"Killing children, for the sake of children". Chilling. Thanks for today's post.
Cheers from Canada.

Being Eastern Orthodox, this reminds me of the somewhat slower but no less public "escape" of Frank Schaeffer. Schaeffer, readers might recall, is the son of the late Francis Schaeffer who was, without apparently intending to be, the evangelicals' social critic du jour in the seventies and eighties. He also ran a ministry to young adults, usually those trying "to find myself," in Switzerland.

The younger Schaeffer wrote a trilogy of novels based on a teenage son of evangelical missionaries in Switzerland, a rather entertaining set of yarns about a somewhat dysfunctional family doing the Lord's Calvinist work. Schaeffer, as I recall, continued to deny that these stories were in any way autobiographical. At least, that is, until he wrote "Crazy for God," a memoir about his childhood which, even he admitted, looked a good deal like the story told in the "Portofino" trilogy.

"But after coming of age as an evangelist and helping to organize religious fundamentalists politically, Schaeffer had a crisis of faith: Though he is pro-life, he decided that abortion should remain legal." (You can find that statement here, which is his coming out party with Terry Gross on NPR.) He should take great comfort in the encouragement he has given to those who, since he made that statement, have presided over the deaths of at least another 2 million infants. These skin-of-the-teeth escapes bring such freedom and good will!

Like Valerie Tarico, Schaeffer has made a living off having been raised, and having escaped being, an evangelical with the added bonus of his fathers' having had almost a cult status among evangelicals of a certain age. It is unfortunate that the beginning of Schaeffer's escape was his conversion to the Orthodox Church; it is fortunate that most Orthodox still don't know who he is and don't really listen to him, anyway.

What, no mention by Valerie Tarico, Ph.D of the anticipated trouble of bringing up a handicapped child she hoped to avoid! That I suspect is the prime motivation, not her concern for others.

The self-serving argument that she didn't want "a situation in which our family needed to suck more out of society than we could put back into it" is easily demonstrated as specious. Logically, if even one person in a society is putting more back into society than they "suck out" of it (what a charmless way of talking about accepting help from others!), someone else must do the opposite. Indeed if it is a good thing for some to contribute more than they receive then you need someone to do the receiving as this is a zero sum game on Ms Tarico's analysis. In real life nobody does a cost-benefit analysis of themselves. Even if it were possible (and I am confident it is not and that it is an unworthy exercise anyway) over what period should you do it? During a lifetime someone's ability to help and their need for help from others will fluctuate. Perhaps, in Mr Tarico's universe, those on the receiving end of her family's good works should consider themselves parasites unworthy of life.

Did Ms Tarico not consider the example her family might set to others about love and devotion to her child or indeed that the child might have preferred living as a blind person to not living at all?

I do not get this article. It is not a book review because Bottum has not actually read Tarico’s book. It appears to be instead a chance for Bottum to exercise his skill at clever insults. He names Tarico as an example of a kind of syndrome, which means that we do not have to read her books or think about what insight her books might offer us. Once properly dismissed, Tarico will never threaten our narrow minds.

Now, some will read that last statement as meaning that I support Tarico or think that Bottum and the readers of First Things have narrow minds. I do not mean any of those things. I mean instead that Bottum reads Tarico looking for things to dismiss. He does not read her looking for insight. In fact, he appears to have gotten no further than the byline of Tarico’s latest book.

Bottum has a lot of fun comparing Tarico to other exemplars of the syndrome. He talks about how “condescending” the genre is and how “pretentious” Tarico is for putting a Ph.D. after her name. Bottum’s whole exercise of cleverness toward Tarico (he says that “people with Ph.D.s don’t actually put Ph.D. after their names these days”) is, well, condescending. Bottum is very smug in criticizing Tarico’s supposed smugness.

Right from the beginning, the fourth sentence, Bottum smears Tarico for “making a living off being a ‘former something-or-other.’” Tarico, you see, is a grubby materialist, making some dimes off her exaggerated life story, plugging into a market that just cannot get enough such stories.

The smear is just another example of how Bottum prefers to be clever rather than go out and learn something.

So I followed the link he provided to Tarico’s Huffington Post piece. The essay is far more interesting than Bottum depicts it, but at bottom, he is right. In deciding for abortion, Tarico has given “up on human life.” Bottum’s analysis in the last nine sentences of his “review” (character assassination? I do not know what to call it) is absolutely accurate. When Bottum actually decides to read and think, he provides excellent insight. Since he is capable of being smart, I do not understand why he would spend so much of this article generating contempt for Tarico and self-congratulation for himself and his readers.

After I read the article, I clicked on Tarico’s name, and I saw that, far from “making a living off being a former” evangelical, she has written an extensive series of articles about her travels to impoverished nations across the world. It is her work on world poverty that seems to really engage her.

