Mark Shea on being "appalled" versus being "shocked"
I thought this post from Mark Shea in reaction to this post from Rod Dreher was really perceptive. It's worth reading; I've always said that when Mark is on, he's really on. Here's an excerpt:
[Y]ou can trust Holy Church completely. But only a fool would trust its members merely because they are its members. To be sure, we extend each other the normal charity we should extend strangers. We don't presume the worst. We don't live in constant paranoia. But at the same time, to uncritically assume that Fr. Whosit or Bishop Whatsit could not *possibly* be liars, scoundrels or incompetents is to treat them like gods, not men. At the end of the day, they are men. So the Scandal appalled me, but it never *shocked* me as it shocked Rod. It caused no crisis of faith because I never "believed in" the various culprits. To be sure, there are people I believe in. But that's because I followed the command to be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove and to "test everything" and hold fast to what is good....
I think Mark is onto something by noting the contrast between being appalled and being shocked. For example, Our Lord is appalled at Judas's betrayal, urging him to get it over with, but having seen the sins of all mankind, he is most likely not shocked and instead says rather bluntly "One of you will betray me." I am appalled at the priest scandal, but in response I've chosen to fold my hands in private rather than wring my hands in public.
Good comments to Mark's post by Tom (natch), Scriblerus, Red Cardigan and Jim Scott 4th. Please feel free to add your own comments here.
i hear ::::crickets::::chirping::::
ReplyDeleteaunt pittypat is a one-note hysterical bore. her handkerchief waving no longer interests me on any level. buh bye sweetie, don't forget your smelling salts.
For reasons unbeknownst to me, Mark has decided to delete aforementioned post. Here's what he had written originally which I believe is simply too trenchant and well-written to crumple up and toss out.
ReplyDeleteRod Continues to Grapple with Trust
First things first: "Felonious Monk" is just too cool for school. I must remember it.
However, that's not what I want to talk about. Instead, what strikes me is this:
"It is amazing to me, and more than a little depressing, how so much of my life as an adult Christian is tied up with having trusted priests and bishops (for Sam Greene was once a bishop of some sort) who were sexual abusers, or aiders-and-abettors of sexual abuse, and then having learned that I was a fool to believe in these men. It's like I'm a magnet for trouble or something. I am determined not to get fooled again."
Ever since the beginning of the Situation, I have been struck by the sense that there is a deep difference between the way I have reacted to it and the way Rod has. A couple years into it, it was becoming evident to me that Rod would wind up doing what he, in fact, wound up doing: leaving the Church over it. However, his reasons for Doxing struck me at the time as, well, weak as I pointed out to him. Essentially, Rod's reasons were emotional, and the whole "Golly, come to think of it, there was politickin' at work in the dogma of Papal Infallibility" struck me as, well, amazingly naive. Wait till he reads up on the horseplay surrounding the Nestorian controversy. The notion that the Church's deliberation are tainted and invalid by being immersed in the hubbub of human life is, well, not in touch with the fact of the Incarnation.
I suspect this has something to do with Rod's ongoing sense of disappointment--a sense I warned him he would feel since the Orthodox are every bit as messy (and then some) as the Catholics. There is no escape from corruption by that route. And that's okay, because Christ does not bid us to escape the human condition, but enter into it.
I *think* that's partly why our responses were so different. Rod seems to have somehow gotten the notion that in becoming Catholic, he was going to find *sanctuary* from human failings. In particular, he seems to have gotten the notion that bishops were going to be something other than people, or that the holiness of Holy Church was somehow a function of the holiness of her members and not of her Head.
Here's the reality: The Church is the only society in the world that exists before it has any members. It's head is Christ and its soul is the Holy Spirit. That, and that alone, is why it is holy. It is not holy because of us. We (slowly) grow in holiness because of Him. And so, you can trust Holy Church completely. But only a fool would trust its members merely because they are its members. To be sure, we extend each other the normal charity we should extend strangers. We don't presume the worst. We don't live in constant paranoia. But at the same time, to uncritically assume that Fr. Whosit or Bishop Whatsit could not *possibly* be liars, scoundrels or incompetents is to treat them like gods, not men. At the end of the day, they are men. So the Scandal appalled me, but it never *shocked* me as it shocked Rod. It caused no crisis of faith because I never "believed in" the various culprits. To be sure, there are people I believe in. But that's because I followed the command to be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove and to "test everything" and hold fast to what is good. There are Catholics (and others) whom I would let my kids stay with. There are also Catholics (and others) to whom I would never entrust my kids or my money. That's because I think grace is grace, not magic.
Protestantism tends to have a model of conversion that is Pauline. I was a sinner, sinking down to the depths of degradation. Then Jesus knocked me off my horse and saved me and my life was radically transformed then and there! Now I am walking in victory over sin and I go from glory to glory! Hallelujah!
It's a real model of conversion. Such things do happen. But there is also the Petrine model of the Slow Schlep. And indeed, for most of us, this is how it goes. So we are not surprised to find believers who are cowards, shufflers, snobs, hypocrites, and general all around failures.
The good thing about the Protestant model is that it asks a lot of us and produces a lot of heros. The bad thing is that it tends to create people who are impatient with failure. But failure is our middle name.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. I'm mostly just struck again by Rod's amazement at being let down. And I'm even more struck by his new resolve to "not get fooled again", which seems to me to be the equal and opposite error in reaction to his previous one. Both credulity and skepticism are blunders of the intellect. They blind us, in opposite ways, to the nourishing truth of the Faith. Skepticism is the foolish insistence on not believing what is so if it conflicts with our philosophy, just as credulity is the foolish desire to believe what is not so if it confirms our false hopes. Instead of ordering our intellects toward avoiding human philosophies or false hopes, the more excellent way is to order our minds toward the light of revelation. That revelation tells us that Holy Church can be trusted completely, but not its members.
since this is a thread about mark shea, i feel it's only appropriate to admit that I have newfound respect for ron paul after watching him quiz bernanke today. paul's concerns about the fed are right on, and he is the only politician voicing them. most mainstream republicans just don't get this stuff (esp. limbaugh hannity etc.), but everything that is happening today (soaring gold and oil, decreasing housing values, sinking dollar) has been accurately predicted by fed critics since greenspan squashed interest rates. as for the economy: color me scared.
ReplyDeleteKathleen I like Ron Paul on fiscal issues. He's basically an unrelenting libertarian. That's why he should stay in congress, maybe run for senate sometime. When
ReplyDeleteit comes to pork, he's more kosher than Joe Lieberman.
As far as the Presidential race goes, I think at this point he is a "vanity candidate" -- not that he doesn't have a lot of company in that category, including people like Duncan Hunter whose campaign is nowhere in comparison to Paul's and who's basically running for VP at this point and my clownish representative whose raison d'etre is to provide TV face time for his trophy wife.
Greenspan and the Fed were not responsible for the 90's bubble but they did nothing to contain it. They should have increased margin requirments to send a message that they wouldn't bale out speculators. Then, they over tightened and precipitated the crash which was beginning to result in the biggest boogeyman of all "deflation".
ReplyDeleteEven dropping overnight bank rates to near zero looked inadequate for awhile. Kind of like pushing on a string. Housing did eventually pick up however and reflate the currency.
There is however a hangover and the housing slowdown is it. Still, I'd bet my bottom dollar that more people are better housed as result of this cycle than any government program of similar size could have accomplished.
At best we might just be entering a sector rotation in the economy (which is what I'm betting). Here in Silicon Valley, we lost 40,000 jobs during the downturn. We've got those jobs (and traffic jams!) back now and you can't find anybody to hire. Hopefully it's our turn to pull the wagon.
"I'd bet my bottom dollar that more people are better housed as result of this cycle"
ReplyDeleteIf by "better housed" you mean "way over their heads in debt" i agree.
let's say otherwise i disagree with your version of events. We're in a recession already, the dead tree media will be agreeing in 6 mos.
"Housing" can't inflate the currency -- only easy credit and an abundance of liquidity from the fed can do that. As for deflation, the country hasn't seen that in decades, and certainly not in the 90's. the fed is trying the same thing again, only this time foreigners literally aren't buying it -- hence gold up, oil up, foreign currencies up, greenback down. a recession coupled with a sinking dollar ... good times...