John Zmirak: The Shame of the Catholic Subculture
#11
Amen Tim!!
Reply
#12
(02-01-2014, 02:55 PM)Oatmeal Wrote:
The Church as righteous subculture is unappealing to nearly everyone – including the kids who grow up inside it, who despite all those years of homeschooling and chapel veils frequently flee for what look like saner pastures.  

I agree with this...posted more but you know I don't usually post. Returning to that.....deleted what I'd written.
Reply
#13
(02-01-2014, 04:08 PM)Tim Wrote: He has said it better than me. We as in what's left of Catholics need to get off our high horses and explain in mono-syllabic words the Faith including why no pill to bring them back. We need the peasants, small, simple, rosary saying, believing the image of Mary on their toast is a sign to them, again. Being a Catholic isn't reading source materials and meditating on whatever, it is nuts and bolts actions with in the decalogue, while limping to Communion on Sunday.

Don't worry someone is on the way to say his logic is flawed and he's taking licence with words, besides he's not a scholastic, harumph.

tim

Agree.
Reply
#14
After the couple articles of his I've seen posted on fisheaters recently I must say I'm not a fan of this Zmirak, guy.

As for contraception and "why does the Church sometimes allow NFP? What's the diff?" It isn't that difficult to tell people that chemical contraceptives and IUDs are abortifacient. That they can allow the conception of a new human life to take place and then aborts that life by not allowing for implantation. Once I was asking a LLL leader about different contraceptives and she (not a Catholic) leaned over and whispered to me "As a chapter leader I shouldn't say this to you, but just between you and me, depending on when you think life begins, it can cause an early abortion.." And that was enough for me. Even years ago when I knew little about life issues and didn't know when life began or where I stood on legalized abortion I was always "personally" opposed to having one. Women need to be informed that they could be losing their children and not even knowing it. I think you can even read it in the insert that comes with the pill.
Reply
#15
John Zmirak has written several books and I really haven't heard he dissents from the Catholic faith at all. Many enjoyed his humor in this one: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Catholics-Guide-Catechism-Schmoctrines/dp/0824526805/ref=la_B001JS5XJU_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391302814&sr=1-1
Reply
#16
(02-01-2014, 09:02 PM)Cetil Wrote: John Zmirak has written several books and I really haven't heard he dissents from the Catholic faith at all. Many enjoyed his humor in this one: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Catholics-Guide-Catechism-Schmoctrines/dp/0824526805/ref=la_B001JS5XJU_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391302814&sr=1-1

I have the Bad Catholic's Guide to Wine, Whiskey & Song and I liked it :)
Reply
#17
(02-01-2014, 09:45 PM)Chestertonian Wrote:
(02-01-2014, 09:02 PM)Cetil Wrote: John Zmirak has written several books and I really haven't heard he dissents from the Catholic faith at all. Many enjoyed his humor in this one: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Catholics-Guide-Catechism-Schmoctrines/dp/0824526805/ref=la_B001JS5XJU_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391302814&sr=1-1

I have the Bad Catholic's Guide to Wine, Whiskey & Song and I liked it :)

I was interested in the Guide to Wine, Whisky & Song book. He seems like a funny, intelligent guy but I feel like he is in some sort of a rut recently, only going by what was posted on fisheaters lately. We are all frustrated by our limitations. We're all hypocrites, we fall into stereotypical camps and our sayings get tired etc. etc. etc. This is just reality! Human weakness! Only The Blessed Trinity and those perfectly united to Him never get boring. Often apologists and promoters of their causes come to a point where they are tired of those people, stereotypes, and images associated with themselves and their positions and it is like they try to break free. They start attacking their allies and go into self-demolition mode, try to make fun of themselves, try to find a "new" approach that doesn't put them in a box. Ultimately we need to face the reality of our weakness and limitations and just keep on persevering.
Reply
#18
This attack on the current Catholic sub culture by John Zmirak should not surprise anyone, John Zmirak wrote a piece last year advancing the idea of both gay and polygamous marriage. 

Here is a link
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a...-alliance/

Such ideas are widely rejected by the Catholic sub culture in any of its flavors (traditionalist, neo conservative, even Charismatic).  If John Zmirak wants to make it his mission to explain the evils of contraception to the 95 percent then he should pursue it, but this approach of creating disdain and stirring up more sectaranism in the Church is not the approach I would take.

Reply
#19
(02-01-2014, 05:42 PM)Tim Wrote: No, I want a return to 50's Catholicism, but with a little more explanation in simple terms. Lots more like Christ and a ton less than S. Thomas Aquinas.

tim

I agree:

And I also want the priests in the area to come to my school and teach the boys how to box and play basketball or football.
Reply
#20
(02-01-2014, 02:55 PM)Oatmeal Wrote: The weirdness, bitterness, crankiness, and the general mediocrity that pervade the Catholic subculture – from its newspapers to its TV shows, from most of its tiny colleges to the poorly-penned books, and sloppy, sentimental blogs that flood the tiny market of conservative Catholic readers – is the direct result of having few people to choose from. Right off the bat, 95 percent of potential applicants for any position have disqualified themselves for doctrinal reasons.  Beyond that, it’s such a pleasant surprise to find a fellow orthodox Catholic. (“You mean that you’re 100 percent full-blooded Latvian, too?”) It’s tempting not to ask too many more questions – for instance, about the person’s qualifications, talent, or temperament.

If he checks off the same doctrinal boxes, we accept him as a fellow Party member, and bend over backwards to think the best of him – at least until we get in argument with him over liturgy, doctrine, or economics. Then we spend all our time combating his errors, convinced that we are somehow helping to turn the tide of history, when in fact we are making waves in the kiddie pool.

(snip)

The Church as righteous subculture is unappealing to nearly everyone – including the kids who grow up inside it, who despite all those years of homeschooling and chapel veils frequently flee for what look like saner pastures. We need to stop treating people who don’t “get” the Church’s teaching on contraception as if they were clones of Judas, or heretics like Arius whom St. Nicholas rightly slapped.

They are people who don’t understand a complex intellectual argument based on the remote implications of natural law reasoning, which is based on an older view of nature that modern science has not so much disproved as simply dismissed. Given the massive implications of this Church teaching for their personal lives, they aren’t willing simply to take the argument on authority. So arguing from authority won’t convince them; it will simply discredit the authority.

Many Catholics oppose abortion, and treasure the sacraments, and love their spouses, and even have decent-sized families – all of it without understanding or accepting Humanae Vitae. Millions of psychologically normal, hard-working, well-meaning people have blundered into dissent, and ended up in the same camp with bitter heretics like Charles Curran, over this single issue. That single dissent softened them up to drift away from the Church on other issues, as well.

We shouldn’t count these people out of the Church as we would those who willfully accept abortion or polyamory. We need to listen to their real questions and objections and do a much better job explaining ourselves. Or else that’s who we’ll go right on talking to – ourselves. 

I agree with Mr. Zmirak on the above. We have to do a LOT better job of explaining Catholic teaching -- not just the face of it (e.g., "God said X, so we must do X"), but the whys of it, the sociological sense of it, the reasons why His way is a good idea even if you're an atheist.  For secular-minded types for whom the "God said" arguments won't work, the scientific arguments might, and I don't think we've done nearly a good enough job of getting all the information in one place, laying it all out in easily understood language -- and in a style that isn't off-putting or that treats folks who don't yet understand as "clones of Judas, or heretics like Arius whom St. Nicholas rightly slapped."

That last part goes to the whole idea of charity, without which there can be no effective evangelizing. If we don't try to understand the folks we're talking to, don't try to understand their concerns and situations, they'll likely sense it and won't give a damn about our concerns either. It's human nature.

As an aside, I hope that folks won't muddy up this thread with other writings from Zmirak, along the lines of "Well, he wrote Y, so you can forget this essay." All that sort of thing amounts to an ad hominem attack, so is fallacious if it's trying to make the point that what he writes in this essay is wrong. Most folks do good and do bad both. To throw out a person's work because he believes something unorthodox is to miss a lot of interesting and potentially important stuff out there in the world -- in this case, stuff that could be helping us teach folks why contraception is wrong. Plus it looks like gang-banging to me -- reflective of a "he's one of THEM" type thinking that does nothing to decrease hostilities and get people talking.

To nmoerbeek, who said:

Quote:This attack on the current Catholic sub culture by John Zmirak should not surprise anyone, John Zmirak wrote a piece last year advancing the idea of both gay and polygamous marriage.

Here is a link
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a...-alliance/

--- I don't think that's quite a fair assessment of what he said. He said nothing about the Sacrament, and wrote:

"In elite opinion now—which is common opinion tomorrow—–those who hold to traditional Christian marriage are morally no better than racists. That’s where we are. Now what do we do? Should we wage a legal Verdun in each of the 50 states to revive the pale, exhausted ghost of “marriage” that Bill Clinton’s DOMA defended? Thanks to no-fault divorce, it was already the least enforceable legal contract on earth—–more fragile by far than credit-card debt, not to mention back taxes and student loans. It was, in essence, a weak legal partnership and a temporary sex pact that for some reason excluded homosexuals. Is this a hill worth dying on?"

IOW, he's arguing that legal marriage already died with no-fault divorce and that it's not worth preserving as it is. I disagree with him about his conclusions, but he's right about no-fault divorce having already done legal marriage in. Homosexual "marriage" is just the silk lining to the casket that's been there holding the rotting corpse of legal marriage for decades now. IOW, he's not "for homosexual marriage"; he's for being honest about what legal marriage has already become, and leaving true, Sacramental marriage to the Church. Like I said, I disagree, but I don't think it's fair to say he's "for homosexual 'marriage'."

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)