I have not read these articles yet, so I do not know whether she has insight or not, but what I do see is a person deeply engaged in the world. I would not have known about Tarico’s virtues had I relied on Bottum’s smears alone.

And I noticed, by the way, that the author’s biography that she has posted on the Huffington site does not have a Ph.D. following her name. So much for Bottum’s slur that Tarico is being “cute, like a child pretending to be an adult by playing dress up with her mother’s shoes.” Did it cross Bottum’s mind that maybe the Ph.D. was her publisher’s idea?

I would enjoy reading about the role of doubt in faith, which appears to be Tarico’s subject and perhaps Bottum has some keen insights into the role of doubt. But he prefers in this article to encourage us not to read Tarico. If he can plant in our minds the notion that Tarico is a shallow baby killer, then we need never seek her out or learn from her. And so he dwells on that one part of her life, hoping it will color the rest of her work.

Now, if Tarico’s main cause in life were abortion, then I would not need to read any further. But her work on doubt and on world poverty suggests that she has broader interests. Her views on abortion and on life means that I will have to read her carefully, watching for the way that her logic on those issues might poison the logic of her other positions, but maybe her experiences can teach all of us something.

What do the Progs. and so many socons have in common? A belief in the power and efficacy of the State.

My guess is that she did not change her religion. Just its outer trappings.

"There are people—from Social Darwinists to Nazis—who would say such things, of course, although Tarico doesn’t want to see herself in their company. But she really is in their company. "

This is harsh. She probably isn't really in the company of Nazis, she is in the company of millions of other simply selfish people who have abortions simply for that reason and want to justify it to themselves (and to the world if they're at all narcistic). Because she also simply isn't that bright she inadvertently happens upon the Nazi justification without realizing it.

pdn Michael,

With his "abortion should be illegal " perfectly illustrates my point.

Why not go the harder route and convince women not to have them?

What exactly is conservative about exalting the power of the state? Seriously?

And if passing a law can change behavior why have heroin use rates not changed in 100 years - i.e. legal or illegal has made NO DIFFERENCE in heroin use rates. It has empowered criminals. Which I suppose is a good thing. Something else to rail about and fill the collection plate.

I was all fired up to chime in on the "smugness" critique of this article and to suggest there might be more to the story as so often there is. But Michael has done such an admirable job stating what I wanted to say, that I will simply congratulate him on his comments.

Weirdly, the front cover of the book has on it a picture of what looks like an altar that is clearly not Evangelical.

But, alas, she has not escaped Evangelicalism entirely. Her book is part of the genre of the movement: the testimony. "It was on a Monday, somebody touched me," as the hymn goes, "must have been the hand of the Lord."

So, ironically, she responded to the altar call invitation by sending an RSVP. She, as they say, rededicated her life to not dedicating her life to Jesus. She became unsaved, and is suggesting the same to us, "I left Jesus. Won't you join me in asking him out of your life?"

You can take the girl out of Evangelicalism, but you can't take Evangelicalism out of the girl.

Mrs. Tarico has discovered an important technique in walking the line between lefty libertine and moral scold: Any indulgence in bad behavior becomes morally heroic if you describe how conflicted you were when you did it.

Okay Michael, Jody might be smug (he's not actually) but you look like a coward. My homesteader grandfather would say something like "be a man" and put your name on what you write but that kind of talk would be considered sexist today. Repost your comments with your name on them and I'll listen to what you say. In the meantime I'll just remember the kind of comments that were tossed around the ranch about people who in one way or another spent their lives squattin' behind hay bales.

I, too, was disappointed by Mr. Bottum's snide remarks. I read First Things not to get some kind of glee when the "good guys" take the "bad guys" down. Instead, I expect to find clearly written, carefully considered arguments, the Best Arguments against the "bad guys'" Best Arguments. No straw men, no snide remarks, no triumphalist smearing, just the best thoughts in search and support of Truth. When Mr. Bottum makes comments like the "lesser lights" paragraph above, I am disappointed, for so often he and his colleagues have shown us (and taught us to expect) better.

I agree with Mike and will affix my true name from now on.

best,
Gryllus assimilis

Thanks for a great article. Ms. Tarico, PhD, murdered her child and deserves our disapprobation. Her selfish egotism has no bounds.

An Evangelical is usually thought of as a Protestant Christian who emphasizes the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.

Ms. Tarico has become a kind of secular evangelical: she emphasizes the authority of her own wishes and the doctrine of "it's all relative." She has lost touch with reality.

"Why not go the harder route and convince women not to have them?"

