Oh, hey, it's Casimir Pulaski Day.

Awww, Roger Federer as a boy with Jimmy Connors.

I read that as has a boy with Jimmy Connors and was expecting some weird hybrid picture. That one was much cuter.

Cardinal Biffi

I think this man's doom is the name he has been saddled with. Possibly in Italy it might come across differently, but I cannot help but cackle thinking of his mom, shouting out the back door, "Biffi household! Time for dinner! Jim Biffi, this means you! Get your butt over here, Biffi!"

It would be like a Grand Inquisitor named Father Binkie.

It would be like a Grand Inquisitor named Father Binkie.

Heh, and then there were all those years he must have spent as "Bishop Biffi".

Biffi does seem like a hardliner, but his discussion of antichrist seems less eccentric with a little more included:

Cardinal Biffi said that the Antichrist was not necessarily a person but “the reduction of Christianity to an ideology . . . The teaching that the great Russian philosopher left us is that Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of values. At the heart of being a Christian is the personal encounter with Jesus Christ.” But he quoted with approval from Solovyov’s Three Dialogues on War, Progress and the End of History, which suggests that the Antichrist is a real figure.

Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.

I'm not sure beauty is any less relative than the values he calls relative -- even if I try to look at it from his theological perspective, but I think I understand what he means by the rest. From a Christian theological perspective, anything that puts itself above Christ (which I typed 'Chris' and only caught in proofing -- paging Dr. Freud) is of the spirit of the antichrist.

I can't find a full transcript of his talk, but there seems to be some more context here: [link]

I guess I don't see how love of peace and respect for nature are something separate from goodness. Are they conveniently forgetting that Christ had titles like Prince of Peace and The Lamb of God?

Yeah, it seems to me that one could have “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” as an absolute value but not have those values "above Christ."

But then it could depend on the definition of quite a lot of terms here.

From a Christian theological perspective, anything that puts itself above Christ is of the spirit of the antichrist.

I don't agree from a logical standpoint -- just as anybody who has shattered an ankle can tell you that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a fallacy (known as the false dichotomy ) -- but you're right, it's not anything new in terms of the traditions of Catholic doctrine.

Unfortunately, it is very easy to shape this relatively neutral doctrinal plank into a club to beat people and/or oneself with. Which is a whole nother joke about how what doesn't kill you is meant to make you stronger.

I guess I don't see how love of peace and respect for nature are something separate from goodness. Are they conveniently forgetting that Christ had titles like Prince of Peace and The Lamb of God?

They're not separate from goodness. But in Christian theology, the absolute is God, and all goodness comes from God. It is wrong for a Christian to give something else primacy, no matter what that thing is, and no matter how good it is, because God is the author of the goodness, in the first place. In fact, it's irrational to do so (from a Christian perspective).

I don't agree from a logical standpoint -- just as anybody who has shattered an ankle can tell you that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a fallacy (known as the false dichotomy ) -- but you're right, it's not anything new in terms of the traditions of Catholic doctrine.

I don't understand your logical standpoint, Nutty. He's not calling those things bad. He's saying that Christians abandoning the central fact of the faith, and waving around a watered down version of the faith in its place, because its more palatable, is what is wrong. I mean, I don't expect you to share it, because you don't have the same theological perspective, but it's pretty simple, and pretty logical from his perspective.