What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

On Giving to God What is God’s

by Tony M.

Or: being stamped with an Image.

Every now and then you come across someone whose clarity of insight and presentation is truly outstanding, positively gifted. Fr. Lankeit, on “gay marriage,’ is just that sort. You really need to see and hear it.

If you have ever struggled in discussing “gay marriage” with others, this 16 minute analysis will help you. If you have sometimes stumbled in saying what you meant, so that you made something confused that isn’t really confused, or opened yourself for attacks that you didn’t need to do, Fr. Lankeit’s presentation might help avoid that. He is crystal clear, in a simple and easy to follow analysis, which is also well formed and stated in terms of not saying more than what is necessary.

I am in awe of the many layers of thought he put into this. Here’s just one example:

“Perverted secular dogma”.

With these 3 words, he rightly and boldly attaches to “gay marriage” the name “perversion”. Yet he does so indirectly, through the medium of the “secular dogma”, so that if you borrow this and use it in conversation you cannot be attacked as a “homophobe” for calling gays “perverts” – no, you called the secular dogma a perversion, which it is. But the REASON it is a perversion is that the whole notion of “gay” is a perversion, and the acts are perverted. And this truth shines out through the phrase he used. Brilliant!

The whole sermon rocks with that kind of clear thinking: it’s thinking straight “all the way down” to the roots. Especially the central theme, which is that we are made beings, made in God’s image. We receive the stamp of what we are from God, we do not make ourselves.

Hat Tip: Fr. Z's Blog.

Comments (13)


How is the "argument" at 15:30 any different than the once often heard "argument" that Communism has never been really tried (after all, Lassalle did turn out to be right).

If the Christian way is so difficult that it has been left untried, how do we know it will work as promised instead of producing its own set of negative externalities? And if untried just what has been redefined anyway? The only folks who will be convinced by the homily are the already converted.

Civil marriage is a creature of the state and we have ssm today because opponents couldn't even find a credible rational basis argument - read the briefs of the several trials instead of sermons. I did draw encouragement from the period when the camera panned the pews and the good Father being down with a 100% marginal tax rate.

How is the "argument" at 15:30 any different than the once often heard "argument" that Communism has never been really tried

That's not an argument, it's an observation.

Communism could never work right while man behaves the way he is found to act. Communism "has never really been tried" because it claims to be able to re-make man himself into its image of the "collectivized" perfect man, but without any power to do so outside of what we find in man as he already is - which is wholly insufficient to the purpose. (Also because even if it did succeed in re-making man in its image, we would no longer be humans but primate ants.) Since it is wrong in its fundamental premise, Communism as premised by Marx cannot ever be tried.

Christianity has thousands of explicit, concrete examples of men who DID try, and who were raised up by the power of grace, to be able do what Christ asks of us. In our own times, Mother Teresa is one. Christianity has "not been tried" in terms of a whole state who all together tried to be saints, but it certainly has been tried (and proven) in individual terms. Which Chesterton was not denying. (For his purposes, the person who fails is, really, only the person who simply gives up repenting of his sins and trying again, i.e. one who stops trying - it is not someone who keeps on trying with repentance after sinning. The latter does not fail in the end.)

Civil marriage is a creature of the state

If you mean by "civil marriage" the sets of laws about marriage, fine. "That thing that the state enshrined in law as a reflection of what the state found that pre-existed this state, those laws are constructs of the state." Trivially true. And irrelevant to the issue.

The person for whom that excellent proclamation is going to be most helpful is the Christian who feels overwhelmed and caught in the middle. "I know what I'm supposed to believe, but I have no idea how it fits into a larger picture or why it's a good thing rather than a bad thing."

He does quite well the implication that these are truths applicable to everyone, not just "true for" those who believe them. The "we" he is talking about is mankind per se, not merely Christians.

al,

You say, "Civil marriage is a creature of the state and we have ssm today because opponents couldn't even find a credible rational basis argument - read the briefs of the several trials instead of sermons. "

I think your sentence needs an edit:

"Civil marriage is a creature of the state and we have ssm today because while opponents had many credible rational basis arguments [just check out the book What is Marriage by Girgis, Anderson, and George for an excellent recap] they were unable to convince the muddled thinking of Justice Kennedy (not to mention the liberal justices of the court who are happy to ignore any constitutional text that is put in front of them if it advances some sort of progressive aim.)"

There, that's better.

Ah, yes, I remember now: Justice Scalia refuted Justice Kennedy's remarks, using Justice Kennedy's own analysis back 30 years earlier. It's pretty rare when a Supreme Court justice refutes himself, but Kennedy managed it.

I finally was able to watch this. Superb. Thanks, Tony. I wasn't sure Father could ever make the gospel reading fit with his argument but he managed the feat ably.

Chesterton wrote that "if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing badly," so I think it's safe to assume he was an enthusiast of the "try and fail, then try again" pattern of Christian life. Also, we might well point, for Al's benefit, out that voluntary "communism" was tried and sustained. We call that example the Early Christian Church. "They had all things in common."

"perverted secular dogma"

I'm currently in grad school for social work. In one of our discussions a classmate categorized religious beliefs as "religious ideology" while secular beliefs were "secular values"; "secular values", she notes, were things like abortion. I just found this interesting.

*"secular values" was actually referred to as "societal values"

I suppose this stems from the stance that religious views and "society" are two different things.

Yes, GRA, that old secular self-serving prejudice that "social" interests are by definition secular, whereas religious values are by definition not "social".

Heaven help them when (rarely, of course) someone in their camp accidentally and naively tries to make a definition of social values on a principled basis, because all of a sudden they discover that religious values creep in. Could it be that their prejudice is just that? Nawwww, couldn't be!

If you look at the higher court rulings against state actions in support of morals, you will find almost invariably a judge's deep-seated animus against those moral values, and the rulings being based on a POV that such values are per se not legitimate, precisely because they are not secular, and (if you dig beneath the surface) they are not admissible because they smack of something other than merely physical causes and something other than merely pleasure and pain.

"Also, we might well point, for Al's benefit, out that voluntary 'communism' was tried and sustained. We call that example the Early Christian Church. 'They had all things in common.'"

Acts 4:

"34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet."

It seems more like some sort of a primitive communal arrangement, likely based on assumptions about Christ's return, then any kind of seriously thought out economic plan. Those folks were liquidating their capital stock and consuming the proceeds.

However, if we read on to chapter five and recall that Stalin was a seminary student, perhaps we get some insight as to the fate of the Kulaks.

However, if we read on to chapter five and recall that Stalin was a seminary student, perhaps we get some insight as to the fate of the Kulaks.

... he said, in a fell voice well suited to this day.

I actually had to laugh at your comment, al. I would never have thought to connect up Ananias with Stalin. That's pretty darn funny, thank you.

"[just check out the book What is Marriage by Girgis, Anderson, and George for an excellent recap]"

Jeff, natural law arguments alone don't necessarily demonstrate the furtherance of a legitimate state interest. Anyway, even granting natural law as a concept, it isn't clear to me that marriage is an irreducible good. Again, read the actual briefs in the several cases from Mass. through California to the Supremes.

"(not to mention the liberal justices of the court who are happy to ignore any constitutional text that is put in front of them if it advances some sort of progressive aim.)"

Most Justices do this, not just the liberals - see Bush v. Gore (arguably a sort of coup), Shelby County, and the Civil Rights Cases as examples of conservatives ignoring the Constitution and just making stuff up. N.B. that stretches from the left seem to benefit the many while those from the right seem to enhance private hierarchies of power.

"Communism could never work right while man behaves the way he is found to act. "

Agreed, as the last couple of centuries have clearly shown that both unrestrained capitalism and centrally planned economies will fail. We recently learned that Keynes was mostly right.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.