Sure, and while we're at it, why not do the hard work of persuading bank robbers not to rob banks, murderers not to kill, rapists not to rape. Ah hell, who needs laws? We'll just reason with anybody who wants to take an innocent life.

Yes, the "just barely escaped" syndrome. E.g., "I just barely escaped being an evil liberal Protestant, but thankfully I made it to Rome!"

"far from “making a living off being a former” evangelical, she has written an extensive series of articles about her travels to impoverished nations..."

Try going to her website. From appearances there she bills herself as something of a cult deprogrammer (though her own material has a decidedly cult-like graphic personality). Her drumbeat is very much anti-Dogmatic religion. But I do agree that more needed than Bottum's slam is a careful answering of the sort of considerations she raises. As both the pro-gay marriage movement and the visibility of Islam increase, we need to be explaining why we believe was we do, and how we are not primitives. The Bible condoned polygamy, but we don't. The Bible mandated stoning, but we don't. Etc etc. From where comes our reason and our authority. If we are not patiently answering that, we will lose many to her sort of approach.

I can think of many good people who barely escaped, and made or make their living off it in a way that is helpful and insightful. C.S. Lewis, for one. David Horowitz in the political arena for another. Any convert, actually, who is in a better place than he was before and writes about it.

However, as a not-too-guilty fan of snark, I enjoyed the post.

Look for my new book in finer bookstores everywhere.

“I Was Raised as a Narcissistic Nihilist and Just Escaped!”

Michael,
You really should have stopped writing after your first line. You don't get the article but try this scenario: Bob who is my next door neighbor beat his wife to death. In your view I should be more concerned that Bob is worried about third world living conditions, and is insightful about the role of doubt in our lives of faith, correct? Perhaps I should observe that Bob began our neighborhood recycling day? It would be wrong of me to be snide or sarcastic in speaking about my wife-killing neighbor. Indeed, wife-beating is just one dangerous position Bob has adopted, yet we can all still learn from his experience. It would be mean spirited if I pointed out that my Bob murdered his wife for the sake of wives... I hope this helped.
Best,
PeterG

PeterG

What would someone who would destroy her (or his) own child *not* do?

Evil reigns in a world where so many justify such behavior as legitimate choice. On the day of judgment I imagine the One that Is, the Timeless One, showing these lost souls a vision of what the children—who they chose to sacrifice to false gods, to have rent apart and discarded—*could* have become . . . and some will, even then, be unmoved.

"Bottum’s analysis in the last nine sentences of his “review” (character assassination? I do not know what to call it) is absolutely accurate. When Bottum actually decides to read and think, he provides excellent insight. ...After I read the article, I clicked on Tarico’s name, and I saw that, far from “making a living off being a former” evangelical, she has written an extensive series of articles about her travels to impoverished nations across the world. It is her work on world poverty that seems to really engage her. "

Michael,

So Dr. Tarico aborted a child, and you worry about social niceties? I do not begrudge her the worry and angst of carrying a deformed or disabled child into the world; that is perfectly human. But to abort the child and then blog about in order to show the world what a moral person you are is a form of moral promiscuity that is absolutely vulgar if not hideously offensive. But, as you so correclty point out, Tarico travels the world "engaged in her work on world poverty" (whatever that is) -so all is foregiven!! Of course, she hasn't exactly moved to Sudan and assist in planting corn in some patch of desert while avoiding incoming mortar rounds. No, I don't think she does that -but she is engaged in her "work". And if she gets preggers, well that would be a great oppurtunity to hold lecture and display to the Bitter Clingers what progressive situational ethics is all about.

> 'Once an author starts down the road of making a living off being a “former something-or-other,” everything begins to sound the same.'

That's way harsh on Mark Shea: http://tinyurl.com/2aq9x7b.

Reminds me of when pro-choicers (usually women, usually Boomers) tell you how important it is to keep abortion legal "for the sake of my daughter/ grand-daughter". As a rational matter of interests, it all depends on whether your daughter/ grand-daughter has been safely born yet. If she's still in utero, or not yet conceived, then she's better off without abortion on demand, thanks very much. Abortion's only in her self-interest once she's exited the birth canal - no, to be safe, in a world where Peter Singer holds a tenured chair at Princeton, make that once she's passed her second birthday...

@M. Simon

In writing "abortion should be illegal," you have misquoted me (and Frank Schaeffer) entirely.

Anti-abortion laws actually DO discourage abortion; we stop at red lights even when we're in a hurry to avoid penalties. Heroin is an addictive drug, and unlike abortion and traffic lights, drives addictive behavior; Ms. Tarico is not, apparently, asking to be excused for her heroin addiction but for her clear-headed decision to have her child killed.

St. Paul, in this context, exalts the state when he asserts that the state bears the sword against evildoers; abortion is a manifest evil and the state neglects its responsibility to protect the unborn innocents by "legalizing."

