Abstracted liberalism
February 25, 2009
Some people think this is art…
I don’t.
Abstract art doesn’t fit my subjective view of art. Objectively, I suppose it could. If I assume, for example, that the artist who painted The Black Square was trying to convey a message of loneliness then I suppose he or she has created art (in the purely objective sense). But a black square is not art in my very subjective mind. It’s a black square.
Just as emotion without the constraints of reason can, from a political/societal standpoint, destroy lives and families, so too can emotion without reasonable constraints destroy art. Abstract artists paint, draw or write music which conveys some emotion; hate, anger, love, peace, etc., but they do so in a way that appeals merely to the lowest of our brain functions—instinct. This is the same truth marketers and casino owners take advantage of. Black is power. White is purity. Red is passion. And so on. It doesn’t take much to trigger a knee-jerk emotional response in someone. But it takes tremendous talent to touch someone’s soul—to appeal to their human will and intellect. Abstract art just can’t do what real art can do.
Now I’m going to contrast the Black Box with a real painting.
The painting below, by Timothy Jones, does much more than simply jar my reptilian brain like the Black Square. Tim’s painting moves me. It moves my spirit and intrigues my imagination.
At first glance, the person in the boat seems all alone. But he does not suffer from loneliness. He’s on his way out to do some fishing for his family. It will be a long day out on the sea by himself, but he enjoys the quiet and is comforted by the knowledge that what he is doing will bring joy to his family when he gets home. The other figure in the boat, a tackle box I imagine, is placed directly in front of the fisherman. Perhaps it serves as a reminder of his task.
Abstract art just cant do what art like that of Tim Jones can do.
We’re so blessed to have Pope Benedict XVI
February 18, 2009
Pope Benedict did not chitchat with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Instead…
“His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”
Splendid article!
“ROME, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The dissident, leftist movement in the Catholic Church over the last forty years has severely undermined the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral teachings on life and family, a prominent US Orthodox rabbi told LifeSiteNews.com. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, the head of a group of 800 Orthodox rabbis in the US and Canada, also dismissed the accusations that the Holy See had not sufficiently distanced itself from the comments made by Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) on the Holocaust.
‘I support this move’ to reconcile the traditionalist faction in the Church, he said, ‘because I understand the big picture, which is that the Catholic Church has a problem. There is a strong left wing of the Church that is doing immeasurable harm to the faith.’
Rabbi Levin said that he understands ‘perfectly’ why the reconciliation is vital to the fight against abortion and the homosexualist movement.
‘I understand that it is very important to fill the pews of the Catholic Church not with cultural Catholics and left-wingers who are helping to destroy the Catholic Church and corrupt the values of the Catholic Church.’ This corruption, he said, ‘has a trickle-down effect to every single religious community in the world.’
‘What’s the Pope doing? He’s trying to bring the traditionalists back in because they have a lot of very important things to contribute the commonweal of Catholicism.
‘Now, if in the process, he inadvertently includes someone who is prominent in the traditionalist movement who happens to say very strange things about the Holocaust, is that a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start to condemn Pope Benedict? Absolutely not.’
During a visit to Rome at the end of January, Rabbi Levin told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the media furore over the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X is a red herring. He called ‘ridiculous’ the accusations that in doing so Pope Benedict VXI or the Catholic Church are anti-Semitic and described as ‘very strong’ the statements distancing the Holy See and the Pope from Williamson’s comments.
Rabbi Levin was in Rome holding meetings with high level Vatican officials to propose what he called a ‘new stream of thinking’ for the Church’s inter-religious dialogue, one based on commonly held moral teachings, particularly on the right to life and the sanctity of natural marriage.
‘The most important issue,’ he said, is the work the Church is doing ‘to save babies from abortion, and save children’s minds, and young people’s minds, helping them to know right and wrong on the life and family issues.’
‘That’s where ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue has to go.’
Although numbers are difficult to determine, it is estimated that the Society of St. Pius X has over a million followers worldwide. The traditionalist movement in the Catholic Church is noted for doctrinal orthodoxy and enthusiasm not only for old-fashioned devotional practices, but for the Church’s moral teachings and opposition to post-modern secularist sexual mores. Liberals in the Church, particularly in Europe, have bitterly opposed all overtures to the SSPX and other traditionalists, particularly the Pope’s recent permission to revive the traditional Latin Mass.
The Vatican announced in early January that, as part of ongoing efforts to reconcile the breakaway group, the 1988 decree of excommunication against the Society had been rescinded. Later that month, a Swedish television station aired an interview, recorded in November 2008, in which Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four leaders of the Society, said that he did not believe that six million Jews were killed in the Nazi death camps during World War II.
At that time, the media erupted with protests and accusations that the Catholic Church, and especially Pope Benedict XVI, are anti-Semitic.
