Sunday, September 8, 2013

"Within that household the human spirit has roof and hearth. Outside it is the night."

Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc, in an open letter to an interlocutor who hated the Catholic Church:

There wholly escapes you the character of the Catholic Church .... You are like one examining the windows of Chartres from within by candle-light but we have the sun shining through . . . . For what is the Catholic Church? It is that which replies, co-ordinates, establishes. It is that within which is right order; outside the puerilities and the despairs. It is the possession of perspective in the survey of the world .... Here alone is promise, and here alone is foundation. Those of us who boast so stable an endowment make no claim thereby to personal peace; we are not saved thereby alone .... But we are of so glorious a company that we receive support, and have communion. The Mother of God is also our own. Our dead are with us. Even in these our earthly miseries we always hear the distant something of an eternal music, and smell a native air. There is a standard set for us whereto our whole selves respond, which is that of an inherited and endless life, quite full, in our own country. You may say, "all that is rhetoric." You would be wrong, for it is rather vision, recognition, and testimony. But take it for rhetoric. Have you any such? Be it but rhetoric, whence does that stream flow? Or what reserve is that which can fill even such a man as myself with fire? Can your opinion (or doubt or gymnastics) do the same? I think not! One thing in this world is different from all others. It has a personality and a force. It is recognized and (when recognized) most violently hated or loved. It is the Catholic Church. Within that household the human spirit has roof and hearth. Outside it is the night. 
In haec urbe lux
sollennis,
Ver aeternum, pax
perennis
Et aeterna gaudia.

30 comments:

  1. Do you (and Belloc) mean this Catholic Church? You know, the one that asserts that Christians have a duty to aid in the destruction of the country, both as a polity and as a people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To relate this to the OP, my thought is that the USCCB is telling us that we must burn our house down.

      Delete
    2. Oh, come on, Ilion. Tell us what you really think of the Catholic Church and Catholics.

      As I've said before, Roman Catholic "intellectuals" tend to be socialists at heart ... and it comes from a serious flaw in Catholicism, The One True Bureaucracy, itself: a distain for individual freedom, and a related hatred for wealth not controlled by bureaucrats or "the right people".

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 8, 2013 at 11:10 AM

      Well, I've read the USCCB position, and I completely disagree. With you, not it. To wit:

      The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right...

      Unfortunately, the immigration law cobbled together by Reagan and a drunken degenerate, Ted Kennedy, is a nightmare. FDR's Bracero Program, while not perfect, was far and away a better solution than what we have today. Unfortunately, labor unions and César Chávez killed any possibility of a reasonable rewriting of those immigration rules.

      What we need today is a path to legal residency so that individuals, and particularly children, who are here illegally can be identified, pay taxes and become part of the formal economy.

      All this discussion of a wall across the Southern Border worries me greatly. During the 80's, I visited a country where there was a Wall. It was an ugly sight.

      Individuals who want to come to America and work should be required to go to a US embassy or consulate, obtain an officially-issued card with biometric ID, and get the card swiped when they cross the border and periodically while they continue to reside here.

      North America should be an economic and labor free trade zone.

      And by the way, this was my view before I contemplated conversion to Christianity, much less Catholicism.

      Delete
    4. "Well, I've read the USCCB position, and I completely disagree. With you, not it. To wit:"

      If you really have *read* it, and agree with it, then you're in favor of destroying America.

      Delete
    5. "All this discussion of a wall across the Southern Border worries me greatly. During the 80's, I visited a country where there was a Wall. It was an ugly sight."

      Oh, my! You're as great a fool -- you're a intellectually dishonest -- as the atheists/Darwinists/open-leftists who infest Mr Egnor's blog.

      Delete
    6. Intellectually dishonest means disagrees with me in Ilionspeak.

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. some random liar: "Oh, come on, Ilion. Tell us what you really think of the Catholic Church and Catholics."

      Because, of course, to criticize the unsound and destructive leftist policies intentionally promulgated by the One True Bureaucracy is exactly the same as saying "All Catholics, being Catholics, “go to Hell".” You know, just like criticizing the unsound and destructive leftism of “the gay lobby” as they intentionally work with other leftists to destroy both Christianity and the historic characters and cultures of the Western peoples is exactly the same as saying “No person afflicted with same-sex-attraction can ever “go to Heaven”.”

