In the early days of the blog, Tony Annett often commented here under the name Morning’s Minion. A Leftist, Minion would often rail against American Calvinism, viewing that as the Original Sin of all Americans. Now it is our consumerism that is causing us to resist the attempt of Pope Francis to alter the Catholic faith, and “real” traditionalists would simply touch their forelocks to whatever the Pope wished to do, and obey. Of course this is not Catholicism. Popes are granted great powers to safeguard the Faith handed down to us by the Apostles. When a Pope seeks to change the Faith and acts contrary to the teachings of the Church, his office grants him no shelter from legitimate criticism and resistance. That is not an American position, but rather a Catholic position.
Supposedly an economist, seems to have been employed mostly in PR positions. His professional papers have been in the realm of political science and public policy. I seem to recall him pushing Obamacare here and at Vox Nova, and abjuring discussion of the salient problems in financing medical care in this country.
Does the left need to redefine everything?
What’s his definition du jour of a woman? A recession?
Absence Of Charity Alert!
I thought that horse’s ass was dead.
Why do I get the feeling this Annett person has never bothered to listen to a few ‘trads’ and find out from them why they are the way they are?
The argument that US consumerism comes from US Calvinism really isn’t that bad, if we’re talking about that materialistic kind of Calvinism, which does have a strong tradition in the US. Is it possible that the American culture would have influenced the Catholic Church in this country? Sure. The moral of that story is that we American Catholics have to watch out for consumerism. Getting from that to American individualism influencing the Traditionalist movement in the US? I don’t see it. It’d at least take a three-cushion bank shot.
The argument that US consumerism comes from US Calvinism really isn’t that bad,
It’s actually insane. ‘Consumerism’ is an abracadabra term no one ever defines. Attempting to attribute something to a genealogy of ideas requires considerable care at elaborating the logic and the history of the ideas in question. Annett does not show his work. At all.
I remember him. years ago when I first started visiting Catholic blogs, Mark Shea used to lift up Calvinists because of the reputation they have of being pretty solid in their intellectual defense of Calvinist theology. Then he glommed on to MM’s ‘Calvinism as origins of American evil’ and pretty soon Mark was echoing that idea of Calvinism being why there’s evil in the world, or at least America.
[…] WHEN A POPE SEEKS TO CHANGE THE FAITH AND ACTS CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH, HIS OFFICE GRANTS HIM NO SHELTER FROM LEGITIMATE CRITICISM AND RESISTANCE. THAT IS NOT AN AMERICAN POSITION, BUT RATHER A CATHOLIC POSITION. […]
Art, maybe I shouldn’t have used the term “consumerism”, but what I’m referring to is an excessive focus on relative wealth as an indicator of importance or moral value.
but what I’m referring to is an excessive focus on relative wealth as an indicator of importance or moral value.
So, now Ayn Rand (or some parody version of her) is the problem?
Huh? I mean that, too. Huh?
Huh? I mean that, too. Huh?
You’re having trouble understanding just what you mean.
I’m just baffled by your jump to Ayn Rand. Now, I’ve never read her, so maybe I used some combination of words that made it an obvious jump. But I don’t see what’s insane about what I said. So, since you called it insane, I’m going to leave it up to you to present your case. (Or don’t. It’s the internet after all, and we’ll all make it through the day either way.)
I’m just baffled by your jump to Ayn Rand.
Can’t help you there.
But I don’t see what’s insane about what I said.
Already explained.
Apparently what you found insane is that there’s no definition of consumerism (which there is), and that somehow negates the idea I presented. I was hoping you could do better than that. And since you brought up Rand, you should be able to help explain why you did.
[…] Z’s Blog Murphy’s Law Comes After Mass of the Ages (Part 2) – New Liturgical Movement Morning’s Minion & Papal Authority – Donald R. McClarey, J.D., at The American Catholic Fr. Paul Kramer & Fatima – Fr. […]
Apparently what you found insane is that there’s no definition of consumerism (which there is), and that somehow negates the idea I presented. I was hoping you could do better than that. And since you brought up Rand, you should be able to help explain why you did.
A mention of Rand follows precisely from your idiosyncratic definition of ‘consumerism’. This is not that difficult.