"Conservative," and "collection plates" betray an aversion to principled discussion.

Mrs. Tarico's attempt to rationalize the murder of her own child is made more chilling by the fact that in her own language she recognizes it as her child, not an "embryo" or "potential human".

One wonders what she and her husband will do when they reach old age and begin to "suck more out of society than we put back into it". Will they have the integrity of their convictions then, and commit mutual suicide? I doubt it.

To put another spin on it, by aborting that child she didn't "spare" her children from "a life of caretaking that they had no option to choose or reject". She deprived them of the most fundamental and human lesson on charity, mercy, and dignity. It would be karmic (though admittedly unchristian) if those children abandoned her and her husband in their old age. After all, just by virtue of living, parents "commit" their children to "a life of caretaking that they had no option to choose or reject".

Poor lost woman...

Materialists, like those Dr. Tarico apparently associates with, think this is one of an essentially infinite number of universes. (What luck for us!) And we landed on a planet circling a star in a nice, round orbit, at the ideal distance from this "sol" with its nice, even energy output, which is itself ideally located, well away from the roiling galactic center. (Wow, another lucky stroke!) And would you check out the superb balance of elements, the comfortable rotational speed, tilt from the ecliptic, and amount of water, which stabilizes temperature as it heats and cools, evaporates and rains down on the land. And, hey, look at that gas giant 480,000,000 miles out, absorbing incoming junk from the periphery, which otherwise would come crashing down every million years or so—and the placement of that exceedingly large satellite, which generates ocean tides in a way that appears to be critical to life. (Wow!) And, going back to the dawn of life, perhaps 2 billion times, in a row, her ancestors had children—every single one of them—leading up to her! (Un-be-liev-a-ble.) And out of 100,000,000 sperm, one in particular combined with the her egg to form a new human. Talk about miraculous! Ooops. She's not ready to have kids—the baby might be imperfect. It's okay to "end" the pregnancy—isn't it? Bad luck for that one.

"...clear-headed decision to have her child killed"??? Well, I'm convinced that Hitler was pretty clear-headed, too; but I don't think I will invite either to my dinner table. Yeah, not very Christ-like (I'm a work in-progress).

Saw a bumper-sticker on my way into work this morning: "It is not a choice, it is a child." On the back of a semi, so a BIG sticker. About time.

Several comments attack my suggestion that Tarico might have some insightful things to say about other issues that concern her beside abortion. I think Don Roberto sums up this line of attack most succinctly when he asks, “What would someone who would destroy her (or his) own child *not* do?”

These questions illustrate the point I was trying to make. Bottum encourages his readers to mindlessly smear one part of a person’s life and thought across the rest. Tell a conservative Roman Catholic audience that someone promotes abortion, and watch the outrage puff right up and blindly turn on everything associated with that person.

Now, listen carefully. The outrage toward the promotion of abortion is correct and good. It is the smearing of the rest of the reputation that concerns me.

We live in a time when many otherwise good, thoughtful, and faithful Christians and Catholics are confused about abortion. They should not be, but they are. That is one of the curses of our age.

But before we preen with self-congratulating religious righteousness, let’s remember the lives of the saints. Should we strip the halo from St. Ambrose, who, after a mob led by a bishop destroyed a synagogue, protested when the emperor wanted to rebuild it and make the bishop and mob pay for it? Ambrose’s success against the emperor encouraged others mobs to destroy many more synagogues. Or should we strip it from St. Bernard, who made possible the Second Crusade? Or from St. Isidore of Seville and from the Blessed Pius IX, who each took Jewish children away from their parents to raise them as Catholic?

These saints committed crimes that we now recognize as heinous, and yet we still have ample reason to revere them. Tarico is no saint, but if Bottum is going to encourage readers not to pick up her book, he should read the book first, not just smear her with what she said in a different book about a different subject.

This is not a matter of “social niceties” as JP suggests. It’s about intellectual curiosity, humility, and decency.

I think Brian puts it best: “I, too, was disappointed by Mr. Bottum's snide remarks. I read First Things not to get some kind of glee when the ‘good guys’ take the ‘bad guys’ down. Instead, I expect to find clearly written, carefully considered arguments, the Best Arguments against the ‘bad guys’’ Best Arguments. No straw men, no snide remarks, no triumphalist smearing, just the best thoughts in search and support of Truth.”

'Trusting doubt'?

Hold on a moment--I think I hear the sound of one hand clapping . . .

Michael the woman wrote an essay about how she was right to kill her baby. What is wrong with you?

Michael,
For crying out loud – I get your point, but I happen to think that you are the one not listening carefully enough. Full disclosure – I am a conservative Roman Catholic. I suppose that this makes me narrow minded, puffed up, and self congratulating automaton.
I am not interested in reading the new book by Valerie Tarico, Ph.D. Why? I suppose that it must be that I have mindlessly smeared every aspect of Valerie Tarico’s writing thanks to the unquestioned leadership of Mr. Bottum. Is this how you take the readers of First Things, or conservative Roman Catholics?
Surprisingly, we conservative Roman Catholics do try to seriously hate the sin, but seriously love the sinner. I have no doubt that Mrs. Tarico is informative and insightful on a given topic. I would expect this to be true of quite a few authors that I will never read.
Wait, you mean that the saints sinned? Surely you jest!
Now listen carefully, (what a phrase) what sort of sin would put you off of reading an author? Is there any act that man could commit that pushes you to seek wisdom elsewhere?
Does the murder of a child matter? Or is it only a problem outside of the world of print?
I have tried to use some of your phrases and ideas here as you probably noticed. I wonder about the biases you bring to this discussion, and I suggest that you might consider a little full disclosure yourself.
Just as you quote Brian in agreement, so I leave in agreement with this, “Handicapped people “suck more out of society” than they put back into it?
There are people—from Social Darwinists to Nazis—who would say such things, of course, although Tarico doesn’t want to see herself in their company. But she really is in their company. This is where a giving up on human life goes. This is what happens when you make the Nietzschean move but feel compelled to say it in a nice way. Killing children, for the sake of the children.”
Best,
PeterG

Martin,

I’ve heard people attack the Roman Catholic Church saying things like “How can anyone trust the moral guidance given by such a corrupt church with its pedophile priests and the bishops who protect them?”

I’m sure you will agree with me in finding this question offensive. I’m also sure that you agree that pedophilia is a crime and that the protection provided by so many bishops is a blot on the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Like me, you probably celebrate the virtues of Roman Catholicism while condemning the raping of children by priests and the aid some bishops and cardinals provided, helping these criminals rape again.

Like me, you probably celebrate the marvelous teachings and examples set by St. Ambrose and St. Bernard while condemning the hideous anti-Semitism of the one and the murderous crusade of the other.

But somehow you cannot bring yourself to condemn only part of Tarico’s thinking. Without reading another word of hers, you condemn all of her thought out of hand. Why cannot you extend to her what you extend to the saints and to the Roman Catholic Church?

The blame in part falls on the kinds of leaders you have been listening to. Bottum, other kinds of Roman Catholic media, and scores of priests and bishops have so demonized people who are pro-abortion that otherwise good and thoughtful people give themselves to self-righteous indignation, refusing to believe that any good could come out of people who have practiced such evil.

See if you can do for Tarico what you have done for the saints and for the Roman Catholic Church itself.

---

Peter,

I’m glad you get my point, but your answer confuses me.

You say, “I am not interested in reading the new book by Valerie Tarico, Ph.D. Why? I suppose that…”

But then you do not answer the question, descending into sarcasm instead. What’s the answer? Why aren’t you interested in reading her new book?

If your answer is that you’re not interested in that subject, that’s cool. If your answer is that you’re interested in the subject, but you’d prefer to hear someone coming from a different background, then that’s cool, too. But if you’re all “I’m not going to read anything by some baby killer,” then you’ve reduced a person to only one of her characteristics, and that’s wrong.

Now for some scattered points:

No, I do not think all conservative Roman Catholics are “narrow minded, puffed up, and self congratulating automatons.” In fact, I’m arguing quite otherwise. I think Bottum in this article is trying to generate indignation, not light. What do you think he’s trying to do?

What would put me off from a book? I do not think I would need to read anything by Charles Taylor or Slobodan Milosevic, but Tarico is not in their league. She’s a confused do-gooder, and the do-gooding part is interesting to me. I’m not interested in reading conversion stories of any kind, though not for the reasons Bottum lists. I think other commenters are right to suspect Bottum’s only dismissive of conversion stories that lead away from Roman Catholicism.

I hope you understand that I was saying something much more than “saints are sinners, too.” Saints Ambrose, Bernard, and Isidore led whole groups of people into crime. Not many people and not many saints can say that. They committed big, heinous crimes that are an embarrassment to the Roman Catholic Church.

You seem especially miffed by my use of the phrase “listen carefully.” If you look at the context, you’ll see that I had just made the comment that conservative Roman Catholics get puffed up with outrage on the subject of abortion and blindly turn on anyone who is pro-abortion.

Usually, when I say something like that, people assume that it means that I am pro-abortion. And so I said, “listen carefully,” to direct readers to my next statement, which was emphatically anti-abortion. I think you heard me saying something quite different.