      Delete
    8. the ‘Hoo’ who Horton will never hear, because Horton cannot hear liars: "Intellectually dishonest means disagrees with me in Ilionspeak."

      And, of course, this leftist/atheist liar has to put in his $0.00 lie.

      Let’s quote Adm again: “All this discussion of a wall across the Southern Border worries me greatly. During the 80's, I visited a country where there was a Wall. It was an ugly sight."

      He’s falsely positing a moral equivalency between the Berlin Wall – the turning of an entire city into a prison – meant to prohibit people fleeing murderous oppression, with the US government’s half-hearted attempts to slow down the deliberate invasion of America that the government of Mexico (regardless of what party is in power) sponsors, the end-point of which is to turn America into Mexico.

      This is intellectual dishonesty – fully worthy of a leftist.

      Delete
    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 8, 2013 at 12:11 PM

      Intellectually dishonest about what, specifically?

      Delete
    10. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 8, 2013 at 12:35 PM

      Ilion, your answer to my question must have been en route while I was typing.

      I'm sorry, Ilion, but your use of the word "invasion" is absurd. Latinos, like south Asian Indians and Chinese, by and large come here to work. And thank God they do. It would be difficult to overestimate the contribution of immigrants to national defense, telecommunications, and medicine. And speaking of Latinos in particular, how many melons, cherries, blueberries, or winter tomatoes do you think you could afford if it weren't for Latinos doing the backbreaking labor? I wish Americans were willing to work as hard as they do. When I lived in Colorado, I often observed that no drywall would get hung in the entire state if it weren't for Latinos.

      And a wall is a wall. The East Germans were as devoted to keeping the westerners out as they were to keeping East Germans in. The checkpoints worked both ways, amigo. Herr Honecker did not want his serfs infected with counter-revolutionary "capitalist propaganda" and decent shoes.

      But perhaps most importantly, immigrants serve as a valuable memory. One of my very best friends in Boston was an Estonian Jew, a mathematician and immigrant from the Soviet Union. I can assure you that he was in no way devoted to turning the US into any other country on the planet. If anything, he may have loved this country more than most native-born citizens. And when he heard left-wingers wax rhapsodic about Mikhail Gorbachev while criticizing Ronald Reagan, he went ballistic. Because he remembered.

      Delete
    11. The Berlin Wall was built by the very regime that was oppressing and murdering the people within its grasp; the whole purpose of the wall was to prevent the victims of the communist regime escaping it.

      In contrast, any wall that might (finally) get built on our southern border is not intended to prevent victims of US government oppression escaping its grasp, but rather to prevent aliens – persons who are not members of our society and polity – whom the Mexican government is using as pawns in its long-term invasion of the US – for that is exactly what this is about (*) – from illegally infiltrating our nation-state.

      (*) The government of Mexico is doing a slo-mo version of this, intentionally.

      Delete
    12. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM

      Long-term invasion? Mexico?

      Get serious, dude.

      I'm more worried about the Attack of the KIller Tomatoes

      Delete
    13. No, what is absurd is your refusal to see the invasion that's happenning right in front of your eyes.

      Further, it is absurd of you to pretend that all there is to America is a market-place, as though *all* there were to a nation is the work-and-consumption of whatever individual humans happen to be in the geographic area controlled by a regime.

      And even more absurd, if there can be degrees to absurdity, is your sentimentalizing about immigration ... as though we have some obligation to destroy ourselves so as to ensure we "remember where we came from".

      Tell you what? Why don't all you Old-Worlders just go back? That kind of (ahem) thinking is popular there.

      Delete
    14. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 8, 2013 at 1:08 PM

      The "remember where we came from" quote is wholly imaginary, Ilion. My point was that immigrants remember what is was like when they - get that, THEY - were poor and/or oppressed. Unlike most people who were born here. And your so-called "invasion" is equally imaginary.

      Delete
    15. Hightly educated eastern-european Jewish legal immigrants, numbering in the tens, or even hundreds, who learn our language, who conform themselves to our historic culture, who obey the laws, and who can contribute more to our society than they take from it are not the same as tens of millions of illiterate-in-their-own-language, to say nothing of ours, peasants, here illegally, who do not learn our language if they can at all help it, who do not conform themselves to our historic culture, who do not obey the laws, who, if they do actually work, rather than just living off tax monies, depress the wages of our own "working poor", and who, en mass, take more from our society than they contribute to it.

      You like false equivalencies, don't you?

      Delete
    16. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 8, 2013 at 3:27 PM

      It's no false equivalency between you and a bigot, Ilion. It's the real deal.

      Delete
  2. "Intellectually dishonest about what, specifically?"

    You know, even if I hadn't *explained* the false, and thus dishonest, moral equivalency you are trying to draw, I quoted it when I first named it for what it is. You're not stupid; you're capable of reading your own quoted words in the context of me saying “you’re [being] intellectually dishonest” and *grasping* the point, even without a further explicit explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I knew that Belloc's quote would stir things. I didn't comment on it myself, because I am of mixed views on the Catholic/Protestant issue. I am a devout and emphatic Catholic, and I believe that the Reformation was a bad thing to the extent that it fractured, rather than reformed, Christianity. While the Catholic Church institutionally has a host of problems, Protestantism is a loony bin to a substantial extent. Mainline Protestant churches are basically socialist cells (one must remember that George Tiller was killed in an ELCA church at which he was a respected elder). Pure evil. The Prosperity Gospel, hawked by the likes of Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland, is an obvious fraud that I can't even watch on tv because I feel sick.

    There are serious and devout Protestants and denominations, just as there are serious and devout Catholics. But the Catholic Church, for all its faults, is the real deal, and Christianity's enemies attack it mercilessly, because they know that in the long run it is all that matters.

    Regarding immigration, I think that the Bishops take far too liberal a stance. The correctly point out the responsibility of immigrants to obey the law and the responsibility of government officials to enforce the law, but they only give it lip service.

    I don't have any easy solutions to the immigration problem-- deporting tens of millions of people and dragging children out of schools is not something we can or should or will do. Yet we endanger our nation by unfettered illegal immigration. I have no problem with a fence (Adm's comparison with the Berlin Wall is inapt-- we are not totalitarians, and we are keeping aliens out, not citizens in.)

    And I think that massive illegal immigration is in fact a form of invasion.

    The Bishops don't have this issue exactly right, but it's not the first time they have been off-target, and it won't be the last. In their defense, they do have millions of parishioners who are illegals, and they see that side of the human drama with particular clarity.

    I stand by the Church, even when her sons say things with which I disagree. She is the institutional manifestation of the Lord's Body. Many of my Protestant brothers and sisters are in His Body as well, in the catholic (rather than Catholic) church, but I believe the Church is the fullest tangible manifestation of Him in our world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "While the Catholic Church institutionally has a host of problems, Protestantism is a loony bin to a substantial extent. Mainline Protestant churches are basically socialist cells ..."

      Protestants segregate the loonies into their own constantly shrinking "churches". Catholics let the loonies run the show.

      Delete
    2. "But the Catholic Church, for all its faults, is the real deal ..."

      How can a man worship Christ if he's worshipping a human bureaucracy?

      "... Many of my Protestant brothers and sisters are in His Body as well, in the catholic (rather than Catholic) church, but I believe the Church is the fullest tangible manifestation of Him in our world."

      As you admit right here, salvation is not a function of being "in communion" with the self-proclaimed "Heir of the Fisherman." To put it bluntly, and I'm sure you understand that I prefer bluntness, being "in communion" with the self-proclaimed "Vicar of Christ" is utterly irrelevant to salvation.

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't say the loonies are running the Catholic show.

      JPII, Benedict and Francis are no loons, and the Church is packed with brilliant holy people. She was infected by modernity just like everyone else (including and especially Protestantism, which bears not a small responsibility for Modernity), but She is moving steadily toward clearing the infection. She is 2000 years old and built on a rock, and has faced down the Sanhedrin, Nero, Diocletin, Vandals, Goths, Islamic hordes, Albigensians, the Plague, Luther, Calvin, Jacobians, Commies, Nazis, and pedophiles.

      She'll handle a few New Age nuns and limousine liberal bishops in short order.

      Catholic don't worship bureaucracy. We worship Christ, venerate Mary and the Saints, and have a quite down-to-earth affection (and exasperation) for our beloved Church.

      Salvation is of course a matter of being in communion with the Lord. We Catholics think that the Church is the most direct way there. The Church teaches that there are other ways, too. God is not bound by His sacraments.

      Delete
    4. "I knew that Belloc's quote would stir things. I didn't comment on it myself, because I am of mixed views on the Catholic/Protestant issue. I am a devout and emphatic Catholic, and I believe that the Reformation was a bad thing to the extent that it fractured, rather than reformed, Christianity. ..."

      I don't believe you are not what I call a "Rah-Rah" Catholic ... but, from just that quote, Belloc seems to be.

      "I am a devout and emphatic Catholic ..."

      I think it would be better if you were a non-Catholic; but that's between you and God.

      However, the sort of "Catholicism is the *real* Christianity" bullshit expressed in the quote isn't a private matter between the person saying it and God.

      " ... and I believe that the Reformation was a bad thing to the extent that it fractured, rather than reformed, Christianity."

      So, is it *our* fault that the One True Bureaucracy dug in its heels, like bureaucracies tend to do?

      And see -- and this is the important thing -- a large part of what you're saying is that the Reformation was bad because it fractured the political power of that bureaucracy centered on the bishop of Rome; whereas I see that as an excellent thing (even though it wasn't the original intent of the Reformers).

      Are we unable to be brothers in Christ because you're Catholic and I'm Protestant? Some years ago, were some of my co-workers and I unable to meet during lunch to have Bible study because some were Protestant and some Catholic? The anwser to both is "No", of course.

      So, other than taking an irrelevant bureaucracy down a notch or two, how exactly did the Reformation harm the Body fo Christ?

      Or, look at it another way: in America -- historically the nation in which the Reformation is most fully realized -- Christianity, including Catholicism, is still socially important. On the other hand, in *all* the European countries, Christianity is marginalized, and it seems to be exceptionally marginalized in historically Catholic countries, such as Italy and Spain. Shoot! Even the Irish, as a people, seem to be cooperating with the leftists' intention to banish Christianity from the public square.

      "... Many of my Protestant brothers and sisters are in His Body as well, in the catholic (rather than Catholic) church, but I believe the Church is the fullest tangible manifestation of Him in our world."

      See? There's that One True Bureaucracy thingie, again; that worship of a human institution.

      "... but I believe the [communicants and/or bureaucracy of the bishop of Rome are] the fullest tangible manifestation of Him in our world."

      As I understand it, the bishops (and their bureaucracies) of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople disagree, and have disagreed ever since the bishop of Rome first began to push himself forward as THE "Vicar of Christ".

      Delete
    5. "And I think that massive illegal immigration is in fact a form of invasion."

      Perhaps the link I gave before was too inconspicuous for most to notice, so here is is again: The Mexican government is intentionally using its poor subjects (*) as pawns in a slo-mo version of Morocco’s conquest from Spain of the Spanish Sahara

      (*) notice, I didn’t say “citizens”

      Delete
    6. "[The RCC] was infected by modernity just like everyone else (including and especially Protestantism, which bears not a small responsibility for Modernity) …"

      Modernity (*) is born of the so-called Renaissance and the so-called Enlightenment. Both of these started in Catholic societies – and both were revolts against Christianity, just as (Post-)Modernism is.

      (*) “Modernity” as I suspect you mean the term, to include Post-Modernism.

      Delete
  4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 8, 2013 at 3:43 PM

    So I'm wondering... what happens when the "invasion" succeeds? Are they going to occupy Taco Bell? Seize Merry Maids? Force everyone to wear sombreros with little fuzzy balls hanging from the brim? Make "La Cucaracha" the national anthem?

    What is the objective of this "invasion"?

    And by the way, Ilion, I always have an opening for a backup yard man. Interested?

    ReplyDelete
  5. One doubts that the invasion (which is ongoing) will result in territory ceded to Mexico, regardless of the aims of the Reconquista.

    The more likely outcome will be to change American culture politics and therefore governance, which it is already doing in major ways. This change will almost certainly be to the benefit of statism and the Democrat party, with all of the social catastrophe that entails.

    I have no objection to immigration, even a lot of immigration. I like immigrants.

    But it's legal immigration I endorse. Illegal immigration is... illegal, uncontrollable, and an outrage. Perhaps one of the most pernicious consequences will be disregard for the law on a larger scale, which we are seeing with this administration in particular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

      Under the Bracero program. the immigration rate from Mexico in 1956 was 264/100,000. That figure is not out of line with current rates. However, the main difference is that Mexicans could go back and forth freely. Most did so. They did not want to stay here.They came as the work became available, and they left when they wanted to be with their families. Unlike American culture, latino culture is very family oriented. Family is everything, really.

      Today, however, with current law, Mexicans/Latinos cannot, practically speaking, go back. The cost to get here is astronomical in human and dollar terms, and they might never be able to return. That is stupid law on our part.

      The deterioration of our culture is, I'm convinced, a perfectly American problem. It surprises me to see anyone suggest differently who reads the comments section of this blog. KW, for example, is a prototype for what is wrong with American culture. Need I also mention Sandra Fluke and Anthony Weiner? No, the mote is not in the eye of Latinos. The plank is in the eye of America.

      Regarding the welfare issue, that problem is neither caused by Latinos nor is it specific to Latinos. It is also a purely American issue, and can be laid at the feet of the same people who designed ther current immigration laws.

      Finally, referring to Latinos as ignorant , inarticulate peasants (as Ilion did) offends me personally, because he's talking about some of our closest friends. My wife speaks fluent Spanish and we socialize with both professional and non-professional Latinos. And I certainly don't care to be lectured on Christianity by the Ilions of this world. It was an ignorant, bigoted comment, and says far more about him than any immigrant. No wonder Latinos vote Democrat.

      Delete
  6. I find myself wading into this a little late and in a strange position; belonging to one of those Churches whose arch-bishop is not Roman, but whose traditions are still very much in line with the original concept of Catholicism (universalism). To clarify, I belong to the High Anglican Church.
    I should begin by noting I have a deep personal distaste for sectarianism. It has literally claimed lives within my family. One very close and dear. I have also witnessed what it can do in the realm of other faiths. That said, I do not think one size fits all when it comes to religious organization and worship.
    I prefer hymns to gospel music for example, but that is just me.
    So long as the path leads to Christ, I see no harm in different organizations within different churches that speak to different regional and cultural understandings.
    A few years ago I sat in huge open air mass/service with a few hundred Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics/Protestants in Guanajuato (Mexico) honouring a sacred day. We were all Christian that day. That kind of fellowship is, to me, the reality of the REAL Church. That is the true body of Christ.

    As for the immigration stuff: I have to agree with Adm on this. I have also seen walls put to use. I have seen the Berlin wall and I have seen the barrier walls in Israel.
    These are man made physical limits.
    Sometimes walls work to great effect and benefit of those within them, sometimes to their detriment. They can defend, they can trap or filter.
    A wall is only as good as those who man and control access to it. Wall that are used to keep certain people out today could be used for very different purposes tomorrow. A castle has walls, but so does a prison. In many cases castles are converted into prisons.
    POLICY is what needs to be changed. A wall will not stop the waves of immigrants. They will find another way. If such a wall is built, it has been built to fail.
    Think Hegel, folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ilion,
      You noted in your comments that the southern wall would not be to control the flow of Americans. Does this mean you think the construction of that kind of barrier will result in the closing of TSA highway checkpoints that search for pot and illegal cigarettes in Ohio?
      my point is this: The oppression police state stuff is already in play. Do you think a massive wall on the southern border will be used only for the benefit of the USA and it's citizens - or have you considered how it could be abused, just as all the other mechanisms are being currently?

      Adm.
      Have you considered how such a biometric system will impact the lives of citizens? What I mean to say is how long do you think it will take the control freaks to implement the same rules on ANYONE who wants to work in the USA. How long till you need to be indexed?

      I ask these questions honestly, gentlemen.

      Delete