More on Cardinal Rampolla, Etcetera:
(And more on Rerum Novarum from Rerum Novarum)

Dear Shawn,

Thanks for your response. Your prompt retraction is to your credit.

Thank you. The way I see it, I have to be consistent. And in light of my criticisms of the inconsistencies of others, it places a heavier burden on me in that regard.

Can't say I'm convinced about Rampolla being influential in Rerum Novarum.

I will ask a friend of mine whose knowledge of these kinds of issues by far surpasses my own. He is somewhat of an expert on a number of church subjects - among them Leo XIII.

You may well be right (and my hunch wrong) that he was head of the Holy Office under Pius X, but so far the only post-Leo XIII title I've seen for Rampolla (in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Cardinals for the year 1913) was "Archpriest of the Vatican." I'll keep looking.

There is also the possibility that it was not listed because cabinet positions at the Holy See can change hands reasonably quickly at times. For example, Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro died in 1913 and was succeeded as Prefect in 1914 by Domenico Ferrata. St. Pius X died that same year and Benedict XV was elected. Benedict appointed Raphael Merry del Val to be prefect in 1914. So between 1913 and 1914, there were three prefects of the Holy Office in two years.

Look, here's my beef. It seemed to me that you were making Rampolla out to be a traditional Catholic, but everything I've read about him points the other way; he is usually described as liberal or progressive,

Well, the manner whereby I define the term "traditionalist" would apply to Rampolla. In essence I define "traditionalist" as akin to the manner whereby the term "conservative" used to be understood - say a hundred years ago. And by that criteria, both Rampolla as well as the policies of Rerum Novarum are both "conservative" or "traditional" their relative novel features notwithstanding.

I believe the problem is that most people make unwarranted dichotomies here. This is in part because they try to follow what has come to be known as "conventional wisdom" viz how these terms are used and applied. My argument is that trying to explain theological issues with political labels - part and parcel to conventional wisdom today - is intrinsically flawed.

and the policy he persuaded Leo XIII to adopt in France (ordering Catholics to work with the Masonic government that was openly persecuting the Church) seems to me to confirm this.

Well, part of the problem is that that the policy was still taken at the time not to have any interaction whatsoever with the Masons. This was not a realistic position to be taking. For even the working out of Concordants with nations influenced by Masons - which the Church did - meant working with the Masons to some degree. This was unavoidable though there was an attempt to introduce distinctions into the mix which were (to put it politely) were fictitious. The Church needed to assert the positive elements of masonry such as concern for their fellow man in the temporal order.

This is part and parcel to the manner whereby she assimilates the good in an error and discards the bad. The arguments of Marx and Engels about the Church's lack of concern for the workers retained their credibility as long as the Church was silent on this subject. And Pope Pius IX of blessed memory was neither in a position to do anything about it at the time nor was he intellectually equipped to approach this subject.{1} By contrast, Pope Leo XIII was both divested of all temporal power and intellectually formidable. He also had the intellectual strength which does not often manifest itself in people of advanced age to deal forthrightly and fairly with contemporary issues.

Now obviously the temporal order cannot be separated from the spiritual realm in the truest sense of the concept. However, I would argue that the central flaw to Counter-reformation policies - and this even touched on some areas of theology - was the recourse to dualist outlooks. This mentality affected the predominant theological views on a number of issues including ecumenism and religious liberty. I will not delve into these two topics at this time but they are examples where there were clear dualist tendencies. (In practice on ecumenism and in theory on the Roman school's approach to religious liberty which was blatantly contradictory internally as a result of dualist thinking.) But I digress.

Perhaps it is this policy that led to rumors about his Masonic connections (his name also appears on the occult OTO Manifesto - who knows?).

Well, some Masonic groups claim a lot of personages as their own who were not. I remember many years ago when my old SSPX pastor Fr. Christopher Hunter (a former history teacher) explained to me once how the attempts of the Masons to claim George Washington as one of theirs was a farce. The quickest way to appear valid in some people's eyes is to claim a "big name" for your movement. Businesses do it today with celebrity endorsers, the Masons act in like manner with some of the names they throw out whom they try to claim as their own.

Rampolla may well have been correct about some of the excesses of the crackdown on modernism, but wouldn't a better source for this be Pius X himself? He admonished over zealous anti-modernists more than Rampolla did, and more credibly to my mind. If you are trying to reach traditionalists, don't use Rampolla; any reference to him will automatically be dismissed.

Well, I opened with Rampolla and closed with St. Pius X. And in mentioning Rampolla, I outlined his influence in Leo's pontificate and his position as prefect under Pius X specifically to supply for the standard approaches that many would take with Rampolla. That he and the pope were of one mind on this issue is significant. And that Cardinal Rampolla in his defense of the pope was actually defending Pope Pius X is also significant.

This is friendly - and admittedly unasked for - advice from an integrist who knows his own.

Well, you may very well not be an Integrist actually. Just because you support many of the same philosophies (perhaps) of the Integrists does not make you one of them. I am sympathetic to many of the views of the Integrists - and I even hold some of them myself. But similarity does not denote identity.

BTW, I saw the picture of your dad. I have a holy hour every Thursday night in front of the Blessed Sacrament exposed, and tonight I prayed for the repose of his soul, and for God's blessings upon you both.

Thank you my friend. Words cannot express the depth of my appreciation for your charity. May the Lord reward you in like manner.

Note:

{1} Pope Bl. Pius IX did lay the foundations for the Catholic social teaching promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in his condemnations though: the Church's first recourse before she can assimilate the viable elements of any erroneous philosophy is to condemn the erroneous philosophy outright. The Church tended after Trent to shy away from her earlier policy of this kind of assimilation. Only with Pope Leo's pontificate would she gradually resume this practice with the errors of the Enlightenment - a policy that did not reach full fruition until the Second Vatican Council and the succeeding pontificates. (Pope John Paul II in particular deserves special mention for his undermining of the fallacious philosophies of the so-called "Enlightenment" period.)

Fr Rob Johansen is apparently blogging again regularly. (I will have to "reclassify" his blog at some point if the trend continues.) In the meantime, he is asking for advice on how to handle couples who want to marry who (i) have the right to marry under Church law but who (ii) refuse to abide by Church teaching on proper preparation. So go to his blog and offer suggestions if you have any. Oh, and thanks to Bill Cork for the heads up on Fr. Rob's return to active blogging.

Speaking of John Kerry...

Matt Drudge exposes John Kerry for the lying two-faced fraud he is. Thanks to Bryan Preston for the heads-up. (It has been a couple weeks since I visited Drudge strangely enough.)

"JunkYard BLOG" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Pentuple Slam)

It has been a while since we posted a JYB update. Without further ado, let us get to it...

KERRY'S BACKFIRE

The other day Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush of lying to the country in the runup to war in Iraq. The "lies" centered on Iraq's ability to attack the US with WMDs and its possession of such weapons, and with the diplomatic games in the UN prior to the war, and so forth. Kerry's move was a pre-primary ploy to shore up his credentials with the left, which has all along insisted that everything the Bush administration has done from 9-11 forwards has been nothing but a house of lies. 9-11? Bush planned it. War in Afghanistan? Fought for a pipeline. War in Iraq? Blood for oil, or to advance a nefarious scheme to remake the MidEast. You know the drill.

There's evidence today that Kerry's move will backfire....Click Here For More

If Kerry cannot convince his own allies that he is sincere, he is in deep kim chee.

LOOK OUT, BILL O'REILLY

Fox News has picked up Dennis Miller to be a regular contributor. He'll start out doing a weekly gig on Hannity and Colmes, but look for him to get a show of his own before long.

Prediction: Dennis Miller would do to O'Reilly on TV what Rush Limbaugh is doing to him on the radio. (Except maybe not as bad.)

COOKING THE BOOK SALES

Hillary! is a fast learner. Former Veep and aspiring TV mogul Al Gore and is wife wrote a book that was released recently and very quickly forgotten, leading ultimately to conclusions that he has no remaining political viability. With the release of her book, Hillary! is making sure such a fate doesn't happen to her. According to the Prowler, she's making bulk purchases a pre-requisite for booking her to speak before various groups. The DNC is also in the game, and plans to send out copies of the book as thank-yous for donations to the Democrat party. That move will obviously boost sales. They want to make sure Hillary!'s Lying History (nod to HH) remains atop the bestseller lists for the summer and are leaving nothing to chance...or the whims of the book-buying public.

(via The Corner)
posted by B. Preston at 8:24 AM

I am not at all surprised, indeed I should have issued a NostraShawnus prediction on the matter. Hillary is not that popular folks, and I doubt she could have won a Senate race outside of New York - where the devil himself could win running as a Devilcrat Democrat.


FALLOUT FROM THE WALKOUT

Texas Dems, about whom I've written before, may have won a pyrrhic victory when they killed the GOP-sponsored state redistricting plan during their flight to Oklahoma earlier this year. They won the battle for now, but in the process have opened up a dangerous fissure in their own fragile coalition...Go Here For More

I KNEW IT!!!

So did I.

I hate traffic cameras. Hate them hate them hate them, and not just because they've nabbed me. They're Orwellian infringements on the right to face one's accuser, and as I've long suspected and Radley Balko reports, towns are goosing the yellow lights to get more violations, and therefore more funds. It's a high-tech cash cow disguised as a safety device.

Bryan Preston was recently in Japan for a couple of weeks. (It has been about that long since I read JYB so I was unaware of this.) There are some good posts at his site on the trip worth a read as well.

Pete Vere theorizes that Canada legalizing so-called "homosexual marriages" may be Canada's moral 9-11. I hope he is right about that. And I hope there is a greater resolve over there than there is in America. (It is better since 9-11 but not to the extent that I was hoping it would be.) They are talking about decriminalizing pedophilia in this country. That does not appear to me to be a sign that there is any repentence for what brought 9-11 on. The parties involved who died in the Towers and planes may have been innocent but we as a nation were not (and are not).

I hate to say it, but there will probably be the need for another 9-11 type disaster before some in this country actually get it. I hope that my intuition is in error here but I am not too optimistic about that to put it frankly.

On the Bishop O'Brien situation, my somewhat complicated viewpoint is well summarized by this entry from fellow Blessed Sacrament parishoner Mark Shea.

And another on-target post from Mark titled Serious Catholics are Still Stuck in the 19th Century When it Comes to Paying for Ministry can be read HERE. I want to muse for a moment on the latter and offer a "plan" if you will for solving the problem.

One of our Dominican pastors (referring to Mark and myself) is Fr. John Adams OP. He likes to say that there are three ways of contributing to the Church: time, talent, and treasure. Obviously everyone has varying degrees of talent and allottments of time. But there are many who - while they would not consider themselves talented along the lines of many of St. Blog's members or other Catholics with a prominent presence on the web - who also have a lack of time but not necessarily of treasure.

Thus, if (i) there are three key ways to contribute to ministry and (ii) most people would claim to have either a shortage of the first two or not in their estimate enough of one or both of them to contribute substantially from that angle, then (iii) there is always treasure.

Those of the richest country in the world like to whine about the problems and not contribute to effective ways of solving them. Again, the three ways are time, talent, and treasure. If you do not have the time, and you do not think you have the talent, then give the treasure. Do not give like Ebeneezer Scrooge and then whine about things "not improving." Each has their role to play and you would not be doing yours. Or to really put it bluntly, put up (the treasure) or shut the hell up (about the problems in the Church). It is that simple really.

Points to Ponder:

Though they are not my cup of tea, I do not in any way begrudge people wanting a tattoo or a piercing of some minor kind. (With the piercings, ears are fine and even nose or lip if the latter two are not too ostentatious in display.) But anything of course is subject to extremes. Last night on the news program, they were talking about the recent fad. Apparently, facial piercings, tattoos covering large chunks of one's body, and even tongue/genital piercings is not enough. Some are now having their tongues split for the "forked tongue" look. Is this perhaps an explicit manifestation of the "guiding light" that drives not a few people to these kinds of extremes??? [I. Shawn McElhinney: Musing from 12:30 this morning]

Update on 2003 Prediction Threads -Part IV:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.

