MARKYMARK writes:

I’ve been following the debate between Alan Roebuck & Asher about taking back the culture.  Here’s my take: It’s a lost cause.  Stick a fork in us; we’re done!  Anyone foolish enough to try taking back a declining culture WILL be punished!  A declining culture is like a person with dementia; once dementia sets in, there’s no stopping it; whether a culture or person gets dementia, once they’ve got it, that’s it.  In other words, there is nothing we can do to stop the inevitable, other than to enjoy the show.
If you read further down the linked page, you’ll see that Atkinson discusses what happens to those foolish enough to try stopping our decline.  They get punished.  The only safe course of action is for those of us who know better is to fly under the radar, and do the best we can.  That’s it!  As much as it hurts us, we must accept the truth: the America we knew & loved is gone, never to return.

Laura writes:

Let me point out that a culture is not a physical organism subject to the same laws of biological decline. Atkinson makes this basic logical error. He is comparing two very different things.

I would also like to repeat Alan’s simple question: Are you sure?

Alan wrote at the end of that entry:

Here are two questions for you, Mr.N.: Are you sure the situation is hopeless? And if you are not 100 percent sure, then rather than continuing to curse the darkness, why don’t you light a candle? If you refuse to do so, then you become our enemy, whether you intend it or not.

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

This Brussels Journal piece from last year about Robert Edgerton’s book Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony is relevant to the discussions of the last few days at The Thinking Housewife.

The Rev. James Jackson:

I’ve been thinking about the good argument between Mr. Roebuck and Asher, and wondering what the role of the Catholic Church has been in the fight over culture. This is a subject which needs books to address it properly, but one book which I don’t think has been written but should be, is about a change made by Pope Paul VI. This change was to switch two crucial dicasteries (which function like departments in our U.S. executive branch) in their order of importance. Up until about 1970 ( I think that’s the date when this happened), the Holy Office (what the Italians call Dottrini) was the No. 1 dicastery, right under the Pope. No. 2 was the Department of State (Stati). Paul VI changed the name of the Holy Office to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and moved it to the No. 2 spot. Now if I’m right on this, it means that effectively, diplomacy (Stati) trumps truth (Dottrini) from the top on down.

I don’t know of any works on the subject, but I think it was an enormous change. Everything the Church proclaims must now go through the diplomatic arm of the Vatican. And that will change the message every time. It seems to me as well that this change has effected all the Episcopal Conferences, and the dioceses, and goes right down to the parish level.

Were this reversed, and truth were put back on top, then I doubt we would see an immediate change in the positions or voting patterns of Catholics. But that change would surely come. And that would make a great difference in the war over culture.

Y. writes:

Romanian pastor Josef Tson talks about persecution. 

I also recommend “The Impossible Is Now Possible” by Derek Sheriff.

John E. writes:

If what Fr. Jackson says is the case, it would inject some reason behind many of the things that have made absolutely no sense to me up to now in how the Church has been operating for many years.

Please follow and like us: