today, but frankly the sight of a practicing member of the Roman Catholic church making observations about PC, and rationalization hamsters while pointing a finger at Protestantism has a strong whiff of a man in a glass house throwing very large stones in all directions.
I will be succinct: Why is the Pope still protecting Bernard Francis Law?
If you wish me to be verbose, I can do that. But you might not want that. Perhaps throwing these stones is not the wisest thing to do?
Now, regarding PC, it's always interesting to trace its genealogy. Essentially, PC is what is left of puritanism when you remove the theological component
No. Political Correctness is a term that was invented or coined in Maoist Communist China. A person who was fully in line with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought was correct, one who was not in line was not correct. During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960's, many academics and intellectuals were charged with being out of harmony with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought, and were deemed to be "Politically Incorrect", because their politics were not correct.
Those who were the true believers in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought, and who were the most ruthless in suppressing dissent to Mao's many disasters, naturally regarded themselves as what? Why, as Politically Correct, of course.
Someone who was a deviationist, i.e. their thought was not in harmony with Maoism, would be expected to submit to correction. This was called "re-education", and could involve anything from house arrest with mandatory regular meetings with political officers from the local Communist Party leadership, to exile out to the country to farming communities, to a term in a forced-labor camp in the Chinese gulag, known as the Lao-Gai. The Lao-Gai continues to exist and operate, of course.
When someone had parroted the Maoist slogans enough, had suppressed their own thoughts enough, then sometimes they were considered to be "rehabilitated", and no longer in need of re-education. Naturally such a person would be -- Politically Correct. They would only speak the correct party line on any topic. They would respond to changes in the party line just like someone out of Orwell's "1984", i.e. without any open question or demurral.
So Political Correctness is originally a term from the realm of Maoism. It is a term that implies self-censorship as a primary value, and unquestioned obedience to a central authority that tells people what to say, and what to think, as well as what to not think. A central authority not of God, but of man. A man who is deemed to be infallible, whose words are to be obeyed without question -- or thought -- by the way.
Now, what does this have to do with Protestantism?
AP
I will be succinct: Why is the Pope still protecting Bernard Francis Law?
Is he protecting him? Is there an arrest warrant?
I didn't know who Law was, but I looked him up on Wikipedia. Perhaps the reason why the Pope is "protecting" him is because from the article;
"When the state attorney general issued his report entitled Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston (July 23, 2003) he severely criticised Law but he did not allege that Law had tried to evade investigation and he did state that Law had not broken any laws."
I suppose you can't arrest a man if he hasn't broken any laws, no matter how much you don't like him.
Look, the Catholic administrative hierarchy has an unblemished record of stupidity, maladministration and a shocking sense of PR. Remember we had a Borgia as a Pope. The thing is, as corrupt and wicked as these people were they didn't diddle with the faith. I'm not a big one on a Papal Authority on seeing just how dumb some of the decisions are.
Personally, from what I've read, I think Law should have been hauled over the coals, but then I don't get to make the decisions.
@AP
So Political Correctness is originally a term from the realm of Maoism. ......... A man who is deemed to be infallible, whose words are to be obeyed without question -- or thought -- by the way.
Marxism is an undoubted influence on the phenomenon of PC. It's my contention that Protestantism's unintended justification of the religious rationalisation hamster, provides a "weak point" in Protestant culture through which Marxism can gain entry and religious legitimacy. Much to my sorrow, it's the within the Protestant churches that PC has taken most firm root.
It is also true that Catholicism at its worst can resemble Communism, the "party demanding unquestioning obedience". Amongst Catholics, as far as I can remember, Papal authority has been honoured in the breach. It's this rejection that may have at times saved Catholicism from itself.
Look, I don't want you to think that I'm bashing Protestants, there is a lot of good in the Protestant faith, good which will be corrective to some of the Catholic evils. I imagine after these times of troubles have passed, the Catholic church will be Catholic in a Protestant type of way.
SP
Look, the Catholic administrative hierarchy has an unblemished record of stupidity, maladministration and a shocking sense of PR. Remember we had a Borgia as a Pope. The thing is, as corrupt and wicked as these people were they didn't diddle with the faith.
Primus: The current campaign in the leftist west in promotion of homosexual sodomites.
Secundus: The Roman Catholic church has been protecting homosexual sodomites who sodomised boys as young as 10 for over thirty years.
Tertius: The Roman Catholic church turned a blind eye to the homosexualization of entire seminaries over thirty years ago.
It is not at all unreasonable to state that the Roman Catholic church has done more to promote homosexual sodomy and pederasty than any other organization in the world and therefore it is hypocritical for any Catholic to complain about PC in anyone else.
Before you complain about the mote in the eyes of Protestants, see to the beam in your own.
Shall I go on? I can do so, you know, at length.
@AP
It is not at all unreasonable to state that the Roman Catholic church has done more to promote homosexual sodomy and pederasty than any other organization in the world and therefore it is hypocritical for any Catholic to complain about PC in anyone else.
I suppose that's why the Gay lobby is pro-Catholic. Eh? Last I looked Gene Robertson wasn't Catholic. A fair observer of Christianity would conclude that the big push for the religious legitimisation of the homosexuality is coming from the Protestant denominations.
Be that as it may, the Catholic Heirarchy's handling of the sexual abuse scandal was downright criminal in some instances and in other displayed a stupid naivette. (which makes you wonder about the quality of their other decisions.)
But let's take your argument and assume that the Chruch is strongly pro-homosexual. Why haven't they changed the teachings? If they were so in love with boy love could they rationalise away the bible (after all they have a good tradition of making things up according to the Protestants) Why not make homo love the most noble and worthy form, they way the Priest and bishops could get all the blow jobs and anal sex that they could dream of, and with self deluded Divine approval.
And yet they haven't.
They say there is a gaurdian angel, for lovers and drunks, and likewise for the Catholic Church, for her members have proven so stupid and have through their action done everything to destroy her. Her indestructibilty despite the malice and stupidity of her members is sustained by the charitable love of the Divine.
(And to clear up any misconception. The faithful worship God and not the Priest.)
Oh and AP.
There is this.
House divided?
You are quite wrong, most Protestants will read the bible and base their faith solely on their source, because they aren't ignorant and believe in the infallibility of the Pope.
The main argument with Catholicism is that you have others interpret teachings for you. Not to mention the practice of apostolic succession, based on your "rationalization hamster" concept it would discredit the Roman Catholic church.
Also the Catholic church is heavily biased from politics and ripe with corruption. Do you really believe those pedophile priests are qualified to teach the bible?
Add to that, logically speaking Protestant stance makes more rational sense than Roman Catholics. More examples would be Catholics believing in limbo and immaculate conception.
There's a reason why the true elite in the USA were WASPS.
@The King
Thank you for your comment. It has been noted.
It is not at all unreasonable to state that the Roman Catholic church has done more to promote homosexual sodomy and pederasty than any other organization in the world and therefore it is hypocritical for any Catholic to complain about PC in anyone else.
I suppose that's why the Gay lobby is pro-Catholic. Eh? Last I looked Gene Robertson wasn't Catholic. A fair observer of Christianity would conclude that the big push for the religious legitimisation of the homosexuality is coming from the Protestant denominations.
You are conflating two things. I am not discussing the legal and political side of homosexuality, you brought that up. Feel free to despise the US Episcopal church as much as I do, for its heresy of homosexual bishops.
What I am pointing out, and you are apparently avoiding, is the systematic protection of priests who deliberately preyed on boys and young men in a homosexual manner. To this day, there are many of them unidentified, and thus protected by the church hierarchy right up to the Pope
Be that as it may, the Catholic Heirarchy's handling of the sexual abuse scandal was downright criminal in some instances and in other displayed a stupid naivette. (which makes you wonder about the quality of their other decisions.)
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DELIBERATELY PROTECTED AND PROTECTS MEN WHO SODOMIZE BOYS AND YOUNG MEN
If that is not the promotion of homosexuality, what is it?
But let's take your argument and assume that the Chruch is strongly pro-homosexual.
I did not say that. I said that the Roman Catholic church promoted homosexual sodomy, by protecting sodomite priests. I'm no doctor, but it seems to me that many of the boys and young men who were sodomized by priests for over 30 years surely did not benefit from the experience, and many of them were psychologically damaged in many ways, including sexually.
Do you deny any of this?
Why haven't they changed the
teachings? If they were so in love with boy love could they rationalise away the bible (after all they have a good tradition of making things up according to the Protestants) Why not make homo love the most noble and worthy form, they way the Priest and bishops could get all the blow jobs and anal sex that they could dream of, and with self deluded Divine approval.
Your strawman argument is not particularly clever, nor interesting. The fact remains that your church has protected pedophiles for over a generation, thereby promoting the sodomy of boys and young men. Your church has steadfastly refused to discipline lesbian nuns, and to clean up homosexualized seminaries. This is your problem and mine, because I live in the same society that you do, to some extent.
And yet they haven't.
Your church is actually a coalition of many different churches, each striving for control of the overall organization. But one thing unifies your church, and that is protection of priests, no matter what they have done. If you cannot see how that promotes various forms of political correctness -- from homosexual abuse of boys, to support for Communist governments, to support of abortion, to support of feminism, then I strongly suggest you look more closely at the various strands within your church.
They say there is a gaurdian angel, for lovers and drunks, and likewise for the Catholic Church, for her members have proven so stupid and have through their action done everything to destroy her. Her indestructibilty despite the malice and stupidity of her members is sustained by the charitable love of the Divine.
And that justifies protection of boy-rapers from the full punishment of the law....how?
(And to clear up any misconception. The faithful worship God and not the Priest.)
I will not discuss theology with you. This is purely about the political realm, and how the Roman Catholic church has promoted PC in many ways, most especially the disgusting protection of pedophiles.
I will be succinct: Why is the Pope still protecting Bernard Francis Law?
Is he protecting him? Is there an arrest warrant?
To the best of my knowledge, there is no extradition treaty between the US and Vatican City. Therefore, it is now impossible for anyone to further depose Law on anything. He is therefore beyond the reach of any temporal authority that might want a few stray ends tidied up.
I didn't know who Law was, but I looked him up on Wikipedia.
My sincere apologies for forgetting that you are in Australia. Cardinal Law is quite well known in North America, for his indefensible acts.
Perhaps the reason why the Pope is "protecting" him is because from the article;
"When the state attorney general issued his report entitled Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston (July 23, 2003) he severely criticised Law but he did not allege that Law had tried to evade investigation and he did state that Law had not broken any laws."
I suppose you can't arrest a man if he hasn't broken any laws, no matter how much you don't like him.
Wikipedia is not the last word on anything, as I'm sure you are aware. There are people in Boston who are of the opinion that Law should have been much more closely questioned on some topics.
Now, please note the position Law occupies within the Vatican. Is this any sort of punishment? Is he not in a position of some serious responsibility? Is he not therefore being rewarded in some sense?
Why? Why reward such a man?
Look, the Catholic administrative hierarchy has an unblemished record of stupidity, maladministration and a shocking sense of PR. Remember we had a Borgia as a Pope. The thing is, as corrupt and wicked as these people were they didn't diddle with the faith. I'm not a big one on a Papal Authority on seeing just how dumb some of the decisions are.
The fact remains that by elevating Law to a position of authority, the clear message is sent: "Well done, good and faithful servant". Is that the message that should be sent?
Personally, I think Law should be a monk, with a vow of silence, on a remote hillside or island, if the church is going to protect him, rather than living nicely in Vatican City. But, then, I believe that your church should have rendered up boy-buggering priests to temporal authorities 30 years ago, too.
Personally, from what I've read, I think Law should have been hauled over the coals, but then I don't get to make the decisions.
The point is, your church has protected men who sodomized boys and young men. In that way, your church has actively promoted homosexuality, among other PC things.
In a spirit of amity, let me try to restrain my anger a bit, and observe that what you see as PC is really just another version of worldliness. Christians are called upon to be "in the world, but not of the world". Yet the temptation is ever present to be ever more in the world, which drags us to be of the world.
The mainstream Protestant denominations in the US have been more and more of the world, going back probably 100 years. It's been more visible since the 1960's. I believe that the Civil Rights movement, which unquestionably started in churches, dragged far too many churchmen of all denominations into the world.
Because ending the color line in the US was the right thing to do, unfortunately too many people decided that well, by golly, there were other causes just as worthy that churches should get involved in. So various "social gospel" permutations took root, in both Protestant and Catholic churches alike.
Today the harvest can be seen. Declining attendance in mainstream Protestant churches, contrasted with steady membership in more theologically oriented ones. I cannot speak to the Catholic side of things, but note that some anecdotal evidence suggests the more theologically conservative parishes are doing better than the "relevant" ones.
Worldliness never ends well. We can see what it is doing to the Church of England / Episcopal church. In the US there are groups of Episcopal churches that have placed themselves under the authority of Bishops in Africa (Uganda, if I recall correctly, being one example) in order to get away from the likes of Gene Robinson. Those churches that do not have military-style hierarchies have seen split after split in the last 40 years, with Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. denominations dividing into "liberal" and "conservative" forms -- or "worldly" and "not worldly" as I would put it.
So in conclusion, I would say that the spread of PC is independent of the primary church. I see PC in mainly Catholic countries as well as mainly, or formerly, Protestant. It is the corruption of the age, and no church is immune to it.
If I have offended you with my anger, I apologize. A family I know was personally affected by sexual molestation of the youngest son by a priest, when the lad was around 10 or so years of age, and the entire family has never recovered from that. The boy has grown to a deformed man, in too many ways to recount. And the priest? He was rotated to another state. He has never been called to account for his crime, not in this world.
I've read Dante. I know where that priest is going. The wrath of God is sufficient, no question about it. But I cannot sit idly by while such crimes are airbrushed away, as it seemed to me you were doing.
SP
Oh and AP.
There is this.
House divided?
I know homosexuals who bitterly denounce the Roman Catholic church because in their eyes, the church accepts homosexuality in priests and bishops, but won't accept it in members. This ties back to the pedophilia scandals, in my opinion, because those crimes made it quite clear that there are indeed active homosexuals within the church hierarchy, who are in a position to condemn active homosexuals among the laity. The hypocritical nature of this should be obvious.
Any church that opposes homosexual "marriage" can expect to be targeted, and so long as a majority of the RC hierarchy resists, the homosexual activists will attack. Similarly the more theologically solid Protestant churches are targeted, while those social clubs that have a name outside claiming to be following Christ are favored.
No one ever said standing up against sin would be popular.
It appears that of the four postings I made to this site yesterday, two of them did not appear. Perhaps it is coincidence that in those two postings, I pointed out details from the multi-decade long scandal within the RC church of homosexual priests sodomizing boys and young men, and the extensive and deliberate efforts to conceal both the crimes and the criminals, efforts made by large parts of the RC hierarchy.
I also pointed out the important position Law has been placed in, the fact that there is no extradition from Vatican City, and that to an outsider it appears Law has been rewarded for some reason.
I find it curious those postings did not show up. However I shall not draw conclusions, not at this time.
Your two comments were held up by blogger's spam detector. I hadn't checked it the last few days and didn't until you put up your last comment. No censorship.
Sex abuse spans spectrum of churches
@AP
It is true that many of the Catholic hierarchy did not report the paedophiles to police, despite the urgings of other priests, bishops and laity.
But to argue that they did so because they were closet homo supporters is wrong. In some instances it appears that the priests were protected because they were part of an "old boys network", in other instances they were thought to have a medical problem which required treatment, and in other instance they weren't reported for fear of scandalising the Church. I'm not trying to defend any of these reasons, but merely to say that your assumption the paedophile protection was due to some closet homo love is wrong.
When Cardinal Bertone made this statement, the homo's went ballistic. The Catholic church has its issues, but homo love is not one of them.
A digression. The Left is far more represented by graduates of the arts and the social sciences than by the STEM majors. Why? In my opinion, it's the strict empiricism of the STEM courses that provide a de facto inoculation against structuralist thinking; it's very hard to find oppression in chemistry or physics. Thinking along stucturalist lines in these disciplines results in failure.
I would think this would serve as evidence that protestant values, at least some of them, have actually been pretty resilient to PC indoctrination.
That is to say, the mathematical reasoning & logic that is central to Newtonian Mechanical Philosophy is largely a product of Protestant theology.
Actually to call it something specific to Protestants may be a bit of a stretch; it is probably more accurate to say it is of a spirit with Protestantism, but I digress.
I was born into the Protestant tradition, but find Catholicism enchanting. I've moved that direction, from Southern Baptist to high church Anglican, but I have a real problem with the doctrine (dogma?) concerning Mary. If not for this, I would be Catholic already. Could you recommend some readings about how her story came to be? As best I could put together from several websites: There was no consensus in the Early Church, then there was an argument between Tertullian and Jerome, and Jerome was more popular. Then various monks and church leaders really really liked her, and some had visions and dreams about her, and somehow this all means there was the Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity (contrary to plain readings of Mark 6:3, Matthew 1:25), etc.
My suspicion is that the beliefs about Mary--and transubstatiation--are simply flat out tests of submission to the will of the church hierarchy, even unto absurdity...and I hate to think that about my Brothers.
You have a great blog. Thanks for investing in it.
Post a Comment