Notification of Four to Seven Upcoming Posts and a Prayer Request:
Yesterday came and went with no start to the oft-mentioned (in recent weeks) dialogue which will be taking place. Work projects have intervened to an unexpected degree and I decided to get a few other postings out of the way before devoting my attention to that endeavour. Blogging has been sporatic and in bunches as is our tendency here but prior to the Wednesday after Labour Day, I anticipate completing and posting at least four and possibly as many as seven pieces to this weblog. Those threads will be as follows:
--A thread on the resignation of Karl Rove.{1}
--A thread on "distributivism" and responding to an email from a couple months ago when the latter subject was revisited on this weblog.{2}
--A thread on Able Danger which came to mind when writing on the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the credibility of George Tenet earlier in the week.{3}
--Two "points to ponder" threads from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to complete the Founding Father series of quotes started in July of this year.{4}
--A thread on the strengths and weaknesses of my approach to blogging in general and a case example of the sort of casualty that is the result of my approach to this medium.{5}
--A post on an anniversary event or two.
I am not sure if it will be four, five, six, or seven threads which are posted at this point but I wanted to give a bit of a heads up as to what is on tap for the coming week. There is also a sports posting in draft form which could conceivably be posted in that span too (it is nearly finished) but I am likely to hold back on that one for at least a couple of weeks.
As far as the prayer requests go, there is another family death to report -the twenty-fifth in six and a half years if I count both sides of my family. The good news for me I suppose is that I do not feel anything for this person because I did not know them well at all. (Last time I saw them I was probably ten.) Nonetheless, every death in a family takes some toll and those who can offer some prayer for the eternal repose of the soul of Alice Romanick and for her family in their hour of grief it would be most appreciated.
Notes:
{1} This post was finished a couple of days ago and just needs a final read through and minor revisions before it is ready for posting.
{2} This post was finished and formatted back in late June. I will therefore have to review and make minor revisions to it before it is ready to be posted.
{3} This post was drafted last September and never finished. I found it when looking for it to link to in the Gonzales posting and discovered that it was unfinished. As it stands now, it is probably 90% done or more and needs to be updated since September of 2006 before it is ready to be posted.
{4} These threads are done and ready for posting as of this writing.
{5} I started drafting this one Thursday night. I am unsure as to where I want to go with it at the moment but it is probably 75% done and should be ready for posting by Monday or Tuesday.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Clarifying a Previous Endorsement of Catholics Against Rudy:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
After much thought on this matter and in light of some indicators I was made aware of, I have concluded that I need to clarify my precise view on a project which I have previously given an endorsement to on more than one occasion.
I wish I did not have to do this but principles are principles and there is a nebulosity remaining in CAR's formulation on the subject of torture.To some extent it is treated as if on a par with various subjects which are not admitting of latitude in Catholic belief. Unlike the other areas Mr. Dillard outlines (i.e. abortion, gay "marriage", euthanasia, adultery and divorce, and even fetal stem cell research) the Catholic Church has not defined what they mean by "torture."{1} This is why to include it in list of issues where the operative terms have been defined is problematical. If a differentiation was made between the fundamental issues and "other subjects" with "torture" being grouped under the latter{2}, then readers of the site would at least not be so confused on this.
I should clarify what I mean by "defining torture." When I use the term "define", I do not mean define as in solemnly defining a dogma of the faith but defining the term they are using as to how they are using it. I would of course have no problem with Mr. Dillard referring in the part prefacing the above paragraph something akin to "Catholic principles on human dignity" and then quoting the section of the Catechism which he quotes. There is a difference between noting principles and enunciating teaching and without a definition for a word being understood, there cannot be actual teaching on any issue whatsoever.
Mr. Dillard's site appears to rule out of court any forms of coercion or interrogation whatsoever. But this is what is expected when a term (such as torture) is bandied about without being defined: it creates no shortage of sloppy thinking and public confusion.
If he was to consent to the above sectional adjustment as well as adding to the bottom of the page on "torture" a small clarifying footnote to distinguish on these matters a bit, then there would be no reason to write this posting. I do agree with the end to which he is striving but not all of the means. To try and assist in clarifying this matter, I will now publicly propose two acceptable variations one longer and one shorter. Let us start with the longer one first:
"There has been no definition by the Church on what constitutes 'torture.' This lack of a definition has given some people the pretext for lumping under the nebulous term 'torture' many forms of interrogation which seek for a just cause during wartime to coerce enemies to give up vital information for the safety of the common good of society and protection of just public order. It is not the intention of CAR to take a position on how these matters are debated but instead to highlight Catholic principles on this issue which should enlighten consciences on the matters in question and point out where Rudy Guiliani's statements show no manifested intention whatsoever to take said principles into account."
