Lord Blackadder
What smashing Blackadder character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Saturday, February 07, 2004
"Pope John Paul II" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
John S. Grabowski back in the mid 1990's wrote an article for the Homiletic and Pastoral Review which on the whole is quite good. His article was titled Evangelium Vitae and Humanae Vitae: A tale of two encyclicals. That article can be read HERE.
The basis of the article is the theory that Pope John Paul II has had as a hallmark of his approach to teaching moving from the language of natural law to more explicitly biblical categories{1} across the broad spectrum of moral subjects.{2} As this article touches primarily on the subject of contraception, let us briefly review the recent history of the Church's handling of this subject starting with Leo XIII and moving through to the present day.
As I noted earlier, Pope Leo XIII was pope at the time when the world's population began exploding due to overcoming the death rate in many areas. As people did not know how to handle this situation, it was not uncommon for them to resort to using contraceptive methods to deal with it. (Even in some cases abortion.) The manner whereby the Holy See handled this is interesting considering the approach that many self-styled "traditionalists" who like to throw around the "2000 years of history" moniker over every mid 1950's approach that they happen to like.{3}
Let us consider how the Church's handling of this issue changed in just a hundred and twenty odd years of time at least three times starting with Pope Leo XIII's pontificate circa 1880.
Despite what we noted above, Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical letter on Christian marriage (Arcanum) which never once mentioned artificial contraception at all. Those readers who think it was because the Vatican was not aware of these goings-on reveal that they do not really know their history well. The Vatican was well aware of it. Indeed the Vatican despite these occurrences, resolutely did not want confessors asking married penitents about their birth control practices. They viewed this as "disturbing the faithful" and that such a broad frontal assault on this error would only make matters worse. They therefore sought more indirect approaches to the problem.
The Holy Office in this time period issued a couple of instructions on the manner of handling this subject. The men who instructed confessors on how to handle penitents (including St. John Vianney the Cure of Ars) reiterated this approach in their catechesis. As I noted above, the reason for this was that the Vatican wanted to approach this from the standpoint of respecting the consciences of the penitents and working through indirect means to form that conscience. This is often how the Church operates in situations of difficulty.{4} And that was how the Church approached the subject of contraception up to 1930.
Prior to 1930, all Christian churches and ecclesial communities rejected artificial contraception as evil so the only approach used was one of exhorting people to chastity in essence (and trying to influence those who resorted to birth control in indirect ways to properly form their consciences). Because of the unified stand of Christendom with Judaism and Islam on this subject, there was plenty of cultural reinforcement on the matter. All of that changed in 1930 with the Anglican Lambeth Conference when the Anglicans became the first Christian community to allow contraception. That opened the floodgate.
The Church was now going to have to approach this subject differently as a result. Pope Pius XI decided to ground the Church's teaching on arguments from natural law. Hence he issued the Encyclical Letter Casti Connubi on the last day of 1930 and took this approach to the subject. That was a stronger base of defense against artificial contraception than had been previously utilized. Pope Pius XI and his successors began appealing to natural law on this and various other subjects. Up until about 1960, this argument was still viewed as sound but then it quickly started to unravel. The reason: the birth control pill which for various reasons undermined the foundation of the "natural law" appeal in defending the Church's teaching on this subject. At that point, every other moral subject which in the decades prior to Vatican II had been grounded on "natural law" theory began to unravel as well. All of this to some extent is dealt with in the article above.
Grabowski covers the Church's changes in approach to this subject from 1930 to 1996 in his article. (They have not changed since then.) Except for the fact that he completely misses the boat on the subject of infallibility and its various applications (which is par for the course these days unfortunately),{5} the article is an interesting and informative read.
The only thing I would note here is that the origination of taking a personalist approach to the subject in papal teaching did not originate with Pope John Paul II. Pope Paul VI planted the seeds for it in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae. (Influenced I am sure by his advisor Cardinal Karol Wojtyla{6} on the matter.) Other than that minor oversight, it is a good and recommended read for a better understanding of how the current pope approaches all moral issues.
Notes:
{1} I say that natural law is "implicit" because it is based on St. Paul's teaching in Romans i,18ff as a logical extension of this reasoning.
{2} And he sustains this theory with several corroborates theses I might add -though not all of them are of the same effectiveness or weight.
{3} Though I must note that some who do this are not using this kind of approach to the subject to be provocative but in an honest desire to understand. One such example of this is Jeff Culbreath from El Camino Real whom readers of this humble weblog know is among our favourite blogosphere personages.
{4} Indeed Pope John Paul II's handling of the non Christians at Assisi was by the same approach: an explicit appeal to the conscience of his hearers and seeking to indirectly form that conscience through prayer (in accordance with conscience) and targeted catechesis approaches. (Such as utilizing a Pauline recapitulation of the entire theme of peace in Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.) This is why I find the shrieks of "novelty" by detractors rather amusing: they so clearly do not understand that the application to this subject is new but the methodology being undertaken is not.
{5} Grabowski's fundamental flaw here is that he does not realize that one means of handing on a teaching definitively is by reiteration. He touches on this briefly and then dismisses the argument as non-applicable. This is unfortunate because any informed theologian knows that it is the reiteration of this teaching (not the arguments used to support it) that is its grounds for definitive character.
Grabowski also does not seem to realize that a teaching does not have to be de fide to be infallible and thus compel definitive assent. Other than those points, the article is a very good and informative piece.
{6} Currently reigning as Pope John Paul II.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
John S. Grabowski back in the mid 1990's wrote an article for the Homiletic and Pastoral Review which on the whole is quite good. His article was titled Evangelium Vitae and Humanae Vitae: A tale of two encyclicals. That article can be read HERE.
The basis of the article is the theory that Pope John Paul II has had as a hallmark of his approach to teaching moving from the language of natural law to more explicitly biblical categories{1} across the broad spectrum of moral subjects.{2} As this article touches primarily on the subject of contraception, let us briefly review the recent history of the Church's handling of this subject starting with Leo XIII and moving through to the present day.
As I noted earlier, Pope Leo XIII was pope at the time when the world's population began exploding due to overcoming the death rate in many areas. As people did not know how to handle this situation, it was not uncommon for them to resort to using contraceptive methods to deal with it. (Even in some cases abortion.) The manner whereby the Holy See handled this is interesting considering the approach that many self-styled "traditionalists" who like to throw around the "2000 years of history" moniker over every mid 1950's approach that they happen to like.{3}
Let us consider how the Church's handling of this issue changed in just a hundred and twenty odd years of time at least three times starting with Pope Leo XIII's pontificate circa 1880.
Despite what we noted above, Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical letter on Christian marriage (Arcanum) which never once mentioned artificial contraception at all. Those readers who think it was because the Vatican was not aware of these goings-on reveal that they do not really know their history well. The Vatican was well aware of it. Indeed the Vatican despite these occurrences, resolutely did not want confessors asking married penitents about their birth control practices. They viewed this as "disturbing the faithful" and that such a broad frontal assault on this error would only make matters worse. They therefore sought more indirect approaches to the problem.
The Holy Office in this time period issued a couple of instructions on the manner of handling this subject. The men who instructed confessors on how to handle penitents (including St. John Vianney the Cure of Ars) reiterated this approach in their catechesis. As I noted above, the reason for this was that the Vatican wanted to approach this from the standpoint of respecting the consciences of the penitents and working through indirect means to form that conscience. This is often how the Church operates in situations of difficulty.{4} And that was how the Church approached the subject of contraception up to 1930.
Prior to 1930, all Christian churches and ecclesial communities rejected artificial contraception as evil so the only approach used was one of exhorting people to chastity in essence (and trying to influence those who resorted to birth control in indirect ways to properly form their consciences). Because of the unified stand of Christendom with Judaism and Islam on this subject, there was plenty of cultural reinforcement on the matter. All of that changed in 1930 with the Anglican Lambeth Conference when the Anglicans became the first Christian community to allow contraception. That opened the floodgate.
The Church was now going to have to approach this subject differently as a result. Pope Pius XI decided to ground the Church's teaching on arguments from natural law. Hence he issued the Encyclical Letter Casti Connubi on the last day of 1930 and took this approach to the subject. That was a stronger base of defense against artificial contraception than had been previously utilized. Pope Pius XI and his successors began appealing to natural law on this and various other subjects. Up until about 1960, this argument was still viewed as sound but then it quickly started to unravel. The reason: the birth control pill which for various reasons undermined the foundation of the "natural law" appeal in defending the Church's teaching on this subject. At that point, every other moral subject which in the decades prior to Vatican II had been grounded on "natural law" theory began to unravel as well. All of this to some extent is dealt with in the article above.
Grabowski covers the Church's changes in approach to this subject from 1930 to 1996 in his article. (They have not changed since then.) Except for the fact that he completely misses the boat on the subject of infallibility and its various applications (which is par for the course these days unfortunately),{5} the article is an interesting and informative read.
The only thing I would note here is that the origination of taking a personalist approach to the subject in papal teaching did not originate with Pope John Paul II. Pope Paul VI planted the seeds for it in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae. (Influenced I am sure by his advisor Cardinal Karol Wojtyla{6} on the matter.) Other than that minor oversight, it is a good and recommended read for a better understanding of how the current pope approaches all moral issues.
Notes:
{1} I say that natural law is "implicit" because it is based on St. Paul's teaching in Romans i,18ff as a logical extension of this reasoning.
{2} And he sustains this theory with several corroborates theses I might add -though not all of them are of the same effectiveness or weight.
{3} Though I must note that some who do this are not using this kind of approach to the subject to be provocative but in an honest desire to understand. One such example of this is Jeff Culbreath from El Camino Real whom readers of this humble weblog know is among our favourite blogosphere personages.
{4} Indeed Pope John Paul II's handling of the non Christians at Assisi was by the same approach: an explicit appeal to the conscience of his hearers and seeking to indirectly form that conscience through prayer (in accordance with conscience) and targeted catechesis approaches. (Such as utilizing a Pauline recapitulation of the entire theme of peace in Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.) This is why I find the shrieks of "novelty" by detractors rather amusing: they so clearly do not understand that the application to this subject is new but the methodology being undertaken is not.
{5} Grabowski's fundamental flaw here is that he does not realize that one means of handing on a teaching definitively is by reiteration. He touches on this briefly and then dismisses the argument as non-applicable. This is unfortunate because any informed theologian knows that it is the reiteration of this teaching (not the arguments used to support it) that is its grounds for definitive character.
Grabowski also does not seem to realize that a teaching does not have to be de fide to be infallible and thus compel definitive assent. Other than those points, the article is a very good and informative piece.
{6} Currently reigning as Pope John Paul II.
The Alternative to War
From PLO Terrorist to Lover of Zion
The above links are courtesy of Little Green Footballs.
From PLO Terrorist to Lover of Zion
The above links are courtesy of Little Green Footballs.
Friday, February 06, 2004
We at Rerum Novarum take great pleasure to announce that Our good friend Dave Armstrong is now part of the blogosphere officially. His weblog will be added to the margin of links in the coming days but in the interim, you can view it HERE. Let Us be the first to say "welcome to St. Blogs Dave." We look forward to future blog discussions on...well...whatever either of us wants to muse on.
Further Reflections and a Clarification:
(Viz. the Joint Statements of Rerum Novarum and SecretAgentMan's Dossier)
During the past couple of weeks, We at Rerum Novarum in conjunction with the Dossier had occasion to comment jointly on the lamentable acrimony which had sprung up between two of our favorite Christian commentators on the Internet. We also made a short clarifying blog some days later, imploring our friends not to take the original commentary as a casus belli. We sincerely believe, and continue to believe, the truth of what we pointed out in the original commentary (a/k/a "Appeal to the Warring Houses of Montague and Capulet") and in the fairness and aptness of what we wrote in it.
However, on reflection one point should be made that has not, as yet, been made. We spent a good deal of time writing about why we believe the Capulet and Montague cannot get along with one another. We spent little, if any, time explaining our broader perspective that their lapses are -- while having unique aspects in their specific case -- still examples of failings which commonly plague men involved in passionate discourse. Not to put too fine a point on it, their faults have not caused them to do anything which has no examples of their own in our experiences.
Each of us has encountered individuals with whom, for some reason which seems inexplicable to us, civil discourse is extremely difficult if not impossible, even though our interlocutors seemed to get along fine with virtually everyone we and they know. This is not the time or place to expound on those affairs; having already judged our two friends, it is not meet that we should be the first to issue a judgment on ourselves. Others, if there is need, should be respectfully permitted the first opportunity to examine our misdeeds, just as we have taken on ourselves first opportunity to examine the misdeeds of our two friends.
It is enough that we say clearly that we do not believe our friends are guilty in areas where we ourselves are blameless, and note that our original commentary drew upon our experiences as well as on more abstract sources. We note this publicly in the event that there was any confusion on this matter to thereby dissipate it henceforth in perpetuity.
(Viz. the Joint Statements of Rerum Novarum and SecretAgentMan's Dossier)
During the past couple of weeks, We at Rerum Novarum in conjunction with the Dossier had occasion to comment jointly on the lamentable acrimony which had sprung up between two of our favorite Christian commentators on the Internet. We also made a short clarifying blog some days later, imploring our friends not to take the original commentary as a casus belli. We sincerely believe, and continue to believe, the truth of what we pointed out in the original commentary (a/k/a "Appeal to the Warring Houses of Montague and Capulet") and in the fairness and aptness of what we wrote in it.
However, on reflection one point should be made that has not, as yet, been made. We spent a good deal of time writing about why we believe the Capulet and Montague cannot get along with one another. We spent little, if any, time explaining our broader perspective that their lapses are -- while having unique aspects in their specific case -- still examples of failings which commonly plague men involved in passionate discourse. Not to put too fine a point on it, their faults have not caused them to do anything which has no examples of their own in our experiences.
Each of us has encountered individuals with whom, for some reason which seems inexplicable to us, civil discourse is extremely difficult if not impossible, even though our interlocutors seemed to get along fine with virtually everyone we and they know. This is not the time or place to expound on those affairs; having already judged our two friends, it is not meet that we should be the first to issue a judgment on ourselves. Others, if there is need, should be respectfully permitted the first opportunity to examine our misdeeds, just as we have taken on ourselves first opportunity to examine the misdeeds of our two friends.
It is enough that we say clearly that we do not believe our friends are guilty in areas where we ourselves are blameless, and note that our original commentary drew upon our experiences as well as on more abstract sources. We note this publicly in the event that there was any confusion on this matter to thereby dissipate it henceforth in perpetuity.
"Hap-py Birth-day Ron-ald-us Mag-nus" Dept.
At this time I want to refer you back to what I posted a year ago today on this subject: a tribute, parts of a speech that is more relevant today than it was forty years ago when Reagan delivered it, etc. There is also a bit of an "I told you so" to my good friend Lane Core Jr. who was at the time going along with the commentators who were trying to claim that Bush was the second coming of Reagan. I had nipped that theory in the bud earlier that year but Bush himself has confuted that theory better than anything I said on the matter. (Not to diminish my own arguments on the matter.) I have to ask you Lane, do you still want to make that claim??? Inquiring minds want to know.
Have a happy birthday President Reagan and may you see upon your death -which is probably not long from now- the countenance of the Lamb of God saying to you "well done good and faithful servant" for the tremendous work you did in upholding the banner of authentic liberty in one of the periods of history where it was in serious danger of being snuffed out. Your successors have not measured up to you but you established a benchmark of sorts to aim for in rolling back the forces of tyranny. Thank you for that and for your influence on my own intellectual formation.
At this time I want to refer you back to what I posted a year ago today on this subject: a tribute, parts of a speech that is more relevant today than it was forty years ago when Reagan delivered it, etc. There is also a bit of an "I told you so" to my good friend Lane Core Jr. who was at the time going along with the commentators who were trying to claim that Bush was the second coming of Reagan. I had nipped that theory in the bud earlier that year but Bush himself has confuted that theory better than anything I said on the matter. (Not to diminish my own arguments on the matter.) I have to ask you Lane, do you still want to make that claim??? Inquiring minds want to know.
Have a happy birthday President Reagan and may you see upon your death -which is probably not long from now- the countenance of the Lamb of God saying to you "well done good and faithful servant" for the tremendous work you did in upholding the banner of authentic liberty in one of the periods of history where it was in serious danger of being snuffed out. Your successors have not measured up to you but you established a benchmark of sorts to aim for in rolling back the forces of tyranny. Thank you for that and for your influence on my own intellectual formation.
Weblog Writings Update:
I just heard from 'Matt1618' the other day -whose site hosts so many of the web writings of your humble servant. He informed me that the advertisements no longer pop up at his site anymore; ergo those who had problems with the ads before should not have problems in that area anymore. This is something that Matt has been trying to get done for over six months or more -due for the most part to the increasingly unCatholic ads that were appearing in banners at the top of the articles.
I do not not know how he finally did it (being a computer sub-competent person as I am) but nonetheless it is done and that problem is no longer a problem now. He suggested that if you go to an article and see an ad to clear your cache. Then try again and the ads should be absent.
I just heard from 'Matt1618' the other day -whose site hosts so many of the web writings of your humble servant. He informed me that the advertisements no longer pop up at his site anymore; ergo those who had problems with the ads before should not have problems in that area anymore. This is something that Matt has been trying to get done for over six months or more -due for the most part to the increasingly unCatholic ads that were appearing in banners at the top of the articles.
I do not not know how he finally did it (being a computer sub-competent person as I am) but nonetheless it is done and that problem is no longer a problem now. He suggested that if you go to an article and see an ad to clear your cache. Then try again and the ads should be absent.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand:
(A Dialogue)
My words in this exchange will be in regular font with all sources in darkblue font. My previous words in purple font. All other words will be from the one who sent me this email -their sources in the same font but italicized.
Hi XXXXX:
I will probably blog a version of this to Rerum Novarum because (i) I do not like to as a rule muse without the weblog and (ii) this exchange does allow me to clarify some points on these matters. However, your name will be omitted for confidentiality sake.
Well, that may be true but the US is frankly hypocritical in its stand on Iraq in light of the moral degeneracy that we allow. If I was a Muslim living in the Middle East and I saw what the United States was exporting to my people, I would probably join Al Queda too. The idea that the Muslims are rejecting westernization" in the realm of technology and the like is bunk. They are rejecting the immorality element being exported to them. They do not want their daughters to become sluts and their wives to become paramours.
Shawn, I am actually surprised that you would use this argument. Following the line of reasoning you posit here about if you were a Muslim living in the Middle East you would probably join Al Qaeda, due to the immorality the US exports, you would have to say that if you were a Catholic living in the US, you would probably join SSPX or some other schismatic or heretical group because of all the sexual abuse scandals and the refusal of the bishops to really do something substantive about it. You would also have to say, viz. the same line of reasoning, that the Church is being hypocritical preaching chastity while all this is going on.
To take your points in sequence:
1) I was in fact affiliated with the SSPX for about fifteen years -and some of it was due to what you note above about the weakness of the bishops in addressing abuses in their dioceses. However, every movement has its extremists.
Al Queda just happens to be the extremists of the Muslim contingent. And to some Muslims undoubtedly, they are a means in their minds to achieving an end of western corruption in their societies. Remember, the dictum that "the end does not justify the means" is part of Catholic moral principles, not Muslim moral principles. Hence, I can say that if I was a Muslim I could act as I noted there and probably would. But as a Catholic I cannot.
The same is the case with the death penalty: if I was not a Catholic I would be railing for hangings at high noon every day. But as I am, I do not do these things.
2) If I took your stand I would have to weigh in against America for the monumental abuses to the Constitution that happen daily. As per the faith, GK Chesterton noted once that "Christianity is not tried and found wanting, it was not tried" and that is the problem with the scandals you refer to as well as the problems on the political landscape that you see. The root problem in both cases is the same.
You and I know damned well that Al Qaeda's beef with us has nothing to do with moral degeneracy we allow or our exportation of it. Al Qaeda attracts some of the worst moral reprobates, not only in terms of their penchant for violence, but also in their sexual proclivities, to its ranks.
So does the ultra-ultra-fringe of the radtrads. Did you know there are cults on the fringes of "traditionalism" that actually exempt their leaders from the moral code of Catholicism by a "special dispensation from God" or a "special dispensation of the Blessed Virgin"??? This is par for the course with the ultra-ultra fringes of any movement and Al Queda is the ultra-ultra fringe of militant Islam.
We now know that some of the 9/11 hijackers were in nudie bars getting drunk...just days before the attacks. I guess you can say that they were just warming up for the 72 virgins in paradise.
I never said that there was a lacuna of hypocrisy amongst the ultra-ultra fringe of militant Islam.
Actually, the rejection of westernization in the realm of technology on the part of radical Muslims DOES have some credibility when you consider the rather squalored conditions the Taliban forced the Afghani people to live in.
True.
Furthermore, they don't have to worry about us turning their daughters into sluts and and wives into paramours. They already beat us to it. Look at the way women are treated in Muslim cultures. If men being able to have harems is not turning their daughters into sluts and wives into paramours, nothing is.
Well, you are essentially casting aspersions on the Old Testament Patriarchs for doing the same thing then. Since Abraham, Jacob, David, and others are saints in our tradition. Yet all of them had multiple wives -in David's case about five hundred of them. If merely having many wives means that one is turning them into paramours then God sanctioned David doing this. (See 2 Samuel xii,7-8.) I would revise your argument for that reason my friend.
To add insult to injury, the women are forced to dress completely veiled to give the whole thing an appearance of modesty (Now granted, one is tempted to want to give Hiilary Clinton and Patricia Ireland a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia for a little attitude adjustment and that Monica Lewinsky would look more attractive in a burhka than a thong, but that's beside the point.)
I concur with both points there :)
America, despite its serious moral problems, doesn't have the drop on the Islamic Middle East in the immorality department.
We promote artificial contraception, abortion, and euthanasia as sacraments. Need I say more???
Furthermore, I think the US, again, despite its own grave faults, is morally superior to the naysaying anti-war European types.
See my previous comments.
Ever been to Europe?
Not yet.
When I was in Italy a few years ago, I couldn't believe how pornographic their billboard signs were. They make ours look like paragons of modesty (and ours are in no way modest, of course). And when liberals like Alan Colmes say that Europe is more enlightened than America regarding sexual attitudes, you know we have the drop on them in the chastity department, and, of course America is not a chaste country, by any stretch of the imagination, unfortunately.
Remember though, we are the leaders of the free world whether we like it or not. Therefore, we have a greater responsibility in this area than the rest of the world since in many ways they follow our lead. Claude Frederic Bastiat said in the 1840's that if freedom dies in America that it would die all over the world. And freedom -authentic freedom I mean- is dying in this country my friend.
Wanna know what I think the radical Islam's main beef with the US is? You might find this laughable, but I think radical Islam sees the US as the economic and political epicenter of Judeo-Christianity. And that's the issue right there. Why else would they constantly saddle us with the pro-Israel Crusader moniker.
This is a factor too. It is a complex mosaic not done justice to with the kind of simplistic theories propounded by many people -even so-called "intellectual elites."
Don't get me wrong, I do not in any way wish to downplay the seriousness of America's moral plight viz. the war on terror. But it must understood in its proper perspective. We didn't get attacked nor are we still being threatened because of our export of immorality.
