Disqus - Latest Comments for pegobry

Re: Question for Theists: Why Is It Important to Begin Governmental Meetings with Prayer?

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:44:53 -0000

I don't know that all theists think this is important. (For my part, I've never given it much thought.)

I would say two reasons seem obvious:
- You would pray for divine help *with the meeting in question*. You might do that in a church or synagogue or in the loo or hanging from a chandelier, but it seems like the most convenient place to do it would be at he beginning of the meeting.
- Societies live by certain values, which they promote through symbols, and these values are by necessity metaphysical. Many theists believe that societies will be better off if they adopt their metaphysics rather than a rival metaphysics. Beginning governmental meetings with prayer both symbolizes and enacts bringing the society closer in line with the religious values that theists may prefer.

Re: C.S. Lewis Ad Limina Apostolorum

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:54:08 -0000

You're right, the Bible does not enjoin us to leave our fate in the hands of fallible men like Luther, Calvin and Cranmer. Instead, it records Christ founding a Church and granting to this Church authority, under the leadership of Peter, the key-bearer.

The Bible is a narrative about how God redeems his good creation fallen in thrall to sin and death, through a series of covenants, each time raising a godly family under the stewardship of a human father figure, as Scott Hahn explains here: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

I suggest you get your history on the indulgences elsewhere than propaganda. But be careful, as Card Newman said, it is impossible to go deep in history and remain a Protestant.

Now, you may think differently. That's your personal opinion. Since you quite rightly point to the fallibility of men due to sin, I persist in seeing it as strange that you think that so .

Re: How To Historicize The Historicizers

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:12:21 -0000

I actually think the Church "overlearned" its rejection of the Gnostics a little bit. In many ways doctrine develops in response to heresies, and heresies are most often an overemphasized version of something which is true, and so we can learn from them.

Re: C.S. Lewis Ad Limina Apostolorum

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:34:43 -0000

Maybe, but that wasn't his stated reason.

Personally, when I think of Christian bodies straying, I think of, e.g., how every single Christian teacher for 19 centuries called contraception a sin and now there is only one denomination that clearly holds to this teaching. Lewis's Anglicanism led the way in the abandonment of this historic Christian teaching in his lifetime. Or about the historic and New Testament teaching regarding the value of celibacy. Or about the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (I believe today's Anglican teaching on the Eucharist is, to use technical language: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ).

And for the record, the Popes never endorsed the selling of indulgences, and in fact combatted abuses in this regard.

As for this whole thing about "needing" this or that... I honestly don't get it. The God of the Bible has no concept of "need", and the entire salvation history recorded in the Bible is about God's desire to bring about his purpose through human cooperation, not by fiat. If God did not have this desire, the Biblical narrative would be a lot shorter (and the human condition would make no sense). Christ is the high priest, and because he is the high priest, he allows us to participate in his priesthood. Which is why the Gospels (among other things) record Christ as giving the Church authority to remit sins (John 20:23).

But, hey, you clearly have your own opinion in this regard. You clearly believe that you're entitled to decide what is true and what isn't. If you honestly think that this is the Bilblical way to relate to the God revealed in Christ, there's little I can do about that.

Re: How To Historicize The Historicizers

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 03:30:46 -0000

Thank you!

Re: How To Historicize The Historicizers

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 03:30:41 -0000

You're right, I am not a Marcionite.

Re: Rethinking the Death Penalty

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:22:53 -0000

Thank you for this reminder. However, the goal of my life is not to "get away" with as much dissent with the Holy See as I can; the meaning of life is to know, love, and serve God, and as a Catholic I believe that God communicates faithfully to me through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, including its authoritative Catechism.

Re: How Do We Relate To Jesus?

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 03:47:59 -0000

"Why exactly is artificial Contra a "sin" when it is not mentioned in the Bible?"

Because Christians don't regard the Bible as a set of explicit instructions or mandates. Instead they see God's self-revelation in Christ as continuing through His Body, the Church. A book like the Bible is pretty useless without a reliable interpreter, and Catholics see the Church and its teaching authority as its interpreter.

That being said, literally every single recognized Christian teacher until 1930 called contraception a sin. Maybe that should count for something?

Thinking critically is great, and I think having the humility to accept that other people might be smarter and holier than you is part of thinking critically. Thinking critically includes the ability to think *self*-critically, no?

"God did not build our bodies fly on our own because our bodies cannot sustain air flight or handle breathing in such high altitudes--And yet we hop on airplanes."

Your argument, taken seriously and restated, is that because some technologies are good and useful, then ALL technologies must be good and useful. Surely that doesn't sound right.

"Why do these Church officials even speak for a supernatural being and where is this proof they can and do speak for God? Who gives them this "divine authority" to proclaim thou shall not use artificial contra?"

Well, if you're a Catholic, that's what you believe: that, as the New Testament records, Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate, in his lifetime founded a Church, headed by an apostolic college with Peter and his successors at its head, and gave it authority to speak in his name, and that this Church today subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. That's the claim the Church makes about itself. That is what Catholics are supposed to believe.

"And what type of God is "hindered" once puny humans are allowed to use these products? How is a supernatural beings's ability being interfered and hindered by this? Irony."

I would love for you to point out where I made such a claim. No Christian believes that God is "hindered" by our refusal to obey his will; but we do believe that his will is morally good, and binding on us, and will lead to our flourishing in this life and the next.

Re: How Do We Relate To Jesus?

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 03:34:06 -0000

Yep.

Re: If Your Biblical Theology Contradicts Dogmatic Theology, It’s Bad Biblical Theology

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 03:20:04 -0000

Exactly.

Re: If Catholics Want To Play Politics, They Should Learn The Chicago Way

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 03:01:18 -0000

Should I have added a bouquet of tulips and a box of chocolates?

As a Catholic Theocon, I am *angry*. It's good that you are humbled. But I don't see that on the part of many of the people involved.

Re: If Catholics Want To Play Politics, They Should Learn The Chicago Way

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 03:00:16 -0000

I agree with you that it's stupid to equate the moral weight of the minimum wage and abortion.

But I am not making a moral argument, I am making a prudential argument: if the pro-life movement goes "all in" with the GOP it will get screwed, because it won't have leverage. And that's simple as that.

Or if it goes all-in, then it should play hardball: http://theweek.com/articles...

As for Europe, the reason why the movement is dead is because it lost the argument in the public square. In democracies, politicians still largely do what voters want them to do. (Although even here the story is not over; this year's March for Life in France was much bigger than last year's.)

So, for example, if I had $300 million to spend on abortion politics, I wouldn't spend all of it on GOP politics. I would spend $100 million on GOP politics, $100 million on outreach and $100 million grooming a new generation of pro-life (pro-life, not "pro-life" a la Reid) Democratic politicians.

Re: If Catholics Want To Play Politics, They Should Learn The Chicago Way

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 02:46:00 -0000

Exactly.

Re: Be The [Liturgical] Change

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 02:10:09 -0000

The technical term in English would be "nature."

Re: Be The [Liturgical] Change

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:06:13 -0000

Right!

Re: “Professor Shocked, Shocked To Find Out Prominent Nazi Was An Anti-Semite”

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:04:48 -0000

- While some facts about Heidegger's Nazism were always known, they did unfold in the public eye in a number of ways.

- I stand by my assertion of Heidegger's philosophical historicism, and its historical connection with philosophical relativism (whatever Heidegger himself may have thought of that). His entire philosophical project required the historicization of all of Western metaphysics, since his contention was that Western metaphysics had been blind to the study of being as such, rather than beings.

- But, hey, what do I know, I'm just an ignorant American fundamentalist, right? And that's basically the same as being an anti-Semite. Gimme a break.

Re: “Professor Shocked, Shocked To Find Out Prominent Nazi Was An Anti-Semite”

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:27:53 -0000

1. Ok, fair enough. I do think my description of the narrative--which is what it is, a description of a narrative--around Heidegger, as a general matter, is not too far off the mark.

3. I think that for Heidegger, and certainly for later Heidegger-influenced (or "Heidegger"-influenced, if you prefer), that attempt to balance, as you put it, is forgotten.

4. Right. I'm not saying this is what Heidegger thought, I'm saying that this is a plausible explanation of what happened. How Heidegger's historicism and his actions fit into that do make for an interesting riddle.

For what it's worth--which, I'll grant you, isn't much--my own take is that Heidegger was basically a melancholy nihilist, who wanted to believe in transcendental truth but couldn't bring himself to it, saw nihilism as tragic but inevitable, and saw Nazism for the nihilism it was but also the least-bad option in a menu that only also included Marxism and technological hypercapitalism.

Re: “Professor Shocked, Shocked To Find Out Prominent Nazi Was An Anti-Semite”

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:00:36 -0000

Thanks.

So, a few points:

1. Some things that are not secret are nonetheless not discussed. Since you're such a keen student of post-War French history, you'll know that the 1950s were largely a time when everybody wanted to move on and preferred not to mention a bunch of things everyone knew. In this sense, there was a time when a lot of people preferred not to mention some facts about Heidegger.

2. There's more than one "left"? Really? You think I don't know that. Come on.

3. I really don't think it's controversial at all to say that Heidegger was an extremely influential proponent of a strong historicism (though how strong is debated). Even the DBH piece you linked points out that Heidegger's grand project of elucidating "being" required historicizing all of Western metaphysics. For the record, I haven't read a Glenn Beck book. My point wasn't that Heidegger "was a relativist" in that straightforward way, but rather that his philosophical historicism made relativism plausible, even compelling.

4. Well, this is obviously something on which we're going to strongly disagree, and which won't be settled in blog comments. Suffice it to say that it's quite beside the point to say that people of all stripes have been Nazis (this is sadly true). Ideas also have genealogies, and inner logics, and consequences. It is actually perfectly legitimate to believe that nihilism (of which relativism is indissociable) might inexorably lead to a situation where the only criterion for action, and even the only "god", left, is the human will to power, and that the sudden 20th century totalitarian convulsion might have something to do with that. Again, big debate. But if you write it off as "indefensible" you're really only embarrassing yourself.

5. Obviously, it all depends on what you mean by "Heideggerian."

But thanks for your comment.

Re: Mass Appeal and the Rigorous Priest

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:54:37 -0000

Yep, there's definitely some of that too--again, a human universal...

Re: Mass Appeal and the Rigorous Priest

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:54:09 -0000

Wonderful!

Re: The Sign of Peace And Liturgical Rorschach Tests

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:51:48 -0000

LOL

Re: The Sign of Peace And Liturgical Rorschach Tests

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:49:47 -0000

That's very good, thank you.

Re: “Professor Shocked, Shocked To Find Out Prominent Nazi Was An Anti-Semite”

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:24:14 -0000

One of my philosophy profs was a big Arendtian and so obviously the Heidegger-Nazi thing bore heavily on him.

Re: “Professor Shocked, Shocked To Find Out Prominent Nazi Was An Anti-Semite”

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:20:50 -0000

At least, that's a possibility that seems increasingly hard to discount.

Re: “Professor Shocked, Shocked To Find Out Prominent Nazi Was An Anti-Semite”

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:20:07 -0000

There's a lot of debate around that. The in-vogue answer currently is that he turned to Nazism as the least-bad alternative vs (as he saw it) Marxism and technological hypercapitalism. Or perhaps he was just a rabid anti-semite and Nietzschean power-worshipper and everything else is just rationalization/window-dressing. I'm not enough of a Heidegger scholar to have a strong view. Excellent question, though.