Friday, May 8, 2009

John Zmirak's Quip on Dorothy Day

John Z comments on his own article in which he'd mentioned Dorothy Day in passing:

Well, I can't quite give you a full answer, since I found D.D.'s book so unpleasant I couldn't get through it. But what I have read of her, and seen of her movement, makes me queasy. To put it briefly, she seems to me the mirror image of Ayn Rand, and equally insufferable. I'm planning to slog through her book in pursuit of an article about her and Rand.

It strikes me that she didn't love the poor so much as poverty, and that her objections to the market economy were precisely that it produced wealth and middle-class comfort, which she seemed to detest. I'm reminded of Christopher Dawson's profoundly mistaken essay on Catholicism and the Bourgeois Ethic, and Amitore Fanfani's equally off-putting book on Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. I'm reminded of the Spiritual Franciscans, and all those who hold up ordinary Christians to monastic standards--goading them in the short run perhaps to heroism, and in the long run to despair or cynicism.

In general, any AUTObiography that makes me "feel unworthy to call myself a Christian" compared to the AUTHOR makes me deeply suspicious.

Any religious movement which becomes almost 100% heretical in the lifetime of its founder was probably built on sand.

But again, I'll have to goad myself to finish her book, with the promised reward of the essay: "The Two Insufferables: Ayn Rand and Dorothy Day." Stay tuned....

This is as humor-filled as any Zmirak essay, and in it he pinpoints what has always troubled me about Day. Like many leftist radicals, her left-anarchist followers seemed to believe that any system is preferable to the present one, therefore let us tear it down. Whereas her followers who are not as radical are continually in a sheepish "well-what-she-really-meant-was" mode. Neither one of these interpretations of Day's teachings strikes me as Catholic nor even coherent and is therefore most likely an utter waste of time in a world filled with great Catholic classics which I yet need to read.

Anyone enamored of Day from her writings would advise me to read them. What I have read of her comes across as the tedious rantings of an insufferable scold. If she was great for what she accomplished, then I've known many great people. If she was great as a writer, then I've read books by greater people and much better communicators. And maybe I should start my line of Pauli-brand books.

Father Corapi On Notre Dame's Mistake

Giorno Perfetto

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Is Obama a Gangster?

Michael Barone presents the evidence.

Left-wing bloggers have been saying that the White House’s denial of making threats should be taken at face value and that Lauria’s statement is not evidence to the contrary. But that’s ridiculous. Lauria is a reputable lawyer and a contributor to Democratic candidates. He has no motive to lie. The White House does.

Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.

Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full payment of the health care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler. But the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the bondholders is sad too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be weighed and determined by the rule of law. But not apparently in this administration.

Money quote is "Nice little bank ya got there, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it." At least 3.5 more years of Alinsky thuggery on its way, so listen to the man or y'all be sleepin' with the fishes, dog.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Monday, May 4, 2009

"Whoever enters through me will be saved"

I like reading the commentaries on the Mass scriptures at Daily Gospel. Today's is from St. Thoms Aquinas and is really good, as the Aneglic Doctor always is.

"I am the good shepherd." It is obvious that the title of 'shepherd' is appropriate for Christ. For just as a shepherd leads his flock to pasture, so Christ refreshes the faithful with the spiritual food of his own body and blood... On the other hand, Christ has said that the shepherd goes in by the door and that he himself is that door. So from this we must understand that it is he who goes in through himself. This is certainly true. It is indeed through himself that he enters in. In his own self he reveals himself and it is through himself that he shows he knows the Father, whereas we, on our part, go in through him and it is he who gives perfect happiness to us.

The door is none other than he for none other is "the true light which enlightens everyone" (Jn 1,9)... That is why no one says of themselves that they are the door; to Christ alone is this name reserved as belonging to him by right. The title of shepherd, however, he has passed on to others, having given it to certain of his members. Thus Peter also has it (Jn 21,15f.) and the other apostles, as also all bishops. Scripture says: "I will appoint over you shepherds after my own heart," (Jer 3,15)... No shepherd is good unless he is united to Christ by charity, thus becoming a member of the true shepherd.

For the good shepherd's office is charity. That is why Jesus says that he "lays down his life for the sheep" (Jn 10,11)... Christ has set us an example: "he laid down his life for us; so we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers» (1 Jn 3,16).