Rabbi Levin particularly defended Pope Benedict, saying he is the genius behind the moves of the late Pope John Paul II to reconcile the Church with the Jewish community.
‘Anyone who understands and follows Vatican history knows that in the last three decades, one of the moral and intellectual underpinnings of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, was Cardinal Ratzinger.
‘And therefore, a lot of the things that Pope John Paul did vis-à-vis the Holocaust, he [Benedict] might have done himself, whether it was visiting Auschwitz or visiting and speaking in the synagogues or asking forgiveness. A lot of this had direct input from Cardinal Ratzinger. Whoever doesn’t understand this doesn’t realise that this man, Pope Benedict XVI, has a decades-long track record of anti-Nazism and sympathy for the Jews.’”
Further thoughts on the liberal question
February 12, 2009
A while ago I asked the question, Why are artists liberal? I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about this question recently. Though I don’t feel I have completely formulated a succinct answer, I’m going to at least try to put down a few thoughts.
Most artists I know are driven by their emotions. Many paint, write poetry, write music, because they find in their craft an outlet for pent up emotions. I know I personally write my best poetry when I am feeling the most emotional. We artists have things, which weigh on (or lift up) our hearts and souls and we want to tell the world—sometimes for our own personal relief and sometimes to help relieve others.
Most liberals are similarly driven by emotion. There are of course the more libertarian liberals that seek an almost anarchistic freedom, but most liberals, at least those like Sean Penn, are motivated by pure emotion. They support gay marriage because they feel the “plight” of the gay community. They seek abortion rights because they feel terrible for the rape victim. They fight for universal healthcare because they want to help the poor and downtrodden. And I’d imagine being in Hollywood, surrounded by peers driven by the same guttural emotions, only stokes the internal emotional fire. The mob mentality, after all, isn’t known for its calm calculating reason.
So, what am I saying? Well, I’m certainly not implying that all liberals are artists or that all artists are liberal. What I am saying is that many liberals, like many artists, are driven primarily by their emotions. Emotions are a good thing, but they must be tempered with reason. G_d gave us souls AND minds. If you take the compassion of a liberal and apply reason, you get someone more like Mother Teresa than say Bruce Springsteen. You get someone who is indeed driven by compassion but who is also able to use reason to apply that compassion in a way most pleasing to G_d. You get someone who is as equally willing to bathe a leper as to tell the world’s most powerful leaders that ALL abortion is evil.
I truly respect people who are not afraid to be lead by their emotions, but if that emotion is not constrained with reason, we end up destroying families, innocent lives, and even souls.
This argument goes the other way as well. One need not be void of compassion to be conservative, but that is a topic for another post.
Conservative or Liberal Catholic
February 7, 2009
Great article by Fr. John Hardon on what it means to be Catholic.
Conservative or Liberal Catholic
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
In almost any group of Catholics today, one hears the question frequently asked, “Are you a conservative or liberal Catholic?” Or perhaps it is posed, “Are you charismatic?” Then again the speaker may interrogate his audience about his familiarity with renewals, retreats, liberation theology, centering prayers, Cursillo or any other currently popular movement or practice within the Church. Oftentimes people feel that the answer to such a question involves deep philosophical pondering. Semantics aside, there can be only one answer to these questions. But before that reply is supplied, and its rationale, one need examine the rather bizarre practice of describing our faith in social and political terms and the implications of such nomenclature…
Support the pope
February 3, 2009
A shift in ethics
February 2, 2009
For the past (almost) five years, I’ve been working towards getting my BS degree. I’m 33 years old now; I’ll be finishing my last class in a few weeks. I’ve learned a great deal in every class I’ve taken. This final class, a philosophy class, has been no exception.
I’ve learned that there are several theories relating to ethics. Just to name a few, there is Deontological, Teleological, Contractarianism and Virtue based ethics. Each theory sounds…well…sound. But my place along the continuum has shifted.
Over the past year I’ve made several philosophical adjustments to my approach to life. Everything from how I look at America’s role in the world to my view on voting has changed. My snowballing appreciation of G.K. Chesterton is probably one of the largest factors. My reading of The Man Who Was Thursday might be the single biggest Eureka moment. There’s also my rediscovery of Fr. Benedict Groeschel, the failing economy, reading blogs such as Mark Shea’s, Tim Jones’, the ChesterBelloc Mandate, and Paul Stilwell. All of these things were subtle catalysts to me, but my final class before I graduate has put the subtle changes into perspective.
What I have learned from this class is that my ethical approach is shifting away from a Teleological (or goal based) approach to one of Virtue or Deontological (duty based). This by no means implies that I no longer care for the result, but merely that I no longer feel I can predict the outcome. But I do know, by the grace of God, I can act with virtue and out of a sense of Christian duty. And that is what I intend to do. Feel free to set me straight when I get it wrong.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” -John Quincy Adams