We have already looked at the track records of Jeff Miller and also that of Anne Wilson. Further still, we have examined the predictions of The Mighty Barrister. Let us move onto mine as blogged on January 2, 2003 and see how they compare.

Congress will not make deep and permanent tax cuts.

Rating: Y. They have already waffled on the tax proposal and approved one which is about forty percent of the piddly 750 billion proposal of the President. (And I say "piddley" because this is spread out over ten years and will not even come close to 1/2 of 1% of the GDP in that time span.) And these losers claim that they have to "pay for it"??? Gimme a break!!!

Congress will not make drug testing mandatory for all foreign born residents of this county.

Rating: U. This will pan before the year is out though. Because with an election coming up in 2004, the Republicans will not want to "disturb" the illegal immigrants who will illegally vote Democratic in the next election.

Congress will not allow for oil drilling on US soil insofar as we can stop pretending to "need" foreign oil. (And thereby drop gas prices to below a dollar a gallon easily.)

Rating: U. But you watch, this will pan. Because the Republicans will not want to envigorate the environmental wackos to canvass the districts against them. And if they do that, they will.

The Supreme Court will not overturn Roe v. Wade

Rating: U. But money in the bank by the end of the year.

President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee not be a Hispanic.

Rating: U. If not Estrada than another Hispanic. Because that is what will get him votes from one of the largest (and growing) demographic voting block. Bush is politically shrewder than "conventional wisdom" pundits give him credit for. This of course presumes that he wins a second term. And as this one may stretch past 2003, I guess this would have to be chalked up as a blown prediction. We shall see...

For a few non-political predictions:

Catholic Apologetics International will end 2003 retaining a red light rating from Petersnet.

Rating: U. This is unlikely to not pan but I did go out on a limb with this one. And as Petersnet is not likely to review CAItanic this year since they rereviewed them last year - at the request of myself and others - this is almost money in the bank as well.

There will not be a successful accord worked out between the SSPX and Rome. (And at least one article on the 1988 consecrations will emanate from an influential cleric in the SSPX before the year is out which will be published either in the Angeles or one of the "encyclical letters" of their bishops, or district superiors.)

Rating: U. This prediction will probably hold but not as securely as I initially thought it would. (And I would love to be wrong about this one but I do not believe I will be.)

The US Bishops will not hold a much-needed Plenary Council in 2003.

Rating: U. But this is money in the bank also.

Thus far, I am 1-0-7 in accuracy. Of the "U's", I am going to go at least 6-1.

Conclusion of Examination:

The readers probably thought I posted this because I was leading by some margin. Actually not because while I do believe I will go 8-0 eventually (and possibly 7-0-1 this year) - barring some unforseen desire by CAItanic to reconcile with the Church which would be a prediction I would err gladly on - at the moment the leader could not be clearer.

Unquestionably, Jeff Miller is ahead of us all in accuracy to date in his 2003 predictions. (As far as number of correctly validated predictions.) The rest of us combined do not have half as many correct predictions as he does. But we are not going to score this by numbers but by percentages.

However, even if we do this by proportion and percentages - which is how it will be scored, Jeff at 53.8% still dwarfs The Mighty One (28.5%), your humble servant of Rerum Novarum (12.5%), and Anne Wilson (0%). But the race is only half over thus far and there is enough uncertain predictions out there to make it anyone's game in the end...

12:50pm Update: The Curt One Responds:

Literally within the hour after this one posted, I went to his site and apparently, Jeff Miller saw my rankings and scored my predictions before I did. (He gives me a 4-0-4 ranking.) I will of course accept the ratings he gave me as (i) it is always better to let an outsider rank one's own predictions and (ii) He was far more generous than I was with my predictions - giving me Y's for three that I noted would be money in the bank at the end of the year - but did not rank as Y's yet. (Referring to the Roe v. Wade one, the one about drilling on US soil, and the mandatory drug testing for foreign born residents of the country.) So that brings me from 12.5% up to 50%.

Nonetheless, even at 50%, I still trail Jeff at 53.8% 57.1%. (He supplied the proof on the Jackson one which I knew had been fulfilled but could not recall where. And apparently someone else is about to be shaken down based on what I saw last night on the news so the Y on the Jackson prediction is adequately sustained.) Nonetheless, The Mighty One and Anne Wilson are not out of it yet my friends as there is still almost half the track left to run...

Update on 2003 Prediction Threads (Part III):

As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.

We have already looked at the trackrecords of Jeff Miller and Anne Wilson. Let us see how they compare with the predictions of The Mighty One who blogged the following on January 6, 2003:

The United States will see its first suicide bomber within its territory, like these two yahoos who killed themselves and murdered 23 others in a weekend attack in Israel.

Rating: U. It has not happened yet thankfully. And hopefully it will not happen at all.

The U.S. will announce plans to lessen its forces in South Korea.

Rating: Y. They have announced plans to withdraw completely. So that a lessening of forces is such a slam dunk, we might as well give out the Y now.

The War with Iraq will conclude fairly quickly, with minimal loss of life in the war itself, but the U.S. will be quickly condemned by most of the world for unilateral aggression against a smaller opponent in the interests of gaining access to foreign oil and to set up a puppet regime to assure the free flow of that oil.

Rating: Y. Almost right on script did this happen.

The U.S. media will continue its unrelenting attack on the Church, and, unfortunately, priests and bishops will continue to give them plenty of ammunition.

Rating: U. There has been no sign of a continuing barrage of ammunition thus far. But the year is still halfway to go so this will probably pan.

Somewhat "credible" rumors will surface that John Paul II has "handpicked" his successor.

Rating: U. Rumours have surfaced; however, they cannot be said to be credible. And this will likely not pan even though it is phrased in an ambiguous manner to the point that Miss Cleo would be proud.

Democrats will continue to play the race card, successfully, and will continue to ply and advance their own racist policies, without resistance of any kind. Republicans lost the moral high ground when Lott covered himself in gasoline-soaked KKK flyers and set himself on fire outside of Martin Luther King Elementary School and Day Care Center while screaming "Whites Uber Alles!" (that's what happened, right?).

Rating: U. The key word "successfully" makes this a virtually certain blown prediction. But the year is young and the Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before.

Although there will be no ecumenical council, the USCCB will announce several additional "policy" and liturgical changes which will further distance the American Catholic Church from the Roman Catholic Church.

Rating: N. I presume he means "plenary synod." The proposed changes have not done this and indeed the currents in Rome indicate a strong clamp down on discipline before the year is out. I will change this if wrong but this one appears to be a blown prediction.

Blogging as an artform will hit its peak and slowly decline. Except for St. Blog's Parish. ;-)

Rating: U. This will probably pan though I hope not. (Except for the St. Blog's part of course - may they grow and flourish.)

Thus far, The Mighty One is 2-1-4 in accuracy. Of the "U's", he will at a minimum go 2-2 and probably will go 3-1. Though 4-0 is also a possibility though I would argue less likely than 2-2.

In the final installment - which I will hopefully get to this evening when time allows for it - we will look at the predictions for 2003 made by yours truly and how they are thus far fairing. (Along with a verdict on who is thus far more accurate in their prophecies.) Stay tuned for details...

Update on 2003 Prediction Threads (Part II):

As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.

We have already looked at Jeff Miller's trackrecord. Let us see how it compares with that of Anne Wilson who blogged these on January 1, 2003.

Happy New Year predictions: Don't skin me if I'm wrong.

1. Teenage girls will cover up their midriffs and go back to the thrift stores rather than the mall.

Rating: U. Honestly, thus far this one has not panned. I mean, there is no shortage of exposed midriffs out there. But there is still time...

2. We will not go to war against Iraq, at least not in 2003.

Rating: N. Anne really botched this one.

3. Return of the King will top the two Matrix sequels put together.

Rating: U. I was unaware that there were going to be two Matrix sequels but the first one did very well. We shall see if this one pans or not. My guess is that it will.

4. Great chunks of the No Child Left Behind Act ("Bush education reform bill") will get repealed by Congress and/or thrown out by federal courts.

Rating: U. I have not followed this subject too closely but my guess is that it will end up being correct.

5. Restaurants will once again offer "dieters' specials" on their menu - steak (or a steakburger) and a salad, to accomodate the growing wave of low-carb eaters.

Rating: U. I have not heard of any trend in this direction thus far but - if I am wrong - I will change this rating.

6. Watch for the rise of a "not in our name" movement among liberal and/or reformist Muslims sick and tired of jihadis killing people, abusing women, and generally denigrating the West. Look for India or Canada as possible epicenters.

Rating: U. But I have a hunch this one will not pan. Canada is too busy trying to "out-sleaze" the US at present. And in light of where they are going, Canada is probably "Mini Me" to our "Dr. Evil." (Or "Great Satan" and "Great Satan Lite" in Khomeini-speak.) If they succeed in what I noted earlier, they will have successfully IMHO outsleazed us and such a movement would be branded "hate speech."

7. DVD burners will eventually come with edit capabilities, so you can chop that ugly sex-ed scene in Never Been Kissed, or the gratuitous grappling in Titanic.

Rating: U. It will happen but I doubt it will be this year. Admittedly I am not exactly on top of the latest DVD developments in technology but we shall see...

8. The voucher debate will explode when a wahhabist school sign up for voucher funds.

Rating: U. Again, this may not happen in 2003 but it will eventually happen.

9. Wal-Mart will sell enough cheap Linux boxes that it will finally be worthwhile to feature popular PC strategy games on Linux platforms.

Rating: U. But definitely probable.

10. A better smallpox vaccine will be released.

Rating: U. As the war is already over, there is not much of an impending drive for a better smallpox vaccine. So this one will probably not pan in 2003.

Thus far, Anne is 0-1-9 in accuracy. Of the "U's", she is probably going to go 7-2 - and at least 6-3. In another installment later in the day, we will look at another who made predictions for 2003 and how they are thus far fairing. Stay tuned for details...

Update on 2003 Prediction Threads (Part I):

As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.

Let us start with Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester. Back when he was actively maintaining his Atheist to a Theist blog, Jeff made the following predictions for 2003 in the first days of 2003.

The National Catholic Reporter will call for Pope John Paul II to resign

Rating: U

If they have thus far, I am not aware of it. But then I seldom read the National Catholic Distorter anyway so if I am wrong, this rating will change.

The Boston Globe will praise VOTF and attack the Bishop

Rating: Y. Talk about a slam dunk!!!

Bill Clinton will attack Bush and defend invent his own record

Rating: Y. It has already happened.

Jesse Jackson will shake down a company until they give employment to a relative or make a charitable donation to him

Rating: U. Surely there has to be at least one company shaken down in the past six months. As I am not aware of it though, it must at this time be given a "u" rating. But this prediction will pan before the end of the year if it has not already.

The Republican leadership will act as if they lost the election and make concession after concession

Rating: Y. Too numerous to name the examples that establish this prediction as true.

Barbra Streisand will say something stupid

Rating: Y. This one was almost certainly fulfilled on January 1, 2003. And even if not, with the deluge of celebrities who opposed the war, Babs could not have kept her pie hole shut on that issue.

The ACLU will sue someone for referencing God

Rating: Y. They are siding with the guy who is suing about schools reciting the Pledge of Allegience in schools because of the phrase "under God." 'Nuff said.

The Time Man/Woman/Persons/Computer of the year will not be a Republican

Rating: U. They may have to give it to Bush - at least if Weapons of Mass Destruction are found. We shall see...

The Pope will not win the Nobel Peace Prize

Rating: U. This will be a "Y" before the year is out.

A Hollywood Star will warn us about the environment

Rating: Y. This one was certainly fulfilled before January of 2003 was out also.

CNN and MSNBC will continue to lose viewers and blame it on cable saturation

Rating: U. This will probably not pan because they will blame Murdoch of Fox News. Only by indirect stretching can that apply to this prediction.

All judicial nominees will be called racist

Rating: U. "All" is quite encompassing. All that is needed is one that is not called "racist" and this prediction will be falsified.

The government will grow in size

Rating: Y. This one is money in the bank.

Trackrecord thus far: Jeff is 7-0-6 in accuracy. Of the "U's", he is going to go at least 4-2. In another installment later in the day, we will look at another who made predictions for 2003 and how they are thus far fairing. Stay tuned for details...

On Church Dresscodes:

This is a recent entry of mine on a discussion list when the subject of dress codes came up. My words will be in regular font with sources in darkblue. The two other persons on the thread will be in light red font and dark green font.

Personally, I don't think that dress is a big deal. St. Paul says that some people have one way of observing their faith, and some have other ways.

If you're going to be in front of people that you should at least look decent. I also think that the parish has the right to decide what "decor" and "atmosphere" they want to create during the Mass. So to me, it's okay if the parish wants to have altar servers dressed up less casually (or more formally).

Hi SSSSSSS:

I agree with you and GGGG. (And no, I am not "pulling a Clinton" in saying that.) Those who serve the liturgy in any capacity should have a certain dress code. It does not have to be fancy but it should be reasonably uniform and respectable. I will respond to the rest below by interacting with GGGG's note.

ZZZZ,

Maybe you could send this one out for some advice. I teach the altar servers at my parish. I need to have a review class because the lack of reverence and appearance is, in my opinion, lacking.

I agree with this.

I mention to a catechist that I will be sending a letter out about a dress code for the altar servers and she said you will lose many altar servers for our culture has changed and she did not think that how one dresses to Mass is what is important.

Well, it is true that interior dispositions are more important than exterior ones. (The denunciations of the Pharisees come to mind here.) But that does not mean that there is not some importance in how one dresses who serves the liturgy.

Those serving the liturgy should have a dress code of some sort. It need not be all "suits and floor length dress" type but it should have some norms which are recognized and adhered to. God clearly had a dress code in mind in the OT for those who would serve the tent. (See Exodus 25-28 and Numbers 4 for details.) The same principle should hold true for those who serve a much greater altar and a much greater sacrifice now.

his is inregards to shoes verses sneakers. Anything black would be better. Red shoes? No! Red sneakers? NO Is black sneakers fine? I say black shoes, but ........... you know my delemna..

I would recommend a compromise here: black Skechers. I wear them often and have a few different pairs. One I use for the yard work and also for hiking and other sports like endeavours. (They have hiking boots type tread on them.) The other is a much cleaner and more respectable pair. I wear these with either jeans in casual attire (in normal day to day attire) or with slacks and a shirt to mass. They are very clean and well maintained and therefore can be called "respectable" if you will while not being too formal. Here is a picture for reference:

Skechers

I say, too bad, then so be it we lose those who shouldn't be up there anyway if it is such a bother to dress up for God but yet they dress up for other things.

Well, we do not want to lose people going to church. But we can approach this in a manner that is more pastoral I believe.

I understand it is a lack of education as to where they are when they come to Mass. Maybe they should all read Scott Hahns book, "The Lamb's Supper". Or listen to Fr. Larry Richards tape on "The Mass Explained", from the Mary Foundation. He is great!

These are good ideas though they should of course not be imposed on kids or else they will not do them. (Or if they do they will do so haphazardly.) The key is to present them in a way that the kids will do them and think that they came to the idea themselves. It is an axiom in sales that the best salesmen will stay out of the way of a sale and try to get the customer to sell themselves. I see no reason to not try this with the kids.

I am open to hearing other sincere Catholic's opinions as to the best approach to this. My tough way might be correct but be the wrong approach.

Thanks, your advice will be taken seriously, HELP!!!!

This was an area that was particularly difficult for me for a few reasons. When I attended SSPX masses, I was always amongst the "middle of the road" dresscode wise except initially when I started attending as a young adult when I wore sleeveless shirts and jeans. But for most of my tenure there, that was the approach taken.

My basic modus opperandi was that there used to be a dichotomy between "Sunday best" and other clothes because people generally could only afford a few changes of clothing that were suitable for mass. (The rest were work clothes or other kinds of clothing which were clearly not proper for church.)

Today people can often afford a variety of clothes and there is not the same clear division between "Sunday clothes" and "other clothes" as there used to be. That is one reason though it does not explain why some people wear clothes with holes in them or stains, etc. I will get to that in a moment.

When I wore jeans, they were always black{1}and also a neat pair without any holes or any other perforations. When I wore slacks - which I gradually began wearing with greater frequency until that was all I would wear - they were with either sweaters or at least presentable shirts.

I noticed when I stopped attending SSPX masses and resumed communion with the Church that I was often among the best dressed people at the church. I was shocked to see people showing up in torn tee-shirts, yard clothes, or other such attire. I remember this one time a woman sat across one of the aisles in a mini-skirt and it was very difficult for me to focus on the mass.

I had a period in short where I was taking an "I am so much better dressed than these people" attitude. It was not until later when I was starting some general abridgments of my treatise and expanding the section on communion in the hand when I had to confront this attitude which I was not aware that I had. It was particularly when I started adding some material on the attitude of partiality that many "trads" have on this subject - referencing James 2:1-9. That is when it hit me that I was doing nothing differently with the dress code issue.

Is it true that people should dress reasonably well for mass??? Yes it is. Can I know the general dispositions of the individuals involved??? No I cannot. And thus it was very possible that they could be the one saying "have mercy on me the sinner" while I was saying "I thank thee Lord that unlike many of these people I know how to dress for mass" (cf. Luke 18:9-14).Ignorance can account for some of it but there are, I would argue, a diversity of other factors involved as well. But that does not detract from the subject of dress codes for those serving mass in some function.

Those serving some function such as altar server, extraordinary minister, lector, usher, collection gatherer, those who bring up the gifts, etc. should have some dress code. It need not be too stringent but it should have some areas which are definite and non-negotiable. I say this for two reasons (i) they are serving the liturgy and therefore should reflect this in their dispositions and (ii) the example set here could eventually trickle down to those in the pews who are capable of dressing better.

Anyway, that is MHO on the matter FWIW.

Note:

{1} The reason for black was because (i) I am not exactly the most colour coordinated person by nature and (ii) virtually anything will go with black and therefore, it was not difficult to mix colours this way.

Miscellaneous Links from the "Other Blogs"

These are some recent additions to my other weblogs in recent days - starting with a lengthy and detailed response to Kevin Tierney written over a week ago. (And an Addendum written a few days ago when tweaking the longer piece a bit to remove HTML glitches.)

Responsum ad Kevin Tierney

Addendum to the Responsum


My fellow Inquisitor F. John Loughnan recently posted some Common Fallacies of RadTrads that are worth a read. And Gregg the Obscure and Apolonio have also posted posts of interest to the Inquisition very recently. (In the case of Apolonio the texts of some dialogues he is involved with at the moment.)

The Miscellaneous BLOG has also been updated. I decided to post some proposed working definitions for the terms "conservative" and "conservatism" based on how they were once used - and should be used again. Go HERE for details.

[Update: It bears noting that the coarser tonalities in the threads written in response to Kevin Tierney above should not be taken as a measuring stick for our dialogues as a rule. Indeed, things have generally been amicable between us since if not late 2003 than at least early 2004 where we had some very informative (on both sides) dialogues on church and state issues, the proposition of workable remedies for the problems in modern society, a dialogue on the role of law in a just society, etc. The reader is therefore asked to kindly consider the tenor of those dialogues to represent the rule in our dialogues and the above mid 2003 LEI threads to be the exception to the rule. --ISM 3/10/05 10:30am]

A Rerum Novarum Update:

As I updated the archive links on the main page over the weekend, it seemed appropriate to put together an update of the page. So with that in mind, I started throwing bits and pieces from the archive into a list and looked over material of the past three months for possible additions. The primary goal was to add to categories I had not updated in a while but some recent posts seemed worth posting too so I did that as well.

Generally I do not like to put up posts that are less than two weeks old but there were a few necessary exceptions to the rule here. (One was the series on obedience and the other was my Canada post from yesterday.) There was also the need to reclassify some weblogs and add some of the ones I had been monitoring for some time with the intention to add. But without further ado, let us get to it.

On the War:

This category was retitled On the Recent War and War in General. That way, it is a fitting category for future musings on the subjects of war, just war theory, etc. Here are the additions to the newly retitled category.

On the Reagan Administration's Foreign Policy in the Middle East in Light of the Recent Wars

War Musings on Possible Media Sedition

Iwo Jima Tribute. Delivered by Lieutenant Roland B. Gittelsohn (Iwo Jima War Chaplin) from Uncommon Valor copyright 1946 by the Infantry Journal. (With prefatory commentary by I. Shawn McElhinney.)

On Church Authority:

On New Ultramontanism With Lane Core Jr.

On "Traditionalism" Falsely So-Called:

De-baiting Tactics and Follies Common to Pseudo-Traditionalists and Anti-Catholics

Ferrara's Follies I: On the Mystical Body, Communion Ecclesiology, and Common "Trad" Misinterpretations of the (Supposedly) "Perspicuous" Pius XII/Leo XIII Magisteriums

Ferrara's Follies II: On Communion Ecclesiology, the Mystery of the Church in Dominus Iesus, and Additional Theologically Specious Arguments

On "Traditionalism" Properly So-Called:

Dialogue With a Fellow Catholic With Sympathies to Some of the "Traditionalist" Weltanschauung

On Controverted Subjects:

Canada "Slouches Towards Gommorah" (A "PG-13" Weblog Post)

Blogs Reclassified:

The Old Catholic Light BLOG

Jeff Culbreath's Old El Camino Real BLOG

New Approved Websites:

The Ratzinger Fan Club Website - Christopher Blosser

The Catholic Exchange Website - Various Contributors

New Blogs:

The (New) Catholic Light BLOG

Jeff Culbreath's (New) El Camino Real BLOG

The Ratzinger Fanclub BLOG

Alicia Huntley's Fructus Ventris BLOG

Approved Weblogs of a Predominantly Political Nature:

This section was retitled Approved Weblogs of a Predominantly Political/Social Nature and to the list was added the following:

The Volokh Conspiracy BLOG

Spiritual Instruction:

Spiritual Instruction on Traditional Obedience (Parts I-XIV)


Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest:

Richard Dunn McElhinney (RIP)

There was really no other place to put one of the two links on this without recasting the template. I may do that in the future but until then, the link will remain under this classification.

Cigar Smoker's FAQ

In adding the above link, the original additional comments to Jeff Culbreath's Why I Smoke a Pipe essay link were abridged.

And so by virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that the above links are approved and remain stable and valid in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Will Moral People Fiddle While Canada Burns???"

Monitum: This contains themes which are not suitable for children. - ISM

They say one of the most effective weapons is parody. Therefore, I will open this post with a parody which borrows generously from rocker Neil Young's song "Alabama." Usually I intend for these things to be somewhat funny but this one is not intended as such.

Oh Can-a-da
The devil fools with the best laid plan.
Swing low Can-a-da
You got spare change
You got to feel strange
And now the moment is all that it meant.

Can-a-da, you got a weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your mor-al-i-ty has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track

Oh Can-a-da
Per-ver-sion seeps in a leg-is-la-tive
Bill down in Can-a-da.
See rel-i-gious folks charged with a hate crime
Feel the sink-ing.
Into a grave of slime?

Can-a-da, you got a weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your mor-al-i-ty has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track

Oh Can-a-da.
I will not see you nor shake your hand.
My poor brethren up in Can-a-da.
I'm from a new land
I look to you and
See all this ruin
What are you doing Can-a-da?

You'll have no morals left over to help you along
What's going wrong?

What is going tragically (and I would argue fatally) wrong with the land of Pete Vere, John Pacheco, and Mark Cameron??? Well, I will let these gentlemen tell you in their own words - starting with my good friend Pete Vere in an article he has submitted for publication in The Wanderer. Here is the text in full:

O Canada!
Our Homosexualist Land?

Pete Vere, JCL

As a Canadian living in the United States, a number of things make me homesick for the Great White North. Off the top of my head, I can think of St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal, French-Canadian culture in Quebec and moose-meat in Northern Ontario. There are also my buddies among the Catholic apologetics scene in Ottawa, where I first cut my teeth as a Catholic writer while studying canon law.

So while surfing the internet the other day, I dropped by Catholic-Legate.com to check in on the gang back home. Rather than make me feel homesick, however, what I read at the website simply made me feel sick. I now live in America and the majority of The Wanderer's readership is American. Under the present circumstances, this is a good thing since it affords me the protection of the First Amendment. Yet as one of Canada’s most popular websites of Catholic apologetics, Catholic-Legate enjoys no such protection. For if Canada’s political institutions get their way, Catholic-Legate could soon become one of many religious websites targeted under new hate crime legislation being railroaded through the Canadian legislature. How I long for the religious sensibility and moral self-restraint of the Clinton administration in comparison to those who have hijacked the Canadian political system!

Let me explain a little. This is the same political regime that recently ordered the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists. Their crime? Publishing an advertisement quoting verses from Holy Scripture. According to LifeSiteNews.com: "The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behaviour. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10..."

Svend Robinson, a member of the Canadian parliament, is now following up on this ruling that criminalizes the Natural Law. He has introduced Bill C-250 before the Canadian legislature, which potentially makes speaking out against "sexual orientation" a hate crime. Mr. Robinson, for our American audience, is Canada's first openly homosexual member of parliament. Not surprisingly, he also belongs to Canada's openly socialist party. Even Monica Lewinsky would blush in modest embarrassment with some of Mr. Robinson’s past reported shenanigans.

Perhaps this is why the Canadian federal government will not be appealing a recent judicial decision of Ontario’s highest court – a decision legalizing so-called marriage for homosexual couples. "The existing common law definition of marriage violates the couple's equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under [the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]," this ruling stated.

And what about the proposed definition of "sexual orientation"? According to Catholic-Legate, "It was reported that Beth Phinney, Liberal MP for Hamilton Mountain, was in a meeting with a constituent concerning the implications of C-250. Ms. Phinney was asked if the term ‘sexual orientation’ included heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, trisexual, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, sadomasochism, etc? The constituent was quite disturbed when this Liberal MP confirmed that 'all of these sexual behaviours would be included under the category of sexual orientation'." Within the context of the Natural Law this strikes me more as a practical definition of sexual disorientation.

Fortunately, I now live in America. The First Amendment protects my religious freedom to express my opinion in the media – even from the long wrist of Svend Robinson. North of the boarder, however, my friend Chris Beneteau may not find himself so lucky in the future.

"Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant," Chris writes in one particularly pointed Catholic-Legate commentary. "Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals can both choose to avoid sexual behaviours (such as sodomy) which the weight of scientific evidence suggest are dangerous and potentially fatal. [...] It is one thing for people to do whatever they want behind closed doors, yet it is another thing to force the rest of society to embrace the behaviours. While I agree that the government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, I also do not think that they should open the doors and force us to peek in."

I fear even more for John Pacheco, both the founder of Catholic-Legate and the Godfather to my daughter Angela. "Over the past few years," John writes, "religious freedom in this country has come under increasing attack by a wicked and perverse judiciary with an anti-life, anti-religious political agenda. All people of Faith need to band together, and fight this menace head on [...] To our Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish counterparts, please help us protect the sanctity of the human family and the dignity of marriage!

"Bill C-250 would add 'sexual orientation' to the list of protected classes in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code which could criminalize any criticisms of homosexuality or homosexual activity. This could be used to threaten with prosecution...any church that holds homosexual activities to be disordered and immoral; or any citizen who simply philosophically disagrees with the legal, financial or employment 'rights' being sought by gay lobbying group (e.g. adoption, spousal benefits, marriage status, etc.). It could lead to parts of the Bible being labeled 'hate literature' and references made to them in church statements or homilies as propagating hate.

"As a Roman Catholic Apologist, I consider this legislation to be a direct assault on my freedom of speech and my Constitutional right to practice my religion. The persons who are propagating such insidious legislation are engaging in religious persecution. What is the government going to do? Ban the Bible from the country? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is the government going to start arresting Catholic priests who cite the Catechism in rejecting the homosexual lifestyle?

Love the sinner, but hate the sin. As Catholics, Christ calls us to love our homosexual neighbor and seek the salvation of his soul. We accomplish this task in exhorting those affected by this disorder to live chastely within the boundaries of the Natural Law. Unfortunately, this new piece of proposed Canadian legislation fails to take this distinction into account. Which is not surprising when, in the process of accommodating an ivory-basement judiciary that dissents from our traditional Judeo-Christian morality, our Canadian politicians confuse the boundaries between decriminalization, legalization, and the criminalization of the Natural Law.

The same Chris Beneteau Pete refers to wrote the following Letter to the Editor for the Kingston Whig Standard:

After reading the intollerant letters to the editor by Lin Bennett, Chris Couper, and Pat and Allison Gray, I felt that I must come to the defence of Karen Lahey.

The issue of the homosexual person should be left out of the debate. We are all called to tolerate and love all of our neighbours, yet this does not mean that we have to accept and approve of every single behaviour in the name of open-mindedness. For example, sodomy or anal intercourse is a very important part of the male homosexual experience. And this just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other behaviours that are both shocking and extremely dangerous. All one has to do is watch the annual gay pride parade in Toronto to see these behaviours on display. Unfortunately however, many heterosexuals engage in the same behaviours. Should I be considered 'hateful' because I believe oral sex to be degrading and an assault on the dignity of the human person?

Is it 'close-minded' of me to deplore sado-masochism? Am I to be considered 'heterophobic' as well as 'homophobic' because I abhor these and other behaviours? If so, then I wear these words as badges of honor.

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals can both choose to avoid sexual behaviours (such as sodomy) which the weight of scientific evidence suggest are dangerous and potentially fatal. If homosexuals and heterosexuals choose to engage in these behaviours that is their own business, but don't expect me to encourage or support the perpetuation of these behaviours.

