SUBJECT: LITERATURE!!!!!!!

What do you make of Joseph Pearce?

Greetings and salutations to the stadium-sized crowd that follows this blog!

I have a question directed primarily at two groups:  my Catholic friends, and my English Literature friends -- realizing that there is a fair amount of overlap!

Joseph Pearce is an English author currently residing in the United States.  He is a convert to the Catholic Church, having formerly been active in a rather nasty white supremacist group in the UK prior to his conversion.  His specialty is, allegedly, English (and usually Catholic) literary biography.  He has been featured on EWTN; has published with Ignatius Press (a publishing house I greatly respect) and has an upcoming autobiography about to be published by TAN Publications -- a VERY conservative and quite traditional Catholic publishing house.

I first came across Pearce around 2000 when I posted a review on Amazon.com regarding his book "Tolkien:  Man and Myth" -- a book which I found to be unoriginal -- at best; relying extremely heavily on uncited material from Humphrey Carpenter's authorized biography  Frankly, I don't think that sections of the book would pass muster with Turnitin.com -- the anti-plagiarizing software I use in my university classes.  Another Amazon.com reviewer who goes by the name "FYI" reviewed the same book -- and went into a great deal more detail in documenting word-for-word plagiarism in numerous circumstances.  (FYI, if you read this, please feel free to jump in!)

In 2003, he wrote a book on CS Lewis, trying to uncover why Lewis never converted to the Catholic Church -- and that book, too,  has had its critics, mostly regarding facts about Lewis that Pearce conveniently ignored, or emphasizing what Lewis minimized (and vise verse)

In 2008, he wrote a book arguing the evidence that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a recusant -- a "closet" Catholic in anti-Catholic Elizabethan England.  A number of scholars have strongly suggested this possibility, and there has been an academic debate on this matter for years.  Shortly after the book was published, a negative review was published by "First Things" magazine.  Pearce wrote an absolutely vitriolic piece against the reviewer which was, functionally, little less than an ad hominim attack.  This appears to have continued to be his modus operandi with scholars who disagree with him.

More recently, a "biography" of GK Chesterton has been published -- immediately on the heels of the publication of the foremost academic and critical biography of Chesterton ever written (by the noted scholar Fr. Ian Ker.)

Pearce seems to be quite popular in the world of Catholic apologetics; he has spoken in many venues, on topics like Tolkien's Catholicism and its influence on "The Lord of the Rings" (I suspect that Tolkien would be rolling over in his grave with the ridiculous allegorical implications Pearce insists on finding) and Shakespeare's likely Catholicism (an opinion with which I am reasonably sympathetic, but not fully convinced).  In his upcoming autobiography, TAN Publications lists Pearce as "the world's foremost Catholic biographer" which is, in my view patently absurd.

Here's the rub:

What are Pearce's scholarly credentials?  Of course, one does not need to be a scholar to have an informed opinion -- but if one is going to attack and ridicule other scholars in the field, one really should have the credentials to do so.  I have scoured the web, and have been unable to come up with any scholarly background which would make me want to take him seriously -- much less as an expert.  (Especially as an expert on Tolkien -- a subject I know just a bit about!)  He has been affiliated with a number of very small (and extremely conservative) Catholic colleges as a "writer-in-residence" -- but even on the website of the college with which he is currently affiliated (St. Thomas More College of Liberal Arts) no academic or scholarly credentials are provided.

Call me crazy -- but somehow, this does not pass the "smell" test to me.

Anyone have any insights?

Vigorous discussion desired; flame-throwing will be moderated.

Blessings,

Papa Z.

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!!!!! AND MUSIC!!!!!!!

Wherein Papa Z rants . . .

Advent is upon us, and Christmas is near. Some of the most beloved church music will be sung over the next 6-8 weeks. Advent Lessons and Carols; Christmas Lessons and Carols; "Messiah" Sing-Alongs, etc., will be enjoyed by many.

HOWEVER, WOE to you who thinks that you actually know the words of your favorite Christmas Carol by heart! Your Missalette publishers know better than you do! Inclusive language -- not only horizontal, but vertical -- is now the norm! I know, I know, we mustn't hurt anyone's feelings by actually using phrases like "God made Man" or "Born to raise the sons of earth" or "God in Man made manifest". Better, of course, to artificially contort beloved texts in order to utterly confuse people in the name of "political correctness"!

To top it all off, the liturgical contortionists at GIA edit texts differently from those at OCP (who edit texts differently from Word, etc.) So there is no continuity even amongst the revisionists!

If modern day hymn-writers (and I'm using the term VERY loosely) want to compose politically correct, inclusive-language un-singable music for the rest of the year, I suppose that can't be helped. (There's a reason why Catholics don't sing -- but that's another post!) But for Christmas? Please just leave us alone!

Advent Blessings,

Papa Z.

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

Catholicism and Fundamentalism

I'm probably gonna get hammered for this post!

No, this is not a review of Karl Keating's book of the same name -- though if you are interested in my thoughts on the book, check out my review for Amazon.com!

What this IS, however, is some commentary on a trend I've begun to notice among a certain percentage of very conservative Catholics, and that is a trend toward what can only be described as a form of Catholic fundamentalism. Now please realize that while fundamentalist Catholics are very conservative, not all conservative Catholics are fundamentalists. This is a very important distinction to make. This commentary is not intended as a rant against people who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (I've not attended one, but plan to, at my earliest convenience) nor those who watch EWTN (my wife and I not only watch, but appeared on "The Journey Home" a few years ago) or those who prefer more traditional music (count me in!) etc. I'm not referring to your typical, orthodox, Pope John Paul II Catholic.

When viewed on the spectrum of "liberal" to "conservative" your dear commentator would most certainly fall considerably to the "right" of "center". From a theological standpoint, I'm probably more conservative than 80% of your typical "man in the pew"; and the same would be certainly true in my academic work as well.

What I am concerned about, however, are those on the very far right -- the ones who brand you as an enemy (or worse, a heretic!) because you only agree with them 95% of the time. The ones who seem to think that faith means disengaging your brain, and that all development of doctrine ceased in the Middle Ages.

Some tendencies I've noticed which concern me:

• Geo-centrism -- the notion that the earth is fixed and immovable, and that the universe revolves around it. (Based on a total misunderstanding of the Church's "condemnation" of Galileo!)
• The absolute rejection of any and all critical tools in the interpretation of Scripture (and history!) After all, higher criticism was invented by liberal German Protestants who wanted to destroy the Church, therefore all critical tools must be avoided at all costs! (So much for the Church Fathers!)
• A literalist view of Scripture that would frighten an Independent Baptist! No allegory allowed! No figures of speech, either! (Example; The prophets teach that Jesus would ride into Jerusalem "on an ass, and on a donkey, the foal of an ass" -- therefore on Palm Sunday, Jesus rode two animals! Yes, I've seen this vigorously debated!)
• An unhealthy obsession with Matthean Priority. Personally the Synoptic Problem is not my problem -- and is an unresolved -- and unresolvable question. But, as the (faulty) reasoning goes, theologians who accept Markan priority obviously used critical tools to arrive at this conclusion -- and all critical tools must be avoided at all costs! Se above!
• An insistence that only the Douay-Rheims Bible can be used (and only certain editions of that!) if one is unfortunate enough not to be able to read the Latin Vulgate (and only certain editions of that!)
• A misunderstanding of the role of the Teaching Authority of the Church, leading to bizarre claims of "infallibility" on issues upon which the Church has never claimed infallibility!

In each of these cases, the problem seems to stem from an ultra-montane view of the Church, and by the taking out of context (both textually and historically) the role of, and meaning behind, Papal pronouncements. The gift of Papal Infallibility is to preserve the Church from teaching heresy in matters of faith and morals. It does not necessarily follow, however, that every proclamation by every Pope on every issue is a matter of faith and morals!

Now, is it true that many modern theologians have gone beyond (and even against) the Magisterium of the Church? Of course it is! Sadly, such dissent is common on a number of levels. But sadly, the Church has always had dissenters, and, as Christ teaches us, the wheat and the tares will continue to grow together until the End of the Age. But the way to deal with dissent and heresy is to promote good theology and orthodox doctrine -- not to insist that the thinking process be shut down entirely. The Book of Proverbs teaches us that "iron sharpens iron". What a blessing for the Church that the iron of St. Thomas Aquinas was sharpened on the iron of St. Bonaventure! What a blessing that Franciscans are not Dominicans who are in turn not Benedictines! What a blessing that some of the finest astronomers in the world have been (and still are) Jesuits!

It seems to this commentator that the extremes of the very far right are every bit as dangerous as the extremes of the very far left; both extremes leave the Church open to the ridicule from Her enemies; and that neither serve to benefit Her primary mission, which is the eternal salvation of souls.

Blessings,

Papa Z.

SUBJECT: PET PEEVES!!!

"Extended Warranties"

In the opinion of the tremendously unbiased writer, the concept of the "Extended Warranty" has got to be one of the biggest scams on the market today. Two recent examples from the life of the Papa Z family should suffice.

Example One: The New DVD/VCR. For Christmas, the Zampino clan purchased, as a family gift, a new combination DVD/VCR machine to replace two very well worn out components. We made this purchase from a supposedly reputable well-known electronics retailer, and purchased a machine from a supposedly reputable manufacturer. We didn't purchase the "Cadillac" model -- but we didn't purchase the "Yugo" either, by any stretch of the imagination. We declined the "extended warranty" which would have added quite significantly to the purchase price. Well it's October now. The little motor which opens and closes the DVD drawer is shot. It has apparently shorted out. We called the retailer, and were, of course, informed that since we had not purchased the "extended warranty" we were out of luck. We called the manufacturer and were informed that they would gladly cover the cost of the part -- but not the cost of the labor -- AND we would have to pay to have the item shipped out. Estimated cost? Essentially half -- 50% of the cost of the device in the first place. My conclusion? Built-in obselescence. The "extended warranty" was an ultra-expensive insurance product banking on the hopes that the device would last two years. If it didn't -- hey, the device was essentially "throw-away" in the first place. If it didn't last (which obviously, it didn't) then it was my problem. Either way, I'm stuck with either a much more expensive purchase -- or an overpriced repair bill.

Example Two: In February, the Zampino family was forced, out of dire and unexpected necessity, to purchase a car -- a vehicle used, but new to us. It was a 2003 Buick with only 63,000 on it. The purchase was made at a local dealer -- a dealer which owns 5 dealerships in Southeast Wisconsin and Northern Illinose. I received a very fair deal on the trade-in and had no problem with sales department. It even came with a limited warranty! Of course, an "extended warranty" was available (which would have added well over $1,000+ to the cost of the car) which came with its own set of limitations and exclusions. By early April, it had become obvious that the air conditioning needed to be recharged. I was annoyed -- but not particularly angry -- such things happen. I went back to the dealer, paid the hundred bucks for the recharge -- and for the injection of a dye into the system to make sure that there was no leak. I was guaranteed that if I needed a recharge again, it would be taken care of -- at no cost to myself. Within two months, another recharge became necessary. I returned to the dealer -- who informed me that there WAS no dye left in the system; that the condensor had died -- and that the repair would cost upwards of $1,000. I pointed out that under Wisconsin statute, the dealer was supposed to exercise "reasonable care" when inspecting a used vehicle -- and that it was obvious that "reasonable care" was not exercised. Indeed, it was clear that the service department of the dealership had merely signed off on an untested system. I was then informed that had I purchased the "extended warranty" the repair would have been covered. The service department offered to cover half the cost of the repair -- but also informed me that "of course, the repair could cost considerably more" than the estimate! (Like I couldn't see THAT scam coming!) Like the DVD manufacturer, the service department of this dealership didn't care if "reasonable care" was exercised or not. They figured I'd either pay the hefty additional premium -- or find myself screwed a few months down the road. (I might add that the car has developed additional issues in which minimal "reasonable care" by the dealership was not exercised as well -- issues which should not have occurred after only a few months.)

End of rant! (But I am looking for a different vehicle -- from a different dealership!)

Papa Z