Crunchy Catholicism

There are so many variations of Catholicism that have 'C' words for adjectives.

I'm thinking of Conservative Catholicism which is right wing politically and liturgically, and then there's Cafeteria Catholicism in which the devotee picks and chooses which parts of the Catholic faith he think he likes and rejects the bits he finds unpalatable. Cultural Catholicism means "I'm Irish so I'm Catholic--and don't forget: it's 'Irish' first. Catholic second." Then there is Campfire Catholicism--where the liturgy is folksy with singalong songs and a warm cozy homilly. Don't forget Coca Cola Catholicism--in which the religion is sweet and fizzy and exciting (but it rots your spiritual teeth) I guess you could add 'Crazy Catholicism' which is made up of extreme right wing fundamentalist kooks. 'Conspiracy Catholicism' is obsessed with end times, Fatima prophecies, the lack of a proper dedication of Russia to the Blessed Virgin and the three dark days.

You pays your money and you takes your pick. I'm opting for Crunchy Catholicism. Crunchy Catholicism is like my crunchy cereal in the morning. It has, well, 'crunch.' It's conservative, but not crazy (but maybe I am crazy and don't know it) It revels in the irrelevant and delights in the dubious. Crunchy Catholicism is all for relics of saints and incorrupt bodies and those holy water bottles shaped like the blessed Mother with the crown for a cap. It is happy about saints that are stigmatics, who levitate and bi locate and fall into streams and make wisecracks to the Almighty. It's for exorcists and eucharistic miracles and friars with long beards and full habits who have given up millions of dollars to serve crackheads in the Bronx. It's for leper priests and little nuns who wash sores of dying people in the gutters of Calcutta. It's for first holy communion girls in white dresses and little boys with with coat and tie and their hair combed. It's for nuns. The ones in habits in convents. It's for lace and incense and birettas at Mass.

Lest Crunchy Catholicism seem all traddy and reactionary and folk religion or even (God forbid) superstitious!!, it is also for a faith that has intellectual rigor and a zesty willingness to communicate the truth that faith is an adventure. Faith is a trampoline not an easy chair. It's a risk and an investment in which you give all and receive more than your bargained for in return. Crunchy Catholicism is ready to read Dante and T.S.Eliot and Flannery O'Connor and learn Spanish and Italian and Latin because it's a good idea. Crunchy Catholicism reads the great philosophers and theologians and has Thomas Aquinas on it's iPhone reader and Fides et Ratio by the bedside, and Pope Benedict's latest work along side Evelyn Waugh. Crunchy Catholicism is as rollicking and controversialist as the Chesterbelloc and as tender hearted and compassionate and tough as the Little Flower (who--if she was a little flower--was no shrinking violet)

Crunchy Catholicism dislikes all the other 'C' varieties of Catholicism, but it also loves them because it sees that in each of them there is also something crunchy and good. Crunchy Catholicism defies the pigeon holes, escapes the neat categories and refuses to live in a box.

Unless the box says, "Crunchy Catholicism"

Slubgrip Instructs - 12

Here is the latest installment of Slubgrip Instructs--in which the Master discusses relativity in Art, or 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...'

Englishman Writes his Own Bible

They always said that "God is an English gentleman". Now it seems that an English gentleman is God--at least he's set himself up to write his own Bible. English philosopher A.C.Grayling almost looks the part. He has a lofty expression and long flowing hair. Couldn't he be persuaded to don a white robe and grow a long white beard as well? Lean out over some clouds perhaps, with a look of severe mercy on his face? You can read about A.C.Grayling's big adventure here.


What I find so ludicrous about Grayling and his pals--fellow 'new atheists Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens--is their continued attacks on Christianity on such sadly ignorant terms. They dish out shallow, sophomoric complaints about little bits of the Bible and so rubbish the whole thing. This is combined with flaming red herrings and non sequiturs.


There are too many too enumerate, but here's a corker. Grayling complains that the Bible (which Christians say is there to teach morality) doesn't really teach morality because it supports slavery, child sacrifice, polygamy and genocide. Err. First of all, most Sunday School children who have gone beyond sixth grade should be able to tell Professor Grayling that Christians don't believe the Bible is simply a 'Book of Morality' to start with. What does Grayling think the Bible is--some sort of ancient Ben Franklin's Poor Richard Almanac? Does he really think Christians believe the Bible is essentially a book of aphorisms and rules for a good life?


We don't. We believe it is the record of God's interaction with the human race--particularly through the history of the Hebrew people and culminating in his self revelation through his Son Jesus Christ. It's the record of God's revelation. Not a book of do gooder quotable quotes. It's the record of mankind's horrors, misunderstandings, sin, foolishness, violence and rebellion, so no wonder it has some horrible bits.


So this funny old Englishman first of all totally misunderstands what the Bible is in the first place, then he sets himself up to write the sequel. It would be a bit like believing that Dante's Divine Comedy was really about medieval table manners, and then setting yourself to put together a collection of Dear Abby letters as a sequel. Bless his heart, he'll come up with something more like the Readers' Digest than anything else--and then the 'intelligentsia' will take it all very seriously.


Another glaring mistake these poor fellows make is to believe that Christianity is all about 'being good' and that Christians believe there can be no morality without the Christian religion. Once again, this shows a deep ignorance of Christian theology and ethical theory. From the beginning Christians have agreed that people can know right from wrong without special revelation from God. In the first chapter of Romans St Paul says, "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." He goes on to point out that this natural revelation is also linked in with a natural knowledge of what is good and evil.


Why don't these guys stop and listen to even the most basic of Christian theologians? We admit that people can know right from wrong without special revelation. We also admit that they are responsible to live according to the natural light that God has given them. We never said that Christianity was about 'being good' to start with. In fact we've said just the opposite: that nobody can be good enough to please God on their own. All of us need salvation. Even the 'good' people. 


Natural goodness is there not to save us, but to bring us to Christ, for the really good person will become humble and realize he is not good, and is still in need of something else, and that something else is a someone else--God.


I just worry that these guys pretend to be so smart, but they haven't stopped and listened to what Christians really believe before attacking the whole thing? Ah well, let them rage on. It has always been so, and ever shall be world without end.


If you want to see the whole thing clearly and how moral depravity and atheism and the rage against religion all fits together read the whole of Romans chapter 1.


Then write a letter to A.C.Grayling and recommend he read it too.

Laetare Sunday

(click pics to enlarge)

For those of you who like to collect pictures of rose vestments, here is my brand new chasuble worn today. Made by the industrious and creative Mrs Wersinger--a local Catholic seamstress. These pics were taken after our 9:00 Mass at Our Lady of the Rosary. PS: That's our oldest son Benedict on the right.

Combox Rules

I am unusual among bloggers in that I keep an open combox. That is to say, if you comment it will appear without my vetting it first. If you're abusive and foul and ugly I let it remain because people who are sensible will read it and judge you according to your own ugliness. Your foul attitude and negative spirit will only hurt one person: you.

However, if I am to keep an open combox I need people to remember a few points about a blog and its comment box:

1. This is my blog, not yours. I'm happy that you read it. I love all my readers, but if you want to make long rambling comments on all sorts of matters start your own blog. Don't use my combox as your mini blog.
2. Make the comment a comment. In other words, read the post and make your comment intelligent, brief and enlightening.
3. Keep to the point. Comment on the post in question. Don't go off on a tangent of your own.
4. Keep to one comment per post. This is not an internet forum or chat room. If you want to engage in long drawn out discussions and arguments use forums and chat rooms--not my combox.
5. Try to be intelligible. Remember, other people are reading this who may not know all your private lingo and agenda
6. I try to be witty, concise, tolerant, open minded and curious. Please try the same attitude.
7. Be nice to people. It pays.
8. You don't know it all, so don't pretend you do.
9. Tell us something new
10. Flatter me....(just kidding)

Those who cannot or will not abide by these simple and civilized rules will have their comments deleted. This is for the sake of all readers, and not just padre.

Breaking News

I can share with you this morning the important news that I have received from the Vatican, but which had to be kept secret until this morning.

I have been appointed Master of Ceremonies for the Confraternity of Anglican Ordinariates worldwide. My duties will be to assist the Anglican Ordinaries in each country with the proper implementation of liturgical procedure, planning the execution of episcopal ceremonial and the correct attire for clerical dignitaries.

Among other duties I will oversee the universal adoption of the Anglican style cassock (which buttons across the chest with side buttons rather than the Latin style soutane with its central buttons). I will ensure the correct liturgical use of the biretta within the Ordinariate, bring back the full English surplice and maintain discipline of clerical attire in every detail--most importantly the imposition of the ancient be-ribboned maniple and the suppression of the buttoned maniple.

I'm delighted to announce that the post carries with it an appointment of myself as Monsignor and apostolic proto compagnero to the Archepiscopal Household of the ancient see of Ivbin-Foulinya. I will be entitled to wear clerical vestments and regalia commensurate with my new position, and it has been determined that I may wear the full choir dress of an Anglican prelate--meaning cassock, tippet, chimere, preaching scarf and rochet as pictured above.

UPDATE: please pay attention to the date of this post and the name of the archdiocese in which I will be appointed proto compagnero.