That would be a perfect definition to use; however I can understand perhaps that Mr. Dillard may not want to go into too much detail on the matter. With that in mind, here is a truncated version:
"There has been no definition by the Church on what constitutes 'torture.' It is not the intention of CAR to take a position on how these matters are debated but instead to highlight Catholic principles on this issue which should enlighten consciences on the matters in question and point out where Rudy Guiliani's statements show no manifested intention whatsoever to take said principles into account."
While not as detailed as the first one, it is nonetheless theologically correct and therefore acceptable. Now admittedly I would go a lot further on this matter personally but this is not a matter of personal issues but instead a matter of principles. And for that reason, the shorter clarifying note above while not what I believe would be ideal would be sufficient to make it clear that this is an issue with greater variation to it than the other issues he has outlined at CAR thus far.
Again, the end to which Mr. Dillard seeks to accomplish is one that I concur with and readers can review the post containing my previous endorsement{2} to see where I have enunciated the same core view on Guiliani for a few months now publicly (and a lot longer in private). However, the means as they are in need of improvement{3} and as I noted in the previous endorsement posting that I would make explicit points that should be noted as such on Mr. Dillard's site{4}, that is what I have done with this posting.
So that there is no misunderstanding, my endorsement of the goal of CAR remains as this is an important endeavour and I want to see it succeed. However, in conscience I could not give an endorsement without qualifying the extent to which it was made. On the manner in which "torture" is covered, that thread if it was to remain at all{5} is in need of clarifications that the other threads do not require for reasons touched on in this posting already.
Nonetheless, for those who require more or want to familiarize themselves with the complexities involved on this issue, I recommend reviewing my thread series on torture and general norms of theological interpretation which was posted last October.
Notes:
{1} I have reiterated this point over and over including in these words from October of 2006:
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary.
So with that in mind, on the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. Technically, until this is done, there is no need to take those who prattle on about this issue with even the most remote of seriousness; however we intend in the post or series to follow to touch on some of the more pertinent issues pertaining to the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
To provide additional witness to what I have asserted, the core of the problem is summarized in these words from Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin:
We do not have a definition of torture from the Church and if, as has been suggested, the definition of torture includes a reasonability or proportinality condition then exactly the same thing will apply to torture: Not everything that looks like torture will turn out to be torture in all circumstances. [From Jimmy Akin's Site (circa December 1, 2006)]
The most fundamental element of any position is that the terms being used have an understanding to them as to what they constitute.
{2} On the "Catholics Against Rudy" Website (circa July 12, 2007)
{3} As it sits now, the formulary on "torture" does create no small amount of public confusion which not only unscrupulous and theologically ignorant "apologists" can manipulate for their own ends but also the mainstream media whose grasp of these issues falls right in line with the McElhinney Media Dictum; ergo no more needs to be said about it than that.
{4} I want to thank Steve Dillard for taking a more nuanced and objectively correct approach to a certain subject of no small degree of controversy at his Catholics Against Rudy website. I had endorsed the site back on July 12th and something additional was posted after that date which had me concerned and reconsidering my public stand. And while I will write a bit soon on what I feel needs to be touched on to flesh out Mr. Dillard's amendments to a fuller extent; nonetheless, what is up there now in the form it is in[...] is sufficiently nuanced to maintain our endorsement here at Rerum Novarum. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 14, 2007)]
{5} Frankly, the "torture" subject because of the variables involved should not have been covered under the "issues" section at all. However, even if for some reason Mr. Dillard felt personally as if it needed to be touched on, it certainly should not be lumped indiscriminately in with the other subjects as it currently is.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
After much thought on this matter and in light of some indicators I was made aware of, I have concluded that I need to clarify my precise view on a project which I have previously given an endorsement to on more than one occasion.
I wish I did not have to do this but principles are principles and there is a nebulosity remaining in CAR's formulation on the subject of torture.To some extent it is treated as if on a par with various subjects which are not admitting of latitude in Catholic belief. Unlike the other areas Mr. Dillard outlines (i.e. abortion, gay "marriage", euthanasia, adultery and divorce, and even fetal stem cell research) the Catholic Church has not defined what they mean by "torture."{1} This is why to include it in list of issues where the operative terms have been defined is problematical. If a differentiation was made between the fundamental issues and "other subjects" with "torture" being grouped under the latter{2}, then readers of the site would at least not be so confused on this.
I should clarify what I mean by "defining torture." When I use the term "define", I do not mean define as in solemnly defining a dogma of the faith but defining the term they are using as to how they are using it. I would of course have no problem with Mr. Dillard referring in the part prefacing the above paragraph something akin to "Catholic principles on human dignity" and then quoting the section of the Catechism which he quotes. There is a difference between noting principles and enunciating teaching and without a definition for a word being understood, there cannot be actual teaching on any issue whatsoever.
Mr. Dillard's site appears to rule out of court any forms of coercion or interrogation whatsoever. But this is what is expected when a term (such as torture) is bandied about without being defined: it creates no shortage of sloppy thinking and public confusion.
If he was to consent to the above sectional adjustment as well as adding to the bottom of the page on "torture" a small clarifying footnote to distinguish on these matters a bit, then there would be no reason to write this posting. I do agree with the end to which he is striving but not all of the means. To try and assist in clarifying this matter, I will now publicly propose two acceptable variations one longer and one shorter. Let us start with the longer one first:
"There has been no definition by the Church on what constitutes 'torture.' This lack of a definition has given some people the pretext for lumping under the nebulous term 'torture' many forms of interrogation which seek for a just cause during wartime to coerce enemies to give up vital information for the safety of the common good of society and protection of just public order. It is not the intention of CAR to take a position on how these matters are debated but instead to highlight Catholic principles on this issue which should enlighten consciences on the matters in question and point out where Rudy Guiliani's statements show no manifested intention whatsoever to take said principles into account."
That would be a perfect definition to use; however I can understand perhaps that Mr. Dillard may not want to go into too much detail on the matter. With that in mind, here is a truncated version:
"There has been no definition by the Church on what constitutes 'torture.' It is not the intention of CAR to take a position on how these matters are debated but instead to highlight Catholic principles on this issue which should enlighten consciences on the matters in question and point out where Rudy Guiliani's statements show no manifested intention whatsoever to take said principles into account."
While not as detailed as the first one, it is nonetheless theologically correct and therefore acceptable. Now admittedly I would go a lot further on this matter personally but this is not a matter of personal issues but instead a matter of principles. And for that reason, the shorter clarifying note above while not what I believe would be ideal would be sufficient to make it clear that this is an issue with greater variation to it than the other issues he has outlined at CAR thus far.
Again, the end to which Mr. Dillard seeks to accomplish is one that I concur with and readers can review the post containing my previous endorsement{2} to see where I have enunciated the same core view on Guiliani for a few months now publicly (and a lot longer in private). However, the means as they are in need of improvement{3} and as I noted in the previous endorsement posting that I would make explicit points that should be noted as such on Mr. Dillard's site{4}, that is what I have done with this posting.
So that there is no misunderstanding, my endorsement of the goal of CAR remains as this is an important endeavour and I want to see it succeed. However, in conscience I could not give an endorsement without qualifying the extent to which it was made. On the manner in which "torture" is covered, that thread if it was to remain at all{5} is in need of clarifications that the other threads do not require for reasons touched on in this posting already.
Nonetheless, for those who require more or want to familiarize themselves with the complexities involved on this issue, I recommend reviewing my thread series on torture and general norms of theological interpretation which was posted last October.
Notes:
{1} I have reiterated this point over and over including in these words from October of 2006:
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary.
So with that in mind, on the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. Technically, until this is done, there is no need to take those who prattle on about this issue with even the most remote of seriousness; however we intend in the post or series to follow to touch on some of the more pertinent issues pertaining to the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
To provide additional witness to what I have asserted, the core of the problem is summarized in these words from Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin:
We do not have a definition of torture from the Church and if, as has been suggested, the definition of torture includes a reasonability or proportinality condition then exactly the same thing will apply to torture: Not everything that looks like torture will turn out to be torture in all circumstances. [From Jimmy Akin's Site (circa December 1, 2006)]
The most fundamental element of any position is that the terms being used have an understanding to them as to what they constitute.
{2} On the "Catholics Against Rudy" Website (circa July 12, 2007)
{3} As it sits now, the formulary on "torture" does create no small amount of public confusion which not only unscrupulous and theologically ignorant "apologists" can manipulate for their own ends but also the mainstream media whose grasp of these issues falls right in line with the McElhinney Media Dictum; ergo no more needs to be said about it than that.
{4} I want to thank Steve Dillard for taking a more nuanced and objectively correct approach to a certain subject of no small degree of controversy at his Catholics Against Rudy website. I had endorsed the site back on July 12th and something additional was posted after that date which had me concerned and reconsidering my public stand. And while I will write a bit soon on what I feel needs to be touched on to flesh out Mr. Dillard's amendments to a fuller extent; nonetheless, what is up there now in the form it is in[...] is sufficiently nuanced to maintain our endorsement here at Rerum Novarum. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 14, 2007)]
{5} Frankly, the "torture" subject because of the variables involved should not have been covered under the "issues" section at all. However, even if for some reason Mr. Dillard felt personally as if it needed to be touched on, it certainly should not be lumped indiscriminately in with the other subjects as it currently is.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Miscellaneous Musings:
To touch on four issues briefly...
--Just as I am putting the finishing touches on a post about Karl Rove stepping down, Alberto Gonzales' resignation as Attorney General is in the news. I was not a fan of Alberto Gonzales as AG mainly because I could not get past the cronyism that was involved in the appointment. This was one of the same problems I had with the Harriet Miers nomination so that part should not surprise. The one thing this does for sure is derail any possibility of Gonzales ever making it to the Supreme Court presuming for a moment that President Bush may well have another nomination to the court before he steps down in January of 2009.
Basically, the usual moonbat contingent and the mainstream media hacks who has been whining for Gonzales' head finally got it indirectly. That is the only reason I am not pleased with what happened as I rarely like seeing those sorts get their way. Certainly Gonzales did fine as an advisor and with his involvement in the nominations of Roberts and Alito. However, I am not persuaded he did much of anything else of note as AG -I preferred John Ashcroft myself. I will certainly not miss him nor (in light of his apparent view on the illegal alien amnesty issue) speak fondly of him at any point in the future that I can discern so hasta la vista Alberto...
--Also in the news in recent days is George Tenet. I could not recall writing anything on the blog about him prior to this point -a quick check of the archives by word search indicates that his name was raised twice: both of which were in old JunkYard BLOG megapostings and in neither one did I comment on the Tenet-related stuff.{1} Basically, I had nothing nice to say about Tenet and the stuff I did comment on where he was in the general area subject-wise I viewed others in the mix at the time to have greater importance. I viewed him as an administrative hack who was one of those who would tell anyone anything to ensure that he kept his job: basically a classic bureaucrat. And it now appears that my intuition in that area was quite correct.
The sorts of national security breaches involved with the latest CIA/Tenet revelations got me to thinking about Able Danger again and a posting from late last year I was going to reference. However, when doing a search, apparently that post was never finished but was in a draft text from September 29, 2006.{2} For that reason, I will as soon as I can update that thread further and post it to this weblog in completed form.
--I mentioned in the past about certain ideas on this weblog being possibly fodder for state initiatives and in the past couple of months have made contact with the major initiative mover and shaker in Washington state. As they are always on the lookout for initiative ideas, I am putting together some stuff from this weblog's archives to send to them. I have in mind at least two specific initiative proposals designed to make the government more accountable. Perhaps if I am in the mood to discuss these on the weblog in the coming months I will do so but I wanted to note it here briefly for now.
--As it sits now, the party I mentioned earlier in the month that was going to dialogue with me on the subject of the atomic bombings of 1945 has put the finishing touches on their opening comments. So that project will soon be underway -the start date of August 30, 2007 still looks like a go and I will update you on if there are any changes to the time frame prior to that point.
Notes:
{1} I came close once though.
{2} I cannot at the moment remember the reason it was not finished but there are a lot of threads in draft form that get forgotten or pushed down in priority as I try to make do with what time I have for this blogging endeavour.
To touch on four issues briefly...
--Just as I am putting the finishing touches on a post about Karl Rove stepping down, Alberto Gonzales' resignation as Attorney General is in the news. I was not a fan of Alberto Gonzales as AG mainly because I could not get past the cronyism that was involved in the appointment. This was one of the same problems I had with the Harriet Miers nomination so that part should not surprise. The one thing this does for sure is derail any possibility of Gonzales ever making it to the Supreme Court presuming for a moment that President Bush may well have another nomination to the court before he steps down in January of 2009.
Basically, the usual moonbat contingent and the mainstream media hacks who has been whining for Gonzales' head finally got it indirectly. That is the only reason I am not pleased with what happened as I rarely like seeing those sorts get their way. Certainly Gonzales did fine as an advisor and with his involvement in the nominations of Roberts and Alito. However, I am not persuaded he did much of anything else of note as AG -I preferred John Ashcroft myself. I will certainly not miss him nor (in light of his apparent view on the illegal alien amnesty issue) speak fondly of him at any point in the future that I can discern so hasta la vista Alberto...
--Also in the news in recent days is George Tenet. I could not recall writing anything on the blog about him prior to this point -a quick check of the archives by word search indicates that his name was raised twice: both of which were in old JunkYard BLOG megapostings and in neither one did I comment on the Tenet-related stuff.{1} Basically, I had nothing nice to say about Tenet and the stuff I did comment on where he was in the general area subject-wise I viewed others in the mix at the time to have greater importance. I viewed him as an administrative hack who was one of those who would tell anyone anything to ensure that he kept his job: basically a classic bureaucrat. And it now appears that my intuition in that area was quite correct.
The sorts of national security breaches involved with the latest CIA/Tenet revelations got me to thinking about Able Danger again and a posting from late last year I was going to reference. However, when doing a search, apparently that post was never finished but was in a draft text from September 29, 2006.{2} For that reason, I will as soon as I can update that thread further and post it to this weblog in completed form.
--I mentioned in the past about certain ideas on this weblog being possibly fodder for state initiatives and in the past couple of months have made contact with the major initiative mover and shaker in Washington state. As they are always on the lookout for initiative ideas, I am putting together some stuff from this weblog's archