Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Not to name drop...

... but Mark Shea seems to agree with me, too:
I find Weigel's attempt to parse the R sources from the J&P sources and tells us which bits of the encyclical *really* give us the Pope's thought to be as credible as the work of the Jesus Seminar in color-coding the gospels.

Seldom has there been such a ham-fisted pass at trimming Church teaching to fit an ideological box.
Well put. Certainly better than I. Now, let us hope, 'nuff said.


  1. That's cool, but yeah whatever. I follow a lot of blogs and find myself agreeing with and opposing nearly every major Catholic writer/speaker at one point or another (eg Shea and I disagree on West/Popcak.)

  2. True. What this throws into relief, though, is the fact that this is not a "Conservative" versus "Liberal" debate. Shea and I have departures, too, but that he is orthodox and not the party line of (the bad) NCR is at least acknowledged. All Weigel and Novak are willing to acknowledge on the "other side" are social liberals and dissenters, and that's just not an honest picture of the intellectual landscape.

    Which recalls me to another irony about this whole thing that occupied my musing this morning: a lot of the Distributist camp and third-way antagonizers (at least here in the States) also tend to be rather "traditionalist" when it comes to things like liturgy. And now they find themselves in the highly unlikely position of defending and celebrating Paul VI! Yet another way of highlighting how the "sides" to this question are not as easily delineated as some would make out.

  3. Good point! Perhaps Benedict is more of a genius than we assumed as far as uniting the Church and breaking barriers between enemies who are all really on the same side.


Please contribute generously and charitably to the discussion!