After the semester's conclusion Spiritual Diabetes has returned. Lots to discuss...
I'll tackle the Sandy Hill elementary school shootings first. There are several posts to follow, but first things first.
28 people dead and, as several folks have observed, it now seems so ordinary: young male, loner, has legal access to firearms (in this case, including an assault rifle), unspeakable carnage, suicide-at-scene.
But this time: 20 children, ages 6 & 7, killed. Not just shot, but each shot multiple times. And, apparently, it could've been worse. See the Neo-Neocon's assessment for this.
Truth be told, such scenes shouldn't "seem ordinary" -- multiple shooting deaths have become expected? Still, the deaths of children shock even the most hardened. Just off the cuff recall the 1995 image of the Oklahoma City firefighter cradling a dead infant after the federal building bombing or the several scenes of U.S. military men and women working with children in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And now, the deluge. There are so many blog posts asking why?: here, here, here, and here are four good ones. The expected call for greater gun control, though, has gone off the rails. Thank God there's more reasoned discussion concerning the assessment of mental disability with regard to public safety. Even the entertainment industry has, at least momentarily, pondered its own role in such tragedies. One of the reasons why Spiritual Diabetes exists at all is, at times like this, to avoid fueling the usual fires of, well, the super-sweet but un-nutritional intellectual and spiritual arguments we usually feed ourselves.
With that in mind, we're going rogue with this contribution: zombie apocalypse. Hear me out. My students (mostly the usual undergraduate demographic, ages 18-24) love zombie jokes, movies, Facebook memes, and attire. Mindless zombies running around with no goal other than DEATH. (Just whose death we'll get to shortly.) You don't need two degrees in film studies to understand the genre's popularity. With movies ranging from Dawn of the Dead (which starts with the incomparable Johnny Cash singing "There's a Man going 'round") to Cloverfield (where unnamed space aliens become the zombies) to more realistic horrors like Contagion (wherein a lightning-fast epidemic utterly unravels the social fabric as its cure eludes the experts) we've become accustomed to, and perhaps even expect, death's sudden, faceless, single-minded presence in our midst. So the inevitable cry "WHY?" gets stifled because something's still out there, seeking only our death.
We entertain ourselves with a genre that celebrates random death and
underlines Hobbes' "state of nature" that deep down we're really nothing
but senseless, raging animals. In Dawn of the Dead the zombies win! In The Road the father and son wander across a post-apocalypse continent teeming with lawless cannibals. In Contagion
the disease is heroically cured but life doesn't go back to 'normal';
garbage lines the street, upscale neighborhoods have been ransacked,
sports stadiums have become vaccination centers.
At some point somebody will argue, if they haven't already, that zombie movies are one more attempt to wrestle with the awareness of our own finitude. We know we're all going to die, but that doesn't help when facing the fact of TWENTY dead first-graders. A movie genre where senseless carnage wears the costume of mindless death helps elide the pain.
Back to the students and the t-shirts: humor about tripping our friends and zombies liking fast food help, too. Or, the film genre tells us, we'd like to think so.
NOW I AM *NOT* saying the shooter Adam Lansa, any other shooter at similar mass-killings, or anybody with Asperger's or autism is a "zombie." Not analogy, not a metaphor, zilch. I am not making those associations. REPEAT: I am not making that connection.
But I think that we, in our discussions in the aftermath of such tragedies, do just that. Notice the photos of Adam Lansa and attend to the descriptions of him as well as other mass-killing shooters: inability to feel pain, vacant looks, difference...and the family members' pleas for understanding. We have an entertainment genre--fueled by our own choices--that tells us that that's ultimately what we really are: either the zombies that mindlessly feed on the living or the living who can't escape the inevitability of becoming zombie food.
It is telling that in all these science-fiction/zombie apocalypse films there's a "saving remnant" -- some little shred of humanity makes it out alive, at least for the time being. We'd each like to think that we'll be in that remnant, the chosen few instead of the faceless millions who've fed the zombies or become zombies ourselves. The Old Testament prophet Amos had something to say about that presumption. So, once again, the faith's tradition runs afoul of our cultural framing.
Forget the movies---what about our experience? Right now the nation, and especially the grieving in Newtown, are still in that despair captured by the end of Lamentations. As Pope Benedict XVI and Elizabeth Scalia have noted (and I'm sure Scalia would herself yield the floor to the Pope!), God sides with the suffering and grants us the room to rant and rage about tragedies like Newtown. But the Crucifixion ended not with more death but with the Resurrection. Obviously Newtown isn't there yet; it's up to the rest of us to help them through. Because at some point we all face death's onslaught.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
oh for goodness' sake...
Secessionist petitions?
In a word: not helping.
When things get really hairy, after prayer and Scripture and the Tradition, I tend to fall back on whatever's going on at the Front Porch Republic, First Things, and occasionally The American Conservative. Now don't fret; I also like John Allen, Jr., America, and Commonweal.
Anyway, last month Jeffrey Polet made a wonderful analysis at FPR. Way down in the article Polet writes:
All of this, as I say, means restating what human beings are, how we
account for their lives, what they are responsible for, and the limits
of a freedom so articulated. But Americans don’t like to hear about
limits, and for that reason alone the conservative voice will remain one
crying in the wilderness.
Until the city becomes the wilderness, as inevitably it must. We are
on the way of Nineveh, and those who live on its margins will be those
who survive the collapse and can reconstruct something humanly
meaningful. I’ve committed myself to the idea that this culture and our
politics can be saved, and that things aren’t so bad as all that. I’ve
resisted the strategy of withdrawal as irresponsible and impractical. (emphasis mine)
This sort of sanity is exactly what we need at this time and it's what I'm afraid is being lost in the post-election fray. Yes, the election was a brutal one, atrocities committed on both sides. Obama won and Romney lost, so that means the sort of humor and public-debate-tone-setting falls to the Democrats first. Therein lies part of the problem. Charity, and the lack thereof, is the entire problem. Yes, to the victor go the spoils. Yes, Romney lost. And YES, if Romney won there'd be a mirror opposite problem with humor and debate-tones.
And the same problem would exist, but that doesn't mean the lack of charity now is any less of an issue because Obama won. Because Obama won, we now face the situation we're facing. Responding "well, it'd be worse if Romney won" is pointless. He didn't, and we aren't.
Charity, the Catechism reminds us, is "superior to all the virtues" (#1826). Charity provides the form for the other virtues, thus enabling us to exercise prudence, justice, temperance, and courage to higher degrees than if we lacked charity. The Catechism concludes at #1829:
The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence
and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains
disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why
we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find
rest.
What does this have to do with secessionist petitions? Easy--such actions are not charitable. Nor are videos making light of opposition to same-sex marriage. In an earlier day, I was warned when winning a game "not to rub the other guy's face in it." Nothing wrong with winning and nothing wrong with celebrating it, but don't be uncharitable, basically. And don't be a sore loser when you lose...which you will do.
But both of these options--triumphal gloating and bitter denial of loss--have grasped our national culture. It's this lack of charity that concerns me and, quite frankly, should concern others. Polet's "post-mortem" gets this and thus refuses to separate from the culture and our governing structure. (Yes, I realize George Weigel's proposal to separate from the state regarding SSM represents a different tack.) On the victor's side, a little less heavy-handed rhetoric about coming together as one nation would be a welcome sign. Charity is a great medicine to cure our nation's multi-faceted spiritual diabetes, but how many are willing to engage such a "diet and exercise" cure?
radical = back to roots
Not your usual George Weigel column at First Things.
First, to whet your appetite, Weigel considers the HHS mandate and the reality of Obamacare. The lawsuits to protect religious freedom might win. Or they might not. Either way the Church faces an uphill battle:
Then there's gay marriage. There's a lot to consider here. As I told some students yesterday, excepting a miniscule minority even opponents of SSM don't desire some intrusive anti-gay witch hunt. Traditional marriage should be defended and, if we remember the Catechism's view, our gay friends and family members need our prayers and solidarity. Weigel's not concerned about that, though.
Well, that ought to grab some attention! Forget about withdrawing from the healthcare industry, let's get out of the state's relationship regarding marriage!! Granted, this is the first I've seen this measure advanced and nothing happens without the bishops (and Rome) deciding to do so. But still, it's a refreshing, if idealistic, consideration.
Weigel then brings up a more familiar topic: the relationship of the Church with Catholic politicians who don't conform--and apparently don't care if called out for not conforming--to Catholic social teachings. This is where an array of voices ranging from Mark Shea to Vince Miller might agree if the concommitant recognition of economic injustice receives the same sort of support. I.e., if pro-choice Catholic officials need to toe the line, then for this to really work the same will be required of Catholic officials (others? the same pro-choice ones?) who bracket their faith regarding the death penalty, euthanasia, and, you guessed it, economic and environmental justice.
Either way, Weigel harbors no illusions about the future:
First, to whet your appetite, Weigel considers the HHS mandate and the reality of Obamacare. The lawsuits to protect religious freedom might win. Or they might not. Either way the Church faces an uphill battle:
But with Obamacare now seemingly set in concrete, the Church will face a
host of such implementing “mandates” and it will be imperative to
contest those that are morally unacceptable, time and time again.
Then there's gay marriage. There's a lot to consider here. As I told some students yesterday, excepting a miniscule minority even opponents of SSM don't desire some intrusive anti-gay witch hunt. Traditional marriage should be defended and, if we remember the Catechism's view, our gay friends and family members need our prayers and solidarity. Weigel's not concerned about that, though.
Thus it seems important to accelerate a serious debate within American
Catholicism on whether the Church ought not preemptively withdraw from
the civil marriage business, its clergy declining to act as agents of
government in witnessing marriages for purposes of state law.
Well, that ought to grab some attention! Forget about withdrawing from the healthcare industry, let's get out of the state's relationship regarding marriage!! Granted, this is the first I've seen this measure advanced and nothing happens without the bishops (and Rome) deciding to do so. But still, it's a refreshing, if idealistic, consideration.
Weigel then brings up a more familiar topic: the relationship of the Church with Catholic politicians who don't conform--and apparently don't care if called out for not conforming--to Catholic social teachings. This is where an array of voices ranging from Mark Shea to Vince Miller might agree if the concommitant recognition of economic injustice receives the same sort of support. I.e., if pro-choice Catholic officials need to toe the line, then for this to really work the same will be required of Catholic officials (others? the same pro-choice ones?) who bracket their faith regarding the death penalty, euthanasia, and, you guessed it, economic and environmental justice.
Either way, Weigel harbors no illusions about the future:
Radically converted Christian disciples, not one-hour-a-week Catholics
whipsawed by an ever more toxic culture, are what this hour of crisis,
in both senses of the term, demands.
The same clarion call hasn't come from the bishops....yet. As blogged earlier, the guidance there takes a quieter but no less committed approach. Still, Weigel shows some refreshing willingness to consider what might be needed.
quietly
From Matthew Schmitz at First Things:
Absolutely right. This should _always_ be the angle of attack, so to speak. Fallout from the 2012 election has produced waves of "the Catholic bishops overplayed their hand" comments. Already, though, Cardinal Dolan has laid out an agenda which is neither post-election concession nor defeat. (And even that's not good enough, apparently.) So much work to do, no time for crying over the election, especially when the smart money indicated that Romney victory would've brought a different set of challenges instead of merely deliverance from (presumably) an unjust rule. The Church's work continues apace, willing to work with all people of good will. Including, presumably, the nation's Catholic academic establishment.
One of the issues at stake, quite frankly, seems resonant with middle-school level socialization, i.e., teaching young individuals to stand up to peer pressure. When possessed by an opinion or view unpopular among one's peers, we tell young people to stick up for their beliefs. Furthermore, with the rush to combat bullying, we encourage teenagers to stand in solidarity (notice the lurking Catholic social justice terminology behind all this?) with those who suffer social ostracism.
All good--but notice that is precisely THE OPPOSITE of what the bishops' critics argue. The bishops overplayed their hand in the 2012 presidential election, thuggishly implying that a vote for Obama was a vote against religious freedom and the culture of life. But shouldn't the bishops--precisely because they're bishops!--and the rest of Catholic America maintain its particular vision of Catholic social justice despite (momentary) evidence that their vision lacks popular support? If our young people should learn to stand by their beliefs despite backlash, shouldn't we expect religious communities to do the same? What are faith and ethics if they change according the prevailing winds?
Hence the need for quiet but nonetheless steadfast work to advance the culture of life.
As a Christian, I do not think ceaseless talk about homosexuality is the
best way to spread the Gospel of Christian love. As a citizen, I view a
culture of divorce as a greater problem for the common good. If I had
my bones, I would have socially conservative candidates act like Robert
McDonnell in his race for Virginia’s governorship: Hold the line, but do
not rhetorically escalate. Quietly move forward a culture of life.
Absolutely right. This should _always_ be the angle of attack, so to speak. Fallout from the 2012 election has produced waves of "the Catholic bishops overplayed their hand" comments. Already, though, Cardinal Dolan has laid out an agenda which is neither post-election concession nor defeat. (And even that's not good enough, apparently.) So much work to do, no time for crying over the election, especially when the smart money indicated that Romney victory would've brought a different set of challenges instead of merely deliverance from (presumably) an unjust rule. The Church's work continues apace, willing to work with all people of good will. Including, presumably, the nation's Catholic academic establishment.
One of the issues at stake, quite frankly, seems resonant with middle-school level socialization, i.e., teaching young individuals to stand up to peer pressure. When possessed by an opinion or view unpopular among one's peers, we tell young people to stick up for their beliefs. Furthermore, with the rush to combat bullying, we encourage teenagers to stand in solidarity (notice the lurking Catholic social justice terminology behind all this?) with those who suffer social ostracism.
All good--but notice that is precisely THE OPPOSITE of what the bishops' critics argue. The bishops overplayed their hand in the 2012 presidential election, thuggishly implying that a vote for Obama was a vote against religious freedom and the culture of life. But shouldn't the bishops--precisely because they're bishops!--and the rest of Catholic America maintain its particular vision of Catholic social justice despite (momentary) evidence that their vision lacks popular support? If our young people should learn to stand by their beliefs despite backlash, shouldn't we expect religious communities to do the same? What are faith and ethics if they change according the prevailing winds?
Hence the need for quiet but nonetheless steadfast work to advance the culture of life.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Hegelian mind games
Of course, some would say everything Hegelian is a mind game, but we'll deal with those folks later.
First, the thesis: the Catholic bishops overplayed their hand and Obama's administration won't be that bad. Courtesy of Vince Miller, author and lead signature on "On All Our Shoulders"
Antithesis: others instead conclude that the Catholic bishops didn't do enough to counteract Obama's malevolent snookering of American Catholics.
Hegel would say that we're now supposed to arrive a synthesis...which in turn means a new thesis.
heads explode in 5...4...3...
This blog is far too young--and this blogger far too inexperienced--to jump into the election postmortems. There are others who have done that already and quite well.
Referring to an earlier blogpost, though, the Obama administration's willingness to play fast and loose with its implementation of the healthcare mandate remains far from a concluded battle. The administration still seems unwilling to admit that there's really any problem. Ditto that for Obama's Catholic supporters like those in the academy. Either these folks thirsted so greatly for Obama's reelection that they were willing to overlook a clear infringement on religious freedom OR they want to join some others in forcing the Church's hand to change some teachings.
That decision, despite the short-term gains enjoyed by Obama's victory Tuesday, strikes me as unfortunate. Miller and his fellow "Shoulders" signers know the depth and breadth of, and the profound spiritual and social treasures found within, the Catholic social thought tradition. Part of that tradition, it's made quite clear, is that the Church's magisterium runs the show. Ultimately Rome, and thus the bishops, are in control. There's substantial leeway granted, but ultimately when Benedict XVI links social progress to Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and when John Paul II defines "the culture of life" then that's the framework in which we work. (For those keeping score at home, that references Caritas in Veritate #15 [at least!] and Evangelium Vitae #29 [at least!], respectively.) Claiming that Obamacare betters fits the Catholic social thought tradition than Paul Ryan's supposed Ayn Rand-influenced budget settles nothing and, I think, actually worsens the situation. Obamacare requires Catholic institutions to violate their own principles. A Romney administration would've caused several headaches, but would have alleviated that particular one. Nevertheless, Obama won, so that means what the Church (and the nation!) need now is a greater, cohesive defense of the Church's social thought tradition AND its constitutional rights. Here's at least one attempt, but there should be others, and even then I think the pro-Obama Catholic academy has already conceded the high ground. That's where Rod Dreher (no longer himself Catholic but certainly still sympathetic) has the right idea: retrench to focus on religious liberty. How many of the "Shoulders" signers would agree to that?
I know, I know....heads explode (again) in 5...4...3...
First, the thesis: the Catholic bishops overplayed their hand and Obama's administration won't be that bad. Courtesy of Vince Miller, author and lead signature on "On All Our Shoulders"
Antithesis: others instead conclude that the Catholic bishops didn't do enough to counteract Obama's malevolent snookering of American Catholics.
Hegel would say that we're now supposed to arrive a synthesis...which in turn means a new thesis.
heads explode in 5...4...3...
This blog is far too young--and this blogger far too inexperienced--to jump into the election postmortems. There are others who have done that already and quite well.
Referring to an earlier blogpost, though, the Obama administration's willingness to play fast and loose with its implementation of the healthcare mandate remains far from a concluded battle. The administration still seems unwilling to admit that there's really any problem. Ditto that for Obama's Catholic supporters like those in the academy. Either these folks thirsted so greatly for Obama's reelection that they were willing to overlook a clear infringement on religious freedom OR they want to join some others in forcing the Church's hand to change some teachings.
That decision, despite the short-term gains enjoyed by Obama's victory Tuesday, strikes me as unfortunate. Miller and his fellow "Shoulders" signers know the depth and breadth of, and the profound spiritual and social treasures found within, the Catholic social thought tradition. Part of that tradition, it's made quite clear, is that the Church's magisterium runs the show. Ultimately Rome, and thus the bishops, are in control. There's substantial leeway granted, but ultimately when Benedict XVI links social progress to Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and when John Paul II defines "the culture of life" then that's the framework in which we work. (For those keeping score at home, that references Caritas in Veritate #15 [at least!] and Evangelium Vitae #29 [at least!], respectively.) Claiming that Obamacare betters fits the Catholic social thought tradition than Paul Ryan's supposed Ayn Rand-influenced budget settles nothing and, I think, actually worsens the situation. Obamacare requires Catholic institutions to violate their own principles. A Romney administration would've caused several headaches, but would have alleviated that particular one. Nevertheless, Obama won, so that means what the Church (and the nation!) need now is a greater, cohesive defense of the Church's social thought tradition AND its constitutional rights. Here's at least one attempt, but there should be others, and even then I think the pro-Obama Catholic academy has already conceded the high ground. That's where Rod Dreher (no longer himself Catholic but certainly still sympathetic) has the right idea: retrench to focus on religious liberty. How many of the "Shoulders" signers would agree to that?
I know, I know....heads explode (again) in 5...4...3...
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Remember thou art dust...
and to dust we shall return.
Two stories discovered while trolling on Election Day:
Michael Anthony Novak at America magazine discussing a recent cancer diagnosis and subsequent surgeries
and
Deanna Thompson on her own blog discussing a recent cancer diagnosis and subsequent surgeries.
Full disclosure: Deanna and I crossed paths twenty-odd years ago at Vanderbilt; she an ascending doctoral student in Theology and I a maladjusted master's student. Then she became, among other things, one of emerging leaders of young scholars in the AAR. News of her cancer diagnosis shocked me, so what it must've done to her family and friends eclipses my comprehension.
I don't know Mr. Novak, but his story--which I read just hours after discovering Deanna's blog--is equally gripping.
And here's the point: in both cases there's a sense of the unflinching, unconquerable human spirit--the one who is sick still struggling with the diagnosis and not yet ready to give up--as well as a sure notion of grace both immanent and transcendent. Both Anthony and Deanna attest to this in their stories. The temptation to verbosity should be resisted here. Better to read their stories and contemplate our own lives and the God who sustains us all.
Two stories discovered while trolling on Election Day:
Michael Anthony Novak at America magazine discussing a recent cancer diagnosis and subsequent surgeries
and
Deanna Thompson on her own blog discussing a recent cancer diagnosis and subsequent surgeries.
Full disclosure: Deanna and I crossed paths twenty-odd years ago at Vanderbilt; she an ascending doctoral student in Theology and I a maladjusted master's student. Then she became, among other things, one of emerging leaders of young scholars in the AAR. News of her cancer diagnosis shocked me, so what it must've done to her family and friends eclipses my comprehension.
I don't know Mr. Novak, but his story--which I read just hours after discovering Deanna's blog--is equally gripping.
And here's the point: in both cases there's a sense of the unflinching, unconquerable human spirit--the one who is sick still struggling with the diagnosis and not yet ready to give up--as well as a sure notion of grace both immanent and transcendent. Both Anthony and Deanna attest to this in their stories. The temptation to verbosity should be resisted here. Better to read their stories and contemplate our own lives and the God who sustains us all.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Comedy porn
David French offers us this little nugget from Bill Maher.
Uh, what? Not that my opinion matters, but whenever anybody wants to complain about the lack of civility in our nation, Maher ought to be example number ONE. To keep things balanced, I hold a similarly dim view of right-wingers who consistently hammer Obama's supposed Muslim roots. Ditto for the viral pics of Michelle Bachmann eating a corndog or the photoshopped comparisons of Michelle Obama to Chewbacca.
This sort of snark comes from two places: 1) the very same technology by which I compose and you read this blog; 2) strands of 1980s-era college humor that combine savage satire with an utter lack of social conscience. True confession: I know more about the latter than I do the former. Still working on this whole "blog" thing...
But ripping apart my enemies without any concern for their reputation, especially if it gives me a rhetorical advantage? SURE. Hey, Leo Durocher said he'd run over his mom at third if it meant winning the game. THIS, though, is the acid corroding our ability to perceive each other's instrinsic dignity as humans...and of course act accordingly.
Maher, of course, doesn't give a damn about religion (see this dressing-down from the Weekly Standard). And it's obvious from the clip that he means to ridicule the supposed racism of Romney voters. (let's leave aside for a second the presumption there: vote for Romney = racism) Still, the virtue of prudence suggests that joking about voting and race wars is simply wrong. Not just a bad idea, it is harmful. (See the Catechism #1807, 1810-1.)
Just as some have written about food porn or weather porn, maybe one of the unspoken hungers we Americans suffer from is comedy porn. We already have the word schadenfreude to describe this: getting our jollies watching others suffer. Comedy porn might recall the Greek original word: pornography means something like "anger writing," so "comedy porn" would mean something like "funny anger." Thus, it's OK to ridicule Republican voters or our first African-American First Lady because, well, they made us angry and our ridicule of them is, well, funny.
Nothing like a little seventh-grade logic to make your day, eh?
Originally when I drummed this whole "Spiritual Diabetes" vision I had planned to lampoon a variety of popular spirituality expressions I'd seen from the mid-1990s up through 2004 or so. Then John Kerry lost the 2004 election and the next day the JESUSLAND cartoon began circulating. That's when I realized that maybe I had missed an angle. The Left thirsts for comedy porn just as much as the Right...and they're both wrong.
That's one of the reasons why, more and more, the Christian tradition's insistence on God's sovereignty and the Church's counter-cultural social justice tradition seem the only, well, prudent responses.
Uh, what? Not that my opinion matters, but whenever anybody wants to complain about the lack of civility in our nation, Maher ought to be example number ONE. To keep things balanced, I hold a similarly dim view of right-wingers who consistently hammer Obama's supposed Muslim roots. Ditto for the viral pics of Michelle Bachmann eating a corndog or the photoshopped comparisons of Michelle Obama to Chewbacca.
This sort of snark comes from two places: 1) the very same technology by which I compose and you read this blog; 2) strands of 1980s-era college humor that combine savage satire with an utter lack of social conscience. True confession: I know more about the latter than I do the former. Still working on this whole "blog" thing...
But ripping apart my enemies without any concern for their reputation, especially if it gives me a rhetorical advantage? SURE. Hey, Leo Durocher said he'd run over his mom at third if it meant winning the game. THIS, though, is the acid corroding our ability to perceive each other's instrinsic dignity as humans...and of course act accordingly.
Maher, of course, doesn't give a damn about religion (see this dressing-down from the Weekly Standard). And it's obvious from the clip that he means to ridicule the supposed racism of Romney voters. (let's leave aside for a second the presumption there: vote for Romney = racism) Still, the virtue of prudence suggests that joking about voting and race wars is simply wrong. Not just a bad idea, it is harmful. (See the Catechism #1807, 1810-1.)
Just as some have written about food porn or weather porn, maybe one of the unspoken hungers we Americans suffer from is comedy porn. We already have the word schadenfreude to describe this: getting our jollies watching others suffer. Comedy porn might recall the Greek original word: pornography means something like "anger writing," so "comedy porn" would mean something like "funny anger." Thus, it's OK to ridicule Republican voters or our first African-American First Lady because, well, they made us angry and our ridicule of them is, well, funny.
Nothing like a little seventh-grade logic to make your day, eh?
Originally when I drummed this whole "Spiritual Diabetes" vision I had planned to lampoon a variety of popular spirituality expressions I'd seen from the mid-1990s up through 2004 or so. Then John Kerry lost the 2004 election and the next day the JESUSLAND cartoon began circulating. That's when I realized that maybe I had missed an angle. The Left thirsts for comedy porn just as much as the Right...and they're both wrong.
That's one of the reasons why, more and more, the Christian tradition's insistence on God's sovereignty and the Church's counter-cultural social justice tradition seem the only, well, prudent responses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)