I still think I’m right, by the way, that abortion is a hot-button issue in this way. You do not have to take it as an insult. People are sore about different subjects. That’s why they’re called hot-button issues, after all.

Did you notice that you concluded by quoting the one part of Bottum’s article that I thought was intelligent?

Michael,
I found your last response to be a lot more thought-provoking. I am not interested in reading Mrs. Tarico’s book because I am slowly trying to work my way through all the classics I should have read but haven’t. With so many great works on my “to read” list, I try to prioritize how I spend my reading time as there are so many books and such little time to read them all. (It is not that I am in poor health or elderly - I am just slow and busy)

To address your other questions then... First, I thought that Bottom was generating light by peering into the warped moral thinking of the confused do-gooder. Dr. Tarico had her own child destroyed because of this warped thinking, and somehow does not feel the need to repent of this act, but sees it as a good. One should feel indignation at this, but not contempt.

To my mind you are partially guilty of anachronistic thinking in charging the three saints with big, heinous, and embarrassing crimes - but I do not wish to ignore their wrongdoing. However, these men are not just embarrassing members of Christ’s church, and I see that you admit the same. Would you care to elaborate on the merits of Dr. Tarico’s work that help to place her in their company? How about looking at a similar sin to Dr. Tarico’s like Dorothy Day’s?

I admit that I took umbrage at the phrase “listen carefully” and should not have. I think your tone is condescending (our narrow minds, turn blindly, and the like); you found me sarcastic. If you hold a high view of the intelligence and wisdom of the readers of First Things, why write what you did? Is Bottum just too clever for us? Speaking of Bottom’s intelligence... How does it follow that the one part you found intelligent in Bottom’s piece is where he says that Dr. Tarico is rightly placed in the company of Social Darwinists and Nazis, and yet you admit that you wouldn’t read the writings of Milosovic or Charles Taylor? Do you read Dr. Tarico’s work? Do you agree that she belongs in their company? Am I missing something here?

Abortion is a hot-button issue for me. I am not insulted by your correct guess. I guess that it is not a hot-button issue for you. What issue is? On the whole, it appears that you are more bothered by Joseph Bottum’s critique of Dr. Tarico than you are of Dr. Tarico’s abortion. I hope that this is not the case. I wonder if you are as persistent in scolding and cautioning Dr. Tarico and her readers as you are of Joseph Bottum and the readers of First Things.
Regards,
PeterG

Peter,

Well, I feel like I’ve been repeating myself each time, but I’m glad this last iteration was “more thought-provoking.”

It makes perfect sense that many more books would claim your attention and that is why you would not spend time reading Tarico. That’s how life works. But I do not think that’s what you said at the outset. Your first entry made me think that you were following Bottum in dismissing Tarico’s book about doubt because of her writings in favor of abortion.

I asked whether you thought Bottum was generating indignation or light, and you said light, pointing to the conclusion of the article. I agree that the part about abortion is insightful, but I am concerned with the article as a whole. Its structure is something like this: “I received a book today. I have not read it. It has a silly title, a silly byline, and the author is a baby killer.” That’s the outline of an ad hominem attack: you attack an idea by attacking the personal characteristics of your opponent.

Ad hominem attacks are not, by their nature, unfair. If Bottum were looking at a book by Tarico about abortion, then it would be perfectly fair to attack the one book on the basis of the other, but this book is on an entirely different subject.

My mind is divided on the question of whether the condemnation of anti-Semitism and the crusades is anachronistic. In my initial post, I was qualified, saying “These saints committed crimes that we now recognize as heinous.” But I’m not always so sure that is the right way to put it. I just do not believe that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and James would encourage either the torching of synagogues or the murdering of the crusades.

I think instead that Constantine gave Christians a problem that the first generations simply did not have, namely, how do Christians wield political power? There is no apostolic guidance on the many issues that Christian political power raises. So we have had to guess, and I think Saints Ambrose, Bernard, and Isidore guessed wrong. I’m pretty sure that we are guessing right now concerning anti-Semitism and the crusades, but there is a whole lot more that we are not even close to getting right.

You ask me to elaborate on the good qualities of Tarico’s work, and I have to decline. As I said at the outset, I do not know anything about her beyond what Bottum has said and my own browsing to see whether he was accurate. As far as Dorothy Day goes, I hope she receives canonization. I find her work enormously inspiring. I think she showed penance for her abortion.

I’m glad you now understand what I meant by saying “listen carefully,” and I hope you similarly see the phrases you describe as “condescending” in the light of their intent.

Right after I used the phrase “our narrow minds,” I wrote “Now, some will read that last statement as meaning that I support Tarico or think that Bottum and the readers of First Things have narrow minds. I do not mean any of those things.” To put the issue in different language, I would say that the effect of hot button issues is to narrow our minds. It’s not an insult. It’s an observation. Hot button issues make us all go a little “blind,” etc. And that is why I was upset that Bottum uses a hot button issue as the basis of an ad hominem attack.

You ask, “If you hold a high view of the intelligence and wisdom of the readers of First Things, why write what you did?” I think I wrote a good critique of the structure and effect of Bottum’s article. And then I got attacked by a lot of people saying that I was soft on baby killers. I think you might say I was attacked because I used language that was “condescending,” but I think Bottum’s article heated the pot, making it difficult for any critique to be heard as anything else than morally bankrupt.

I still do not get what Bottum was trying to do in this article beside exercise his cleverness. What do you think he was trying to accomplish in this piece as a whole?

I think I have answered either explicitly or by implication the rest of your questions in this paragraph, so I’ll turn to the last.

Abortion is a hot button issue for me, too, but I also get riled by different forms of political manipulation, which is why I responded to Bottum’s article. I saw him being intellectually lazy in this particular article and wanted to call him out on it.

No, I have not gone after Tarico or her readers. I had not heard of her before Bottum brought her up. I think I have brought up something valuable here, however, about how manipulative this piece is in its context.

Dear Mr. Bottum, Like Tarico I "left the fold." I was raised Catholic, had a born again experience, also had a charismatic experience, also read Reformed, Catholic and Anglican authors and apologists, but still eventually left the fold, because I realized it would no longer be honest of me to recite the Apostle's Creed, or to pray as I used to pray.

I think that it is perfectly fine for books to be written by and about people both leaving and entering folds of all sorts. I edited one such book, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. I also have an online article, "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience" which examines that claim.

Second, on the abortion question, your indignation at people aborting fetuses is noted. However, in my opinion you ought to save a little of that indignation for the God of the Bible as well, who is depicted (I do not say such things really happened) as slaying man, women and children, via floods, famines, plagues, armies, all intentional acts on that God's part. Or who commands people to kill: Israelites are sometimes commanded to kill non-Israelites, or even to kill fellow Israelites. God also commands the death of a woman after her wedding night if she's not a virgin (maybe she conceived on that same night? but no concern is shown for any fetus, they simply stone the woman to death), likewise with a woman who is raped by doesn't cry out (maybe she conceived? no matter, kill her), or a woman accused of adultery (maybe she conceived? who cares? force her to drink "bitter water" and make her "thigh rot out," which commentators point out probably meant death to anything in her womb), kind of like forcing a woman accused of adultery to take an "abortion pill."

In fact the Bible says nothing about abortion. But it does speak many times about God having killed men, women, and children. Even of prophets demanding death, miscarriages. (Conversely, it portrays unmarried mothers in a very harsh light indeed.)

I'm happy that you are more civilized than the Bible concerning many of the Bible's commands listed above. But if you want to impress anyone concerning your sincerity and intelligence, then you ought to take another peek at the God who commands slaughters, rather than writing some catty review in response to a woman who dares to speak up and write about her own choices, her own body, her own life.

Oh, yes, and please tell us when all the religions of the world will finally agree that humanity has fulfilled the first commandment in the entire Bible, to be fruitful and multiply. I think humanity's got that one down pat. Wouldn't you agree? Maybe a little less multiplying and being fruitful is now in order? For the sake of avoiding the biggest abortion of all, the abortion of civilization itself?

Mr. Babinski,

I find it more than a little ironic that you claim to have edited a book about being a "former Fundamentalist" and yet your criticisms and indignation of the "God of Bible" fundamentally rest on applying a purely literal interpretation to Scripture. Your post shows you never left the fold of the fundamentalists at all.

Any amount of study into the symbolic nature of much of the Bible would quickly disabuse you of the false notion that bloodshed was desired by God, and absolve that selfsame God of wrongdoing. The briefest explanation I can give is that stories like "The Rape of Dinah" and slaughter of a "million man" African army never took place (common sense and archeology prove so), but were instead propaganda created by a minority tribe in a brutal period of human history in order to PREVENT bloodshed, not as a testament to it. It's like the barking of a poodle when a Great Dane enters the room, or the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) during the Cold War. You come off as utterly crazy and extreme, therefore staving off larger, predatory tribes.

You say the Old Testament "portrays unmarried mothers in a very harsh light indeed", yet throughout the Old Testament we're told time and again that the very soul of worship of this God is caring for the "orphan and widow" and that He longs for "mercy, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6, then several times more in the New Testament).

Jesus makes it clear that several sections of the Old Testament can and have been misunderstood, and such misunderstandings take one far afield of the will of God (take for example the teaching on divorce, which we're told by Christ was given by Moses, not intended by God). In describing God's word weren't even told by Christ that Satan will try and twist our understanding of it to serve evil purposes--therefore the necessity of interpreting it only with the aid of the Church.

Finally, I'd submit to you that viewing killing and death as intrinsically evil--even as the highest of evils--is a very secular worldview, and ultimately condemns this life and universe to the status of a joke, abomination, and source of despair and futility. The view that this life is all there is has led to untold suffering, and is the very antithesis of morality, as each seeks to maximize pleasure or power at the expense of others.

Judeo-Christians live under no such delusions or despair. We realize that while this life can be very good, the next can be even more glorious, and thus St. Francis can call bodily death "Sister" and say of it "Happy those she finds doing your most holy will. The second death can do no harm to them."

I would urge you to re-examine what you've been taught about the Bible, and try and get some sources that don't have a literalist slant.

Michael,

The "Anti-Semitic" label you apply to Ambrose is simplistic and highly questionable. You omit mentioning "Enarratio in Psalmos" (i. 41, xiv. 943), where he praises some Jews for their purity of life. Is it possible there were details associated with the destruction of the synagogue in Callinicum that were lost to the ravages of history?

Could his claim indeed be true that in this particular synagogue, "Christ was blasphemed and mocked"? I find no claim in the writings of Ambrose that he charges ALL synagogues or Jews with such actions. We must remember that Ambrose took action to prevent the slaughter of an Arian opponent. He excommunicated and condemned one of the Emperors when that man slaughtered civilians. He sold his wealth and cared for the poor, he tried to prevent civil wars and strife in the Empire. To paint with a crude brush and say he "led whole groups of people into crime" is not accurate, and it is not consistent with the details of his life.

Did he tell people to go out and destroy all the synagogues they could find? Does history say anything about him destroying synagogues in his diocese? If so, I couldn't find it. You'd think historians (especially Jewish ones) would have mentioned that if it were the case.

Did some people misinterpret his condemnation of one synagogue, or use his writings as a pretense to act immorally? Certainly. Saying misinterpretation took place is one thing. Saying he ACTIVELY led people into crime is quite another, and certainly not born out by the facts we have.

Artaban,

You’re right that the “anti-Semitic” label can be misapplied, but I don’t think it is in this case. Here’s my nutshell version.

The Roman Empire in general tolerated other religions, but all that changed when Theodosius the Great became emperor in 378. Theodosius made Christianity the state religion in 380, and as the years passed, he banned more and more pagan religions and religious practices. He also enforced the Nicene Creed, removing Arian bishops and requiring all his subjects affirm the Creed.

During these years, Christian mobs destroyed many synagogues. St. John Chrysostom was an especially vitriolic writer. He started as a priest in Antioch, where Christians often joined in Jewish feats and celebrations. Here are a few quotations from one of his homilies, which he preached in 386 and 387:

“Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion.”

“But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so.” He then quotes John 8.19.

“If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.”

It gets worse, but I’ll move on to St. Ambrose.

Lots of synagogues were burned by Christians during this era. I am embarrassed to say it, but the pagan Roman Empire was tolerant while the newly Christian Roman Empire was not just intolerant but murderous and coercive.

Even so, when synagogues were burned, Roman officials levied fines against the town and forced the town to rebuild the synagogue.

This changed in 388 when a bishop in Callinicum led a mob to burn a synagogue. Emperor Theodosius levied the usual fine, but St. Ambrose intervened. You can find his letter on online, but two arguments stand out to me. One is that Jews are not Christian, but the other is strange, all about how this action might turn the bishop “apostate.” There is no mention that Jews instigated the riot.

A link to the Ambrose’s letter (http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/a/ambrose-of-milan.html)

A link to a book excerpt (begin on page 74 in the screen reader, page 166 in the book itself) (http://books.google.com/books?id=gB7NgObOBE0C&lpg=PA60&dq=marcel%20simon&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q=callinicum&f=false)

The younger Schaeffer wrote a trilogy of novels based on a teenage son of evangelical missionaries in Switzerland, a rather entertaining set of yarns about a somewhat dysfunctional family doing the Lord's Calvinist work. Schaeffer, as I recall, continued to deny that these stories were in any way autobiographical. At least, that is, until he wrote "Crazy for God," a memoir about his childhood which, even he admitted, looked a good deal like the story told in the "Portofino" trilogy. Okay Michael, Jody might be smug (he's not actually) but you look like a coward. My homesteader grandfather would say something like "be a man" and put your name on what you write but that kind of talk would be considered sexist today. Repost your comments with your name on them and I'll listen to what you say. In the meantime I'll just remember the kind of comments that were tossed around the ranch about people who in one way or another spent their lives squattin' behind hay bales.