We were attacked because (i) we have been leading the world in promoting decadence and (ii) we failed for a long time to show backbone in the face of much smaller assaults on us. The terrorists know that if they can make us grovel that the rest of the world will follow suit.
But our ability to defeat terrorism is going to depend, in large part, on our moral health. Remember the words of Alexis de Toucqeville "America will be great only as long it is good." (Gee, the French were actually good for something other than being a diplomatic pain in the ass at one time.) A morally lax people will not endure the sacrifices that this war on terror will require.
True. Have you read my weblog series on Claude Frederic Bastiat yet??? He essentially concurred with his collegue de Toucqeville in that area but took it further in proposing what was needed to maintain authentic freedom in society. He did this at the heighth of the Revolution of 1848 in France and virtually no one listened. If they had, the world would be a lot better place today than it is.
I have based numerous related arguments on these theories including my defense of the three fundamental rights of man, ideas for differentiating between legitimate rights and legitimate freespeech from the various counterfeits, and even my ideas for rider reform have a foundation in these theories. It would be impossible to list all the areas where this has applied over the years in my arguments though I have a fairly complete list of explicit references from this weblog in its first fourteen months in the archives somewhere. Since then, the number of posts in this area has increased since it is 2004 and I am preparing for the election early. (To try and have some influence on the election even if only in a minor way.)
The 2000 race was a photofinish literally and I do not expect 2004 to be much different. It could have been a pretty convincing win but Bush is shooting his re-election bid in the head over and over because of a serious bout of the rovehaze. Only if the Democratic nominee really screws up in some way will it avoid being a close race at this point. But more importantly than who is president is who we elect to congress.
The entire House and one third of the Senate is up for re-election. I would love to see at least one significant congressman endorse my rider reform proposal as one step in the right direction to fixing the problems in this country -as it would put a heavy check on backdoor porkbarrel dealing. But I digress.
In short, there are a lot of ways to deal with what is wrong in this country and the moral angle is one of them (and it is important of course). But as laws are the last vestage of the unruly, I fear we need to have the laws reinforced first. Moral turnarounds generally take a while barring some significant Divine intervention. But if we can at least shore up and inculcate into people's minds the difference between the law properly utilized and the law perverted, that will be a strong foundation for rebuilding society's shattered moral compass.{1}
During the American Revolution, the colonialists never doubted that they would be victorious over the British. You know why? It sure wasn't because they believed that they were better trained or better equipped. It was because they believed that they were MORALLY SUPERIOR to the British Army, which they were. They discovered by fighting along side them during the French and Indian War and by observing those troops stationed in the new World that they (the British) were moral reprobates. They got drunk, chased women, and even committed murder.
True.
The moral sensitivity of our military has unfortunately become much like that of the Lobster Bellies, sans the murder. I had a first hand exposure to this (and I admit shamefully that I engaged in it, again sans the murder) during my eight years in the Navy. So, noone can tell me that the Church's teaching on sexual morality is just mythical speculation of a bunch of cranky celibates locked in the Vatican. I know through bitter experience that the Church is dead on in the area of sexuality.
So did I though not in the same way as you. (As I never served in the military.)
And since the military plays, arguably, the most important role in the war on terror, this is a cause of grave concern. Along with their unwillingness to build up our military in terms of personnel, the seeming lack of alarm at the rampant social engineering going on is a grave defect in this Administration's military policy. And I say that as one who has a great respect for Don Rumsfeld. Some of political and ecclesiastical leaders can take a few lessons from him on how to handle the media.
I agree with you that Rumsfeld is one of the jewels of Bush's cabinet.
Yes but the Vatican's main point of emphasis is the realm of morals and the US has no cause for throwing any stones in that area despite the pretensions of Bush and company.
Well, I would have to say that the refusal to honor one's word viz. resolutions and gravytraining the sufferings of the Iraqi people are serious moral issues. And the silence of Vatican diplomats on those two issues inflicts a serious wound to the Vatican's credibility in being a moral force on the geopolitical scene. I would also have to say that the US has acted more responsibly in the Iraq situation than Cdl. Martino and company. Heck, even the NCCB's statement on the Iraq war showed a greater sense of responsibility than that of many Vatican officials. And admitting that the NCCB acted more responsibly than the Vatican is something I don't even like to entertain as a thought, much openly acknowledge. But remember what I said about calling them as I see them.
I happen to have predicted the Vatican's position on this before it was made known by Zenit. This is at bottom a case of the pope taking the same approach of consistency that he does with capital punishment. See this link for details:
[Stephen] tries to be very careful in light of his own Integrist past on these matters. Plus, he is I believe a pacifist which is (of course) fine. I have respect for conscientious objectors such as [Stephen] while having *no* respect for the Moveon.org crowd. The difference between the two is the difference between legitimate difference of opinion and sedition.
I can understand being careful not to openly criticize the Vatican. One of the reasons why I have requested that these e-mails stay private for the time being is that I am a little gunshy when it comes to criticizing the Vatican myself.
I blogged this one (but not all of it) because I believe your view on this is one that a fair amount of people have. I also removed your name from the text so confidentiality would be assured.
I have no problem with someone taking issue with the war, although I supported it.
As did I. My stance there has not wavered -though admittedly I am less pleased with the whole process than I was a year ago.{2}
But there is no excuse for the cheapshotish way [Stephen] went about expressing his difference of opinion viz. the piece in question.
I looked at the entry you mention and though I do not concur with more than maybe half of it, I only saw two points which I would take issue with from the standpoint of viable opinions. The issue about Bush and serving in Vietnam was one of them. The other was this one:
The U.S. would be more credible if it acted to rid itself of its own---the world's largest--- stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons (we are, afterall, the only nation on earth which has invented, sold and used such weapons against whole civilian populations, including the most Catholic city in Japan) and when it intervenes against its own interests (oil or otherwise) on behalf of disinterested righteousness.
The fact that Japan and Germany were trying to come up with these weapons and we simply did so first -and the fact that a million US soldiers would probably have died in a land invasion of Japan- are enough to deal with the complaint about our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As far as chemical weapons go, (i) we never used them -at least not since the Geneva protocols after WWI and (ii) our possession of them during WWII prevented Hitler from using them. This is a documented fact and is not even debatable. That is some of the value of deterrance.
Does this mean that we should still have them??? This is hard to say since if terrorists get their hands on chemical weapons, we without them are stuck with either conventional or nuclear options to oppose them and no middle ground. I prefer to have that middle ground option myself. This is not Manifest Destiny on my part, merely a recognition of what Bastiat noted a hundred and fifty years ago: if freedom dies in America it will die everywhere else.
If that eminent French economist and statesman -and probably the greatest exponent of authentic freedom in history-{3} recognized this fact back then, we should be asking ourselves (i) why we do not recognize it now and (ii) why we are so docile in the face of the freedoms we have lost and those we are in the process of losing as I write this.
In summary, those two points aside, I have no problems with Stephen's editorial from the standpoint of legitimate differences of opinion. If you want to write a Guest Editorial on it for Rerum Novarum, I have no objections and will gladly post it for you. However, I will offer Stephen equal time to respond to it.
Notes:
{1} Along with these aims would be supplying proper definitions for such nebulously utilized terms such as "rights" and "freespeech" and confuting the idea that something becomes moral or immoral by virtue of a law being passed that sanctions or forbids it.
{2} In light of recent questions about the accuracy of Powell and company's comments at the time, I was wise to restrict my position at the time to exclude those comments. Thus, unlike a lot of partisans on this issue (i.e this one) I have not fallen on my face and had to do an about face.
{3} Oh and yes, he was Catholic too.
(A Dialogue)
My words in this exchange will be in regular font with all sources in darkblue font. My previous words in purple font. All other words will be from the one who sent me this email -their sources in the same font but italicized.
Hi XXXXX:
I will probably blog a version of this to Rerum Novarum because (i) I do not like to as a rule muse without the weblog and (ii) this exchange does allow me to clarify some points on these matters. However, your name will be omitted for confidentiality sake.
Well, that may be true but the US is frankly hypocritical in its stand on Iraq in light of the moral degeneracy that we allow. If I was a Muslim living in the Middle East and I saw what the United States was exporting to my people, I would probably join Al Queda too. The idea that the Muslims are rejecting westernization" in the realm of technology and the like is bunk. They are rejecting the immorality element being exported to them. They do not want their daughters to become sluts and their wives to become paramours.
Shawn, I am actually surprised that you would use this argument. Following the line of reasoning you posit here about if you were a Muslim living in the Middle East you would probably join Al Qaeda, due to the immorality the US exports, you would have to say that if you were a Catholic living in the US, you would probably join SSPX or some other schismatic or heretical group because of all the sexual abuse scandals and the refusal of the bishops to really do something substantive about it. You would also have to say, viz. the same line of reasoning, that the Church is being hypocritical preaching chastity while all this is going on.
To take your points in sequence:
1) I was in fact affiliated with the SSPX for about fifteen years -and some of it was due to what you note above about the weakness of the bishops in addressing abuses in their dioceses. However, every movement has its extremists.
Al Queda just happens to be the extremists of the Muslim contingent. And to some Muslims undoubtedly, they are a means in their minds to achieving an end of western corruption in their societies. Remember, the dictum that "the end does not justify the means" is part of Catholic moral principles, not Muslim moral principles. Hence, I can say that if I was a Muslim I could act as I noted there and probably would. But as a Catholic I cannot.
The same is the case with the death penalty: if I was not a Catholic I would be railing for hangings at high noon every day. But as I am, I do not do these things.
2) If I took your stand I would have to weigh in against America for the monumental abuses to the Constitution that happen daily. As per the faith, GK Chesterton noted once that "Christianity is not tried and found wanting, it was not tried" and that is the problem with the scandals you refer to as well as the problems on the political landscape that you see. The root problem in both cases is the same.
You and I know damned well that Al Qaeda's beef with us has nothing to do with moral degeneracy we allow or our exportation of it. Al Qaeda attracts some of the worst moral reprobates, not only in terms of their penchant for violence, but also in their sexual proclivities, to its ranks.
So does the ultra-ultra-fringe of the radtrads. Did you know there are cults on the fringes of "traditionalism" that actually exempt their leaders from the moral code of Catholicism by a "special dispensation from God" or a "special dispensation of the Blessed Virgin"??? This is par for the course with the ultra-ultra fringes of any movement and Al Queda is the ultra-ultra fringe of militant Islam.
We now know that some of the 9/11 hijackers were in nudie bars getting drunk...just days before the attacks. I guess you can say that they were just warming up for the 72 virgins in paradise.
I never said that there was a lacuna of hypocrisy amongst the ultra-ultra fringe of militant Islam.
Actually, the rejection of westernization in the realm of technology on the part of radical Muslims DOES have some credibility when you consider the rather squalored conditions the Taliban forced the Afghani people to live in.
True.
Furthermore, they don't have to worry about us turning their daughters into sluts and and wives into paramours. They already beat us to it. Look at the way women are treated in Muslim cultures. If men being able to have harems is not turning their daughters into sluts and wives into paramours, nothing is.
Well, you are essentially casting aspersions on the Old Testament Patriarchs for doing the same thing then. Since Abraham, Jacob, David, and others are saints in our tradition. Yet all of them had multiple wives -in David's case about five hundred of them. If merely having many wives means that one is turning them into paramours then God sanctioned David doing this. (See 2 Samuel xii,7-8.) I would revise your argument for that reason my friend.
To add insult to injury, the women are forced to dress completely veiled to give the whole thing an appearance of modesty (Now granted, one is tempted to want to give Hiilary Clinton and Patricia Ireland a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia for a little attitude adjustment and that Monica Lewinsky would look more attractive in a burhka than a thong, but that's beside the point.)
I concur with both points there :)
America, despite its serious moral problems, doesn't have the drop on the Islamic Middle East in the immorality department.
We promote artificial contraception, abortion, and euthanasia as sacraments. Need I say more???
Furthermore, I think the US, again, despite its own grave faults, is morally superior to the naysaying anti-war European types.
See my previous comments.
Ever been to Europe?
Not yet.
When I was in Italy a few years ago, I couldn't believe how pornographic their billboard signs were. They make ours look like paragons of modesty (and ours are in no way modest, of course). And when liberals like Alan Colmes say that Europe is more enlightened than America regarding sexual attitudes, you know we have the drop on them in the chastity department, and, of course America is not a chaste country, by any stretch of the imagination, unfortunately.
Remember though, we are the leaders of the free world whether we like it or not. Therefore, we have a greater responsibility in this area than the rest of the world since in many ways they follow our lead. Claude Frederic Bastiat said in the 1840's that if freedom dies in America that it would die all over the world. And freedom -authentic freedom I mean- is dying in this country my friend.
Wanna know what I think the radical Islam's main beef with the US is? You might find this laughable, but I think radical Islam sees the US as the economic and political epicenter of Judeo-Christianity. And that's the issue right there. Why else would they constantly saddle us with the pro-Israel Crusader moniker.
This is a factor too. It is a complex mosaic not done justice to with the kind of simplistic theories propounded by many people -even so-called "intellectual elites."
Don't get me wrong, I do not in any way wish to downplay the seriousness of America's moral plight viz. the war on terror. But it must understood in its proper perspective. We didn't get attacked nor are we still being threatened because of our export of immorality.
We were attacked because (i) we have been leading the world in promoting decadence and (ii) we failed for a long time to show backbone in the face of much smaller assaults on us. The terrorists know that if they can make us grovel that the rest of the world will follow suit.
But our ability to defeat terrorism is going to depend, in large part, on our moral health. Remember the words of Alexis de Toucqeville "America will be great only as long it is good." (Gee, the French were actually good for something other than being a diplomatic pain in the ass at one time.) A morally lax people will not endure the sacrifices that this war on terror will require.
True. Have you read my weblog series on Claude Frederic Bastiat yet??? He essentially concurred with his collegue de Toucqeville in that area but took it further in proposing what was needed to maintain authentic freedom in society. He did this at the heighth of the Revolution of 1848 in France and virtually no one listened. If they had, the world would be a lot better place today than it is.
I have based numerous related arguments on these theories including my defense of the three fundamental rights of man, ideas for differentiating between legitimate rights and legitimate freespeech from the various counterfeits, and even my ideas for rider reform have a foundation in these theories. It would be impossible to list all the areas where this has applied over the years in my arguments though I have a fairly complete list of explicit references from this weblog in its first fourteen months in the archives somewhere. Since then, the number of posts in this area has increased since it is 2004 and I am preparing for the election early. (To try and have some influence on the election even if only in a minor way.)
The 2000 race was a photofinish literally and I do not expect 2004 to be much different. It could have been a pretty convincing win but Bush is shooting his re-election bid in the head over and over because of a serious bout of the rovehaze. Only if the Democratic nominee really screws up in some way will it avoid being a close race at this point. But more importantly than who is president is who we elect to congress.
The entire House and one third of the Senate is up for re-election. I would love to see at least one significant congressman endorse my rider reform proposal as one step in the right direction to fixing the problems in this country -as it would put a heavy check on backdoor porkbarrel dealing. But I digress.
In short, there are a lot of ways to deal with what is wrong in this country and the moral angle is one of them (and it is important of course). But as laws are the last vestage of the unruly, I fear we need to have the laws reinforced first. Moral turnarounds generally take a while barring some significant Divine intervention. But if we can at least shore up and inculcate into people's minds the difference between the law properly utilized and the law perverted, that will be a strong foundation for rebuilding society's shattered moral compass.{1}
During the American Revolution, the colonialists never doubted that they would be victorious over the British. You know why? It sure wasn't because they believed that they were better trained or better equipped. It was because they believed that they were MORALLY SUPERIOR to the British Army, which they were. They discovered by fighting along side them during the French and Indian War and by observing those troops stationed in the new World that they (the British) were moral reprobates. They got drunk, chased women, and even committed murder.
True.
The moral sensitivity of our military has unfortunately become much like that of the Lobster Bellies, sans the murder. I had a first hand exposure to this (and I admit shamefully that I engaged in it, again sans the murder) during my eight years in the Navy. So, noone can tell me that the Church's teaching on sexual morality is just mythical speculation of a bunch of cranky celibates locked in the Vatican. I know through bitter experience that the Church is dead on in the area of sexuality.
So did I though not in the same way as you. (As I never served in the military.)
And since the military plays, arguably, the most important role in the war on terror, this is a cause of grave concern. Along with their unwillingness to build up our military in terms of personnel, the seeming lack of alarm at the rampant social engineering going on is a grave defect in this Administration's military policy. And I say that as one who has a great respect for Don Rumsfeld. Some of political and ecclesiastical leaders can take a few lessons from him on how to handle the media.
I agree with you that Rumsfeld is one of the jewels of Bush's cabinet.
Yes but the Vatican's main point of emphasis is the realm of morals and the US has no cause for throwing any stones in that area despite the pretensions of Bush and company.
Well, I would have to say that the refusal to honor one's word viz. resolutions and gravytraining the sufferings of the Iraqi people are serious moral issues. And the silence of Vatican diplomats on those two issues inflicts a serious wound to the Vatican's credibility in being a moral force on the geopolitical scene. I would also have to say that the US has acted more responsibly in the Iraq situation than Cdl. Martino and company. Heck, even the NCCB's statement on the Iraq war showed a greater sense of responsibility than that of many Vatican officials. And admitting that the NCCB acted more responsibly than the Vatican is something I don't even like to entertain as a thought, much openly acknowledge. But remember what I said about calling them as I see them.
I happen to have predicted the Vatican's position on this before it was made known by Zenit. This is at bottom a case of the pope taking the same approach of consistency that he does with capital punishment. See this link for details:
[Stephen] tries to be very careful in light of his own Integrist past on these matters. Plus, he is I believe a pacifist which is (of course) fine. I have respect for conscientious objectors such as [Stephen] while having *no* respect for the Moveon.org crowd. The difference between the two is the difference between legitimate difference of opinion and sedition.
I can understand being careful not to openly criticize the Vatican. One of the reasons why I have requested that these e-mails stay private for the time being is that I am a little gunshy when it comes to criticizing the Vatican myself.
I blogged this one (but not all of it) because I believe your view on this is one that a fair amount of people have. I also removed your name from the text so confidentiality would be assured.
I have no problem with someone taking issue with the war, although I supported it.
As did I. My stance there has not wavered -though admittedly I am less pleased with the whole process than I was a year ago.{2}
But there is no excuse for the cheapshotish way [Stephen] went about expressing his difference of opinion viz. the piece in question.
I looked at the entry you mention and though I do not concur with more than maybe half of it, I only saw two points which I would take issue with from the standpoint of viable opinions. The issue about Bush and serving in Vietnam was one of them. The other was this one:
The U.S. would be more credible if it acted to rid itself of its own---the world's largest--- stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons (we are, afterall, the only nation on earth which has invented, sold and used such weapons against whole civilian populations, including the most Catholic city in Japan) and when it intervenes against its own interests (oil or otherwise) on behalf of disinterested righteousness.
The fact that Japan and Germany were trying to come up with these weapons and we simply did so first -and the fact that a million US soldiers would probably have died in a land invasion of Japan- are enough to deal with the complaint about our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As far as chemical weapons go, (i) we never used them -at least not since the Geneva protocols after WWI and (ii) our possession of them during WWII prevented Hitler from using them. This is a documented fact and is not even debatable. That is some of the value of deterrance.
Does this mean that we should still have them??? This is hard to say since if terrorists get their hands on chemical weapons, we without them are stuck with either conventional or nuclear options to oppose them and no middle ground. I prefer to have that middle ground option myself. This is not Manifest Destiny on my part, merely a recognition of what Bastiat noted a hundred and fifty years ago: if freedom dies in America it will die everywhere else.
If that eminent French economist and statesman -and probably the greatest exponent of authentic freedom in history-{3} recognized this fact back then, we should be asking ourselves (i) why we do not recognize it now and (ii) why we are so docile in the face of the freedoms we have lost and those we are in the process of losing as I write this.
In summary, those two points aside, I have no problems with Stephen's editorial from the standpoint of legitimate differences of opinion. If you want to write a Guest Editorial on it for Rerum Novarum, I have no objections and will gladly post it for you. However, I will offer Stephen equal time to respond to it.
Notes:
{1} Along with these aims would be supplying proper definitions for such nebulously utilized terms such as "rights" and "freespeech" and confuting the idea that something becomes moral or immoral by virtue of a law being passed that sanctions or forbids it.
{2} In light of recent questions about the accuracy of Powell and company's comments at the time, I was wise to restrict my position at the time to exclude those comments. Thus, unlike a lot of partisans on this issue (i.e this one) I have not fallen on my face and had to do an about face.
{3} Oh and yes, he was Catholic too.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
According to The Secret One, Fr. Bryce Sibley has proposed Oscars for St. Blogs. They have taken it seems the name of "Sibley's." We at Rerum Novarum feel that nominations in at least two categories are in order -see this link for details.
An Election Update:
(With a Little Analysis at No Extra Charge)
[Note: I have updated this post to reflect all the primaries and caucuses. -ISM 6:40pm]
For those who did not hear about it yet, John F-word Kerry cleaned up in the February 2nd primaries. Here are the tallies as of last night courtesy of Drudge:
AZ Kerry 43, Clark 27, Dean 14.
MO Kerry 51, Edwards 25, Dean 9
SC Edwards 45, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10, Clark 7
OK Clark 30, Edwards 30, Kerry 27
DE Kerry 43, Clark 27, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11, Dean 10, Clark 9
NM Kerry 37, Clark 22, Dean 19, Edwards 10
ND Kerry 51, Clark 24, Dean 12, Edwards 10
Let us see:
---Kerry won over Clark in Arizona by sixteen points with Dean in third twenty-nine points back. (And Lieberman and Edwards tied in fourth at thirty-three points back.)
---Kerry won over Edwards in Missouri by twenty-six points with Dean in third forty-two points back.
---Kerry won over Clark in Delaware by sixteen points with Lieberman and Edwards tying for third at thirty-two points back. (Dean placed fourth at thirty-three points back and Clark in fifth at thirty-four points back.)
---Kerry won over Clark in North Dakota by twenty-seven points with Dean in third thirty-nine points back. (And Edwards in fourth forty-one points back.)
---Kerry won over Clark in New Mexico by fifteen points with Dean in third at eighteen points back. (And Edwards in fourth twenty-seven points back.)
However, it was not all good news for Senator Kerry.
---Clark won over Edwards by a squeaker in Oklahoma with Kerry in third three points back. (And Joe Lieberman in fourth at twenty-three points back.)
---Edwards won over Kerry in South Carolina by fifteen points with Reverend Al Sharpton in third thirty-five points back. (And Clark in fourth at thirty-eight points back.)
John Edwards has established himself as a contender,{1} Wesley Clark is the new dark horse candidate, Joe Lieberman has withdrawn from the race,{2} and the Deanitania has received more missle blasts below the waterline and is sinking. Meanwhile the crowd dances on and the band continues to play and the Deanings are ever optimistic. At least for now.
Since Edwards is from South Carolina, one would expect after his placings in Iowa and New Hampshire to win this state or place darn respectably.{3} So it is difficult to see anyone as a real threat to Kerry yet.
In the case of Edwards, he will have to win a few more times to be a real challenger and Clark needs to actually win in more than a tossup to even remain viable after the next round. (Though four second place showings helps in this area.) Nonetheless, we can say with certainty at this point that (i) it is now down to four candidates{4} (ii) Kerry has a commanding lead and (iii) right now it appears that Dean is the "weakest link" of the bunch. Who would have thought this to be the case a month ago my friends??? No one but then again, I have said many times that a month is a long time in politics. A year by comparison is an eternity.
Having noted that, I remind you all that (i) Kerry could still lose the nomination and (ii) Bush could still lose the White House.{5} There is lots of time left and virtually anything could happen between now and November. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} The last thing we need is a trial lawyer for president unless the Secret One decides to run. (Or even one of the other lawyers at St. Blogs such as Dale Price or The Mighty One.) If Edwards were to win, tort reform so badly needed in this country -including the abolition of class action lawsuits- would never happen.
I only say that he is a contender here because of previous strong placings in Iowa and New Hampshire. (And because Edwards almost won Oklahoma over Clark.) He and Clark won a primary each but Clark earns dark horse status by virtue of four second place showings. Edwards by contrast did well in previous primaries and caucuses, won one primary, almost won a second one, and placed second at two others. He is the new contender and Clark the new dark horse. Dean is now fourth in this grouping in a race of four real candidates now that Lieberman has dropped out.
{2} I blew my prediction of Dean winning New Hampshire and though I will not add this to my predictions list -as that list is set in stone of course- guess who now becomes the ultimate VP candidate??? If you said Joe Lieberman you are right. These people are too wacko to go with Hillary or someone like that and Lieberman would give a balance that all of these people need. You heard it here first if it happens.
{3} The reason: he is from South Carolina. I mean even Walter Mondulldale won his home state in the 1984 election. He also won Washington DC. Of course he lost by almost twenty points in the popular vote and a 525-13 nuking by President Reagan too.
{4} It is rather amusing to your weblog host (for a variety of reasons) that the Reverend Al Sharpton beat Dean in South Carolina.
{5} Particularly if he does not shake off the rovehaze and start governing as the man he ran as during the election in 2000.
(With a Little Analysis at No Extra Charge)
[Note: I have updated this post to reflect all the primaries and caucuses. -ISM 6:40pm]
For those who did not hear about it yet, John F
AZ Kerry 43, Clark 27, Dean 14.
MO Kerry 51, Edwards 25, Dean 9
SC Edwards 45, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10, Clark 7
OK Clark 30, Edwards 30, Kerry 27
DE Kerry 43, Clark 27, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11, Dean 10, Clark 9
NM Kerry 37, Clark 22, Dean 19, Edwards 10
ND Kerry 51, Clark 24, Dean 12, Edwards 10
Let us see:
---Kerry won over Clark in Arizona by sixteen points with Dean in third twenty-nine points back. (And Lieberman and Edwards tied in fourth at thirty-three points back.)
---Kerry won over Edwards in Missouri by twenty-six points with Dean in third forty-two points back.
---Kerry won over Clark in Delaware by sixteen points with Lieberman and Edwards tying for third at thirty-two points back. (Dean placed fourth at thirty-three points back and Clark in fifth at thirty-four points back.)
---Kerry won over Clark in North Dakota by twenty-seven points with Dean in third thirty-nine points back. (And Edwards in fourth forty-one points back.)
---Kerry won over Clark in New Mexico by fifteen points with Dean in third at eighteen points back. (And Edwards in fourth twenty-seven points back.)
However, it was not all good news for Senator Kerry.
---Clark won over Edwards by a squeaker in Oklahoma with Kerry in third three points back. (And Joe Lieberman in fourth at twenty-three points back.)
---Edwards won over Kerry in South Carolina by fifteen points with Reverend Al Sharpton in third thirty-five points back. (And Clark in fourth at thirty-eight points back.)
John Edwards has established himself as a contender,{1} Wesley Clark is the new dark horse candidate, Joe Lieberman has withdrawn from the race,{2} and the Deanitania has received more missle blasts below the waterline and is sinking. Meanwhile the crowd dances on and the band continues to play and the Deanings are ever optimistic. At least for now.
Since Edwards is from South Carolina, one would expect after his placings in Iowa and New Hampshire to win this state or place darn respectably.{3} So it is difficult to see anyone as a real threat to Kerry yet.
In the case of Edwards, he will have to win a few more times to be a real challenger and Clark needs to actually win in more than a tossup to even remain viable after the next round. (Though four second place showings helps in this area.) Nonetheless, we can say with certainty at this point that (i) it is now down to four candidates{4} (ii) Kerry has a commanding lead and (iii) right now it appears that Dean is the "weakest link" of the bunch. Who would have thought this to be the case a month ago my friends??? No one but then again, I have said many times that a month is a long time in politics. A year by comparison is an eternity.
Having noted that, I remind you all that (i) Kerry could still lose the nomination and (ii) Bush could still lose the White House.{5} There is lots of time left and virtually anything could happen between now and November. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} The last thing we need is a trial lawyer for president unless the Secret One decides to run. (Or even one of the other lawyers at St. Blogs such as Dale Price or The Mighty One.) If Edwards were to win, tort reform so badly needed in this country -including the abolition of class action lawsuits- would never happen.
I only say that he is a contender here because of previous strong placings in Iowa and New Hampshire. (And because Edwards almost won Oklahoma over Clark.) He and Clark won a primary each but Clark earns dark horse status by virtue of four second place showings. Edwards by contrast did well in previous primaries and caucuses, won one primary, almost won a second one, and placed second at two others. He is the new contender and Clark the new dark horse. Dean is now fourth in this grouping in a race of four real candidates now that Lieberman has dropped out.
{2} I blew my prediction of Dean winning New Hampshire and though I will not add this to my predictions list -as that list is set in stone of course- guess who now becomes the ultimate VP candidate??? If you said Joe Lieberman you are right. These people are too wacko to go with Hillary or someone like that and Lieberman would give a balance that all of these people need. You heard it here first if it happens.
{3} The reason: he is from South Carolina. I mean even Walter Mon
{4} It is rather amusing to your weblog host (for a variety of reasons) that the Reverend Al Sharpton beat Dean in South Carolina.
{5} Particularly if he does not shake off the rovehaze and start governing as the man he ran as during the election in 2000.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Today is the one year anniversary of the 2003 Space Shuttle explosition. I want to draw your attention at this time to the tribute to them I posted last year and exhort you to pause for a few moments today and pray for the eternal repose of their souls.
The Aggiornamento of Rerum Novarum:
(Via Ressourcement)
I will probably add a few more bits in the coming days as I just realized that some links since the last update were not added that I intended to add.{1} Nonetheless, here is what was added when I updated this weblog back on Friday (listed by category):
General Political/Social Subjects
Some Key Evidence of Democratic Demagogery and Self-Destruction (Aka "Reductionum ad Hitlerum" Dept.) [>>>]
Is the United States Government a Democracy or a Republic??? [>>>]
Musings on the State of the Union Address [>>>]
A Rider Reform Proposal [>>>]
On the "Pro Life or Bust" Approach to Politics (An Envoy Encore Message Box Post) [>>>]
More on the "Pro Life or Bust" Approach to Politics and the Political Situation in General (More Envoy Encore Message Box Posts) [>>>]
On President Bush's Mars Policy (With Ronnie Van Zant) [>>>]
The Fundamental Flaws of Roe vs. Wade and its Supporters [>>>]
Political Election Issues
On President Bush, the Upcoming Primaries, the Upcoming Election, and Standing on Principles [>>>]
"Engrave the Tombstone" Dept. (Musings on the Democratic Primary Race) [>>>]
Musings on the Iowa Caucus [>>>]
Political Miscellany
On Church/State Conflicts of the Present in Light of the Past, Political Ideologies, Etc. (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
More on Political Theories, Etc. (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
On 'Traditionalism' Falsely So-Called
Dialogue On Liturgy [>>>]
On Archbishop Lefebvre, the Indult Liturgy, Etc. [>>>]
The post on Lefebvre was not categorized here because the person I was responding to is a pseudo-'traditionalist.' (Though that I kept their name anonymous would mitigate against that assumption.) Instead it was posted here for the subject matter only. However, as this post also touches on legitimate apostolates as well, there is less of a dichotomy in this entry than is common for an entry of this kind of classification.
On 'Traditionalism' Properly So-Called
Miscellaneous Musings on the Kiss of Peace [>>>]
On the Liturgy and Liturgical Reform [>>>]
On Controverted Subjects
As this category is quite large now, I am going to have to add some subdivisions and recategorize some of these links. However, that is for either the next update or another one down the road at this time.
More on the Canon of Scripture [>>>]
More Dialogues With Tim Enloe (Recapitulation of Previous Discussion Themes and Some Additional Points in Brief --Parts I-II) [>>>]
Responding to Some Declarations of Brian Tierney (Parts I-III) [>>>]
On Limbo, Nature, Grace, and Related Tidbits [>>>]
Dialogue on the Death Penalty Redux (With Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
On Apologetics Arguments and the Papacy (Rerum Novarum Responds to Societas Christiana) [>>>]
An Appeal to the Warring Houses of Montague and Capulet: A Joint Declaration (With SecretAgentMan's Dossier) [>>>]
A Clarification Viz. Certain Points of Our Previous "Joint Declaration" (With SecretAgentMan's Dossier) [>>>]
On Pascendi and Pondering Proscribed and Permissible Philosophical Paradigms (With Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]
Spiritual Instruction
Spiritual Instruction on Charity [>>>]
Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest
I reclassified my "predictions for 2003" to this category from general political subjects and added the following links:
Puerto Vallarta Special Reports (Parts I-II) [>>>]
Predictions for 2004 [>>>]
Various Quizzes of the Past Year Plus [>>>]
George W. Bush "Conspiracy Generator" [>>>]
Deanings: The Game [>>>]
And for those who have not had their "medieval pomp" fix for the day, you will now be accomodated in that area...
Wherefore, in light of the aforementioned additional links which will be subsequently added later on to complete this update -and which will in no way derogate from what is enjoined above, by the authority vested in me as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that the above links are hereunder added to the scroll motu proprio and furthermore decree that they are to be recognized herewith as stable and valid as they are herewith set forth in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} Basically nothing between mid December and my return from Puerto Vallarta was included except the two blogs from Puerto Vallarta. I will post those links I intend to add here for anyone who is interested:
Under the General Political/Social Musings category, I will be adding the following link:
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khaddafi's Situation
Under the Traditionalism' Properly So-Called category, I will be adding this link from early November -which I accidentally overlooked not only in this update but the previous one too:
On the Liturgical Movement (A Society of St. John Mini-Series; Prologue by I. Shawn McElhinney)
Under the Controverted Subjects category, I will be adding the following links:
On the Meaning of Life (Dialogue With Albert Cipriani)
More on the Papacy and Ideas (Societas Christiana vs. Rerum Novarum)
These will be inserted into the respective categories they belong in their chronological order. I may also do that category subdivisions of the "controverted subjects" thread at that time too if I have time to do so.
(Via Ressourcement)
I will probably add a few more bits in the coming days as I just realized that some links since the last update were not added that I intended to add.{1} Nonetheless, here is what was added when I updated this weblog back on Friday (listed by category):
General Political/Social Subjects
Some Key Evidence of Democratic Demagogery and Self-Destruction (Aka "Reductionum ad Hitlerum" Dept.) [>>>]
Is the United States Government a Democracy or a Republic??? [>>>]
Musings on the State of the Union Address [>>>]
A Rider Reform Proposal [>>>]
On the "Pro Life or Bust" Approach to Politics (An Envoy Encore Message Box Post) [>>>]
More on the "Pro Life or Bust" Approach to Politics and the Political Situation in General (More Envoy Encore Message Box Posts) [>>>]
On President Bush's Mars Policy (With Ronnie Van Zant) [>>>]
The Fundamental Flaws of Roe vs. Wade and its Supporters [>>>]
Political Election Issues
On President Bush, the Upcoming Primaries, the Upcoming Election, and Standing on Principles [>>>]
"Engrave the Tombstone" Dept. (Musings on the Democratic Primary Race) [>>>]
Musings on the Iowa Caucus [>>>]
Political Miscellany
On Church/State Conflicts of the Present in Light of the Past, Political Ideologies, Etc. (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
More on Political Theories, Etc. (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
On 'Traditionalism' Falsely So-Called
Dialogue On Liturgy [>>>]
On Archbishop Lefebvre, the Indult Liturgy, Etc. [>>>]
The post on Lefebvre was not categorized here because the person I was responding to is a pseudo-'traditionalist.' (Though that I kept their name anonymous would mitigate against that assumption.) Instead it was posted here for the subject matter only. However, as this post also touches on legitimate apostolates as well, there is less of a dichotomy in this entry than is common for an entry of this kind of classification.
On 'Traditionalism' Properly So-Called
Miscellaneous Musings on the Kiss of Peace [>>>]
On the Liturgy and Liturgical Reform [>>>]
On Controverted Subjects
As this category is quite large now, I am going to have to add some subdivisions and recategorize some of these links. However, that is for either the next update or another one down the road at this time.
More on the Canon of Scripture [>>>]
More Dialogues With Tim Enloe (Recapitulation of Previous Discussion Themes and Some Additional Points in Brief --Parts I-II) [>>>]
Responding to Some Declarations of Brian Tierney (Parts I-III) [>>>]
On Limbo, Nature, Grace, and Related Tidbits [>>>]
Dialogue on the Death Penalty Redux (With Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
On Apologetics Arguments and the Papacy (Rerum Novarum Responds to Societas Christiana) [>>>]
An Appeal to the Warring Houses of Montague and Capulet: A Joint Declaration (With SecretAgentMan's Dossier) [>>>]
A Clarification Viz. Certain Points of Our Previous "Joint Declaration" (With SecretAgentMan's Dossier) [>>>]
On Pascendi and Pondering Proscribed and Permissible Philosophical Paradigms (With Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]
Spiritual Instruction
Spiritual Instruction on Charity [>>>]
Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest
I reclassified my "predictions for 2003" to this category from general political subjects and added the following links:
Puerto Vallarta Special Reports (Parts I-II) [>>>]
Predictions for 2004 [>>>]
Various Quizzes of the Past Year Plus [>>>]
George W. Bush "Conspiracy Generator" [>>>]
Deanings: The Game [>>>]
And for those who have not had their "medieval pomp" fix for the day, you will now be accomodated in that area...
Wherefore, in light of the aforementioned additional links which will be subsequently added later on to complete this update -and which will in no way derogate from what is enjoined above, by the authority vested in me as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that the above links are hereunder added to the scroll motu proprio and furthermore decree that they are to be recognized herewith as stable and valid as they are herewith set forth in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} Basically nothing between mid December and my return from Puerto Vallarta was included except the two blogs from Puerto Vallarta. I will post those links I intend to add here for anyone who is interested:
Under the General Political/Social Musings category, I will be adding the following link:
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khaddafi's Situation
Under the Traditionalism' Properly So-Called category, I will be adding this link from early November -which I accidentally overlooked not only in this update but the previous one too:
On the Liturgical Movement (A Society of St. John Mini-Series; Prologue by I. Shawn McElhinney)
Under the Controverted Subjects category, I will be adding the following links:
On the Meaning of Life (Dialogue With Albert Cipriani)
More on the Papacy and Ideas (Societas Christiana vs. Rerum Novarum)
These will be inserted into the respective categories they belong in their chronological order. I may also do that category subdivisions of the "controverted subjects" thread at that time too if I have time to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)