Mark Shea points out a good priest in the Seattle area. Here's a quote from a homily:
Sexual activity is not a requirement for a happy, and fulfilling life. After all, given the Catholic understanding of human sexuality, sexual expression is a gift from God, given to some but not to others for a specific reason. It is not a right. But that idea goes against the very grain of our entire culture. Our culture sees sex as a purely private matter. It is a form of pleasure individuals give to one another with a malleable meaning. It can be a sign of love, or maybe a form of relaxation or recreation. But it is not seen as a divine gift with objective purposes and boundaries.
Well said.
At Zillas we've been having a bit of fun over Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. John is a practicing Catholic, but prefers the Lutheran definition. Here's what I posted:
--------------------
Guys,
I'm sorry that I've been slow on the uptake here. I took John at his word that he believed in the real presence, and ignored the evidence that said otherwise. I can be dim that way sometimes. Let's consider some of the evidence:
1) John has problems getting juiced up for Mass.
2) John doubts some of the historical veracity of the Gospels and I presume that also applies somewhat to the Acts and letters of the Apostles.
3) While claiming that the Lutheran belief and the Orthodox/Catholic belief are essentially the same thing, John belittled Catholic belief:
Part way... Only from the point of view of a Catholic... The Lutheran acceptance of reality... there is wine in the cup and bread on the alter before and after the blessing... does not diminish the divinity therein...
Five? A thousand? Two?
If I tell a man that this blessing turns his cow into a chicken... do I insist that Bossie is clucking to complete the effect?
I suggest that 2 and 3 are directly related to 1.
Earlier I quoted a review of Timothy Ware's book on Orthodox Christianity, "Although the Orthodox attach importance to the Holy Scriptures, they regard the Bible as a verbal icon of Christ but not as a substitute for the spirit of Christianity."
That's a nice way to put it. But another way to put it, and this is an Evangelical perspective moving toward Catholic:
I saw at once that regular biblical fellowship and regular Holy Communion were both a form of ritual; both "means of grace." The only difference is that in the former, God transubstantiates paper, ink, and the human voice into His Word; whereas in the latter, according to Catholics, He changes the bread and wine into something more impressive. -- Mark P. Shea, THIS IS MY BODY, An Evangelical Discovers The Real Presence
It strikes me, that John has difficulty embracing both Scripture and Holy Communion. He has trouble accepting that the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God. A veil of time stretches between him and the events recorded, and it seems inevitable to him that its historical truth has and will degrade over time. Likewise, it is hocus pocus (*) that the substance of our Lord Jesus Christ has replaced the substance of the bread. "This is my body." Our Lord cannot be within the bread or partly share substance with the bread.
[(*) Hocus Pocus - This is an alteration of Latin "hoc est enim corpus meum" -- "this is my body" (from its use in the Eucharist at the time of transubstantiation).]
When you look in the mirror or at a picture of yourself, you will often think, "that's me there" but that's not true. That is a reflection of you, that is a picture of you, but it is NOT you. Likewise, the literal interpretation of this scripture is clearly intended by Christ. "Is" means "is."
Re-read Christ in the Eucharist.
[Mark Shea makes the same argument in his book, I'm kinda surprised
that I've found the book useful]
And so for John, a veil is between him and God in the species of Holy Communion. He strives and struggles as he tries to reach for God's grace, and he fails. This is to be expected. One cannot demand God's grace, it must be given to you.
The importance of an apostolic church is that only they, in an unbroken chain of succession, can do the Hocus Pocus. You cannot just believe that the real presence is there (that by mere belief you can force His presence), but that it must be consecrated by a valid priest. The laying of hands is important, and this affects the belief of the non-apostolic churches. The bread is a symbol of Christ. For it can only be thus. Catholics worship the Real Presence, the Euchrist, and if it were not for the Real Presence, a total transubstantiation, we would be committing a blasphemy, the Blessed Sacrament would be idolatry, and we would be breaking the First Commandment.
Minister: "The Body of Christ"
Communicant: "Amen"
For me and other believing Catholics, God is there. He is present in a most personnal way. I take the host within me, and I am in Communion with God. A direct pipe. "Communion" -- words mean things.
The other hook is the sacrifice. The Church claims the Mass is a sacrifice, but it is not a repeat of the sacrifice at Calvary. God, the Creator is apart from his creation, and exists outside of time. He transcends time. So when you are in Communion with God, "You are there" as the old newsreels pronounced.
I will not deny the Crucifixion (which is why I find it so puzzling that Christians can convert to Islam). The one thing I center upon are the untranslated words of Jesus on the cross "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 16:34) That is a fact. Those were His words. A historical Fact. And so when I view the trailer of The Passion, I am profoundly affected. I am overwhelmed. The suffering of our Savior on the cross sears my soul, and I am grateful for his sacrifice for my sins. This is what is accomplished on the altar, just as a lamb was sacrificed for the Jews in the temple altar for atonement, the Lamb of God is sacrificed for our sins. And so "I am there." I am a witness. I confess.
J.R.R. Tolkien called this True Myth the Eucatastrophe.
"The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function." It denies the universal final defeat and is evangelium, giving a glimpse of Joy, "poignant as grief." Tolkien describes the Christian Story, the Gospel "which embraces all the essence of fairy stories."
"[T]his story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the "inner consistency of reality." There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many skeptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath.
I cannot view the Real Presence in any other way, than that Jesus, divine and human, is actually there, not sharing substance with the bread and wine, but unfiltered, unadulterated, actually and truly really present.
I posit that John's doubts about this and the historical truth of scripture, are in effect -- whether he consciously wishes this or not -- are in effect a veil between himself and his God. And I am sorry.
--------------------
Update: John maintains that he believes in the real presence. As far as I can see, he denies transubstantiation as a valid doctrine for the real presence, and so the substance of my concluding paragraph remains the same, that there is a veil between him and God. I suppose whether consubstantiation satisfies the real presence is not a worthwhile debate, but that which one is Truth is far more important. I hope that I've made a reasonable argument that transubstantiation is correct and true.
A special thanks to the fair Lady Guinevere (otherwise known as Jen) whom I met yesterday at the Proud 2B Catholic event, and who is wicked nice for saying that I'm wicked nice.
"Wicked" is Boston slang for outstanding or really, really cool. It's interesting that modern language patterns are given to such hyperbolic extremes, given the older patterns like say Morte d'Arthur or even as recent as Huckleberry Finn. It struck me that we are prone to say, "How in the world did that happen?" whereas older speech (like in Huck Finn) would have said, "How in the nation did that happen?" I was just noticing, that's all.
Speaking of noticing, this was a major foray out of the cave. To avoid traffic, I drove to Salem a little bit early (I hate trying to find a place with cars kissing my rear bumper). I parked in a parking garage attached to a mall and I did a little browsing in the mall. The first thing I noticed was all the handwritten signs on the windows of the businesses therein informing me that the restrooms were only available for paying customers. As I stepped outdoors, I noticed all the signs informing particular drivers that they could not park in a particular place.
I understand the pressures that drive these sorts of rules, but it all felt oppressive in the way that the Land cried out to Thomas Covenant in Stephen R. Donaldson's Unbeliever series. I just keep thinking how psychologically unhealthy it was to worry about a safe place to pee. I was in shock before the event started. Salem is just too closed in for my tastes.
Of course, I should venture from the cave more often, if only to avoid sunburn from a few hours outdoors on a partly cloudy day.
After a bit of boredom yesterday (Mark Shea was busy doing something else, rather than updating his blog -- it's all Mark's fault), I visited The Corner at NRO. I caught Jonah Goldberg disavowing the slippery slope arguments again:
But each success breeds a response and changes the dynamics of the debate. We saw this with feminism and loads of other isms. The radical feminists wanted the moon and their opponents believed if the feminists succeeded at any stage of their campaign they would succeed at all of them. But the reality was that after their first major successes -- voting, for example -- the appeal of their movement and their arguments withered because the context changed and the radicals lost popular support. Static analysis doesn't work in economics and it doesn't work in culture either.
This spurred me to write this email (which seems unlikely to get a response).
--------------------
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
Fine, gay radicals will be soft on polygamy. Big deal. Polygamists won't be soft on polygamy and there's nothing like recruiting sex starved males to the full-tilt-boogie fantasy on starting your own harem. I'm betting that culturally we are more predisposed to accept polygamy than we are gay marriage (even outside Utah).
So when you and Andrew Sullivan stand shoulder to shoulder against polygamy and start citing authority like "democracy of the dead" and Scripture, people will look at you with one eye cocked (as I'm sure Cosmo does many times), and ask what happened to "democracy of the dead" and Scripture when you guys were discussing gay marriage? Why should we care now? You can whine that you never meant for things to get that far, but it will be too late then.
Your fallacious belief is that it is only gay radicals that wish to tear down traditional marriage. You focus on the gay horde that may disperse after victory as you claim. You refuse to believe that other barbarian hordes might appear after the walls are weakened. This sort of stupidity is amazing given the historical evidence of the slippery slope we've slid down on sexual mores. People didn't see much harm in allowing contraceptives for married couples. Well look where we are now.
You don't need to consult Herbert's Dune series to understand that sex is an irresistible force once unleashed. Simply consult Chesterton (you might have heard of him) or ancient Rome.
The truth is that the polygamists have the easier argument. There is a historical basis for it (unlike gay marriage). And in our sex soaked culture (which homosexuality feeds upon), viewing women as sex objects (which polygamy feeds upon) is not so far fetched.
Better start preparing your anti-polygamy arguments now. I know you doubt me, but try it anyway. Assume that gay marriage is firmly embedded in our culture. Construct arguments that will preserve gay marriage but bar the
door to polygamy. And you will see that your arguments will lose.
--------------------
I know that Jonah claims he does not support gay marriage, but instead endorses civil unions. That's a distinction without a difference.
The folks at NRO also suggested reading Eugene Volokh on slippery slopes. I've got about 20% done. The rest is on my ever increasing to-do list.