It is for this reason that I, like Karen Lahey, would never support curriculum materials for children that presents homosexual and heterosexual perversions as being morally acceptable. Society places value judgements on all forms of human behaviour, so why are sexual behaviours exempt?

It is one thing for people to do whatever they want behind closed doors, yet it is another thing to force the rest of society to embrace the behaviours. While I agree that the government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, I also do not think that they should open the doors and force us to peek in.

Mark Cameron has not blogged in about a week and a half. I cannot imagine he would let this go by without comment so when he blogs on the subject, We at Rerum Novarum will bring that to you. In the meantime, let us close this entry with two very powerful website letters from our good friend John Pacheco.


Marlene Catterall, MP Ottawa West

Dear Ms. Catterall:

I am writing to you to express my outrage at the imminent passage of Bill C-250 which seeks to include"sexual orientation" in the Criminal Code. As you are surely aware, Bill C-250 would add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code which could criminalize any criticisms of homosexuality or homosexual activity. This could be used to threaten with prosecution any psychologist who holds homosexuality to be a pathological condition that may be treated; any church that holds homosexual activities to be disordered and immoral; or any citizen whosimply philosophically disagrees with the legal, financial or employment "rights" being sought by gay lobbying group (e.g. adoption, spousal benefits, marriage status, etc.). It could lead to parts of the Bible being labeled "hate literature" and references made to them in church statements or homilies as propagating hate.

As a Roman Catholic Apologist, I consider this legislation to be a direct assault on my freedom of speech and my Constitutional right to practice my religion. The persons who are propagating such insidious legislation are engaging in religious persecution. What is the government going to do, Ms. Catterall? Ban the bible from the country? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is it going to start arresting Catholic priests who cite the Catechism in rejecting the homosexual lifestyle? Here is the citation of the Catechism that deals with homosexuality:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC, 2357)

As I am your constituent, I respectfully ask that you indicate to me whether you support this legislation. I also want to know whether you will support the persecution of FAITHFUL Catholics and other people of Faith. Please, no games. I want straight answers (no pun intended).

I am not asking you to agree with the teaching, Ms. Catterall. I am asking you whether faithful Catholics are going to be persecuted for their religious convictions. Are you going to ask the authorities to come and arrest a Catholic father of 2 young children who speaks out against such a self-destructive lifestyle? If you are, then I'll save you the hassle of locating him. Come and get me.

Yours truly,

John Pacheco
Catholic Apologist

And the latest entry on this subject from John:

Fight Dammit

We've been granted a reprieve until September. The militant homosexuals did not get all of the pie, just a good chunk of it. They've been successful in ramming "homosexual marriage" through the courts, but they didn't get "sexual orientation" added to the Criminal code as a "hate crime" - at least not until the Fall session of Parliament.

While the forces of darkness seem overwhelming, we have to keep in mind that this fight is already over. Jesus has won the fight over Satan and the forces of darkness. The only thing left to do is sort out the details. My brothers and sisters, we have an opportunity here to witness to the Catholic faith like no time in our country's history. As strange as it seems, as the perversion and distortion engulf us, "grace abounds the more". It is at this hour that the Holy Spirit strengthens His people to rise up and meet the dragon head on. The Archangel Michael and his legion are preparing us for the sacrifice that lies ahead. Our Lady is there with him. Are we ready?

This is our hour. This is our chance to witness and suffer for Our Blessed Lord and be united with His suffering on the cross. Pinned there with Him, sharing in His crucifixion, uniting ourselves to the truth itself. One body, one Spirit. To be martyrs for our faith. This is what it is all about. "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." (Matthew 24:9) Bring it on. Because that is when the rubber meets the road. Where the pretenders go to their place and the contenders go to theirs. It's time to fight. No more politicians or lawyers; no more bureaucrats or fencesitters; no more negotiators or facilitators; no more judas-bishops or rainbow-vested priests. The pretense is gone. All of the illusions are being stripped away. The game of double-speak and diplomacy are over. It's time for straight talk and then action.

Please pray one Hail Mary for me as I beseech and beg the Lord to show me what I must do in this battle. Whether large or small, we all need to take up our Christian responsibility and stand for the truth.

It's time to fight, dammit. This means you.

St. Joseph, patron saint of our country, forget us not, but intercede for us!

St. Michael, prince of the heavenly host, defend us in this day of battle!

- John Pacheco

Those of us who were critical of the Babylon that was the Clinton Administration and thought at times that "it cannot get worse", oh yes it can!!!{1} And our brethren in Canada - including my father's step brother and his family - are in the midst of it all. They need our prayers and support.

One thing that would perhaps help is a financial boycott. If enough people in America can put their names on a letter to the Canadian legislature pledging to never knowingly buy any goods or services from Canada again if this passes, that may (sadly enough) carry more weight than the moral arguments themselves.

The secularists are not religious except insofar as materialism is their religion. So the only way to piss on what they hold as sacred is to do it through the currency. Money does talk and with some people it is the only voice they can hear. In courts of law they have what are called "hostile witnesses." In this case, let us use the dollar as one for the cause of foundational morals.{2}

Notes:

{1} What is happening in Canada is FAR worse than the national security compromises in Chinagate and the abduction of over 1,000 FBI files of political opponents in Filegate. (The Lewinsky incident was peanuts compared to these two which were easily much more impeachable offenses.)

{2} Because, if this passes, Canada as a nation is going to become the next Sodom and Gommorah. At least in America we have laws against this kind of thing for the time being. (Though there are psychiatric associations in America who are trying to reclassify pedophilia as acceptable behaviour.)

There is an old saying that my father used to use in situations like this. It goes similar to the following:

"When they came for the Jews, as I was not a Jew, I did not speak up. When they came for the Muslims, as I was not a Muslim, I did not speak up. When they came for the Catholics, as I was not a Catholic, I did not speak up. When they came for the Protestants, as I was not a Protestant, I did not speak up. When they came for the religious polytheists, as I was not a religious polytheist, I did not speak up. Now they are coming for me and there is no one left to speak up for me."

Well my friends, this principle applies as well to nations as it does to religions. And it is not out of line to say that "they are coming for the Canadians." Do I really have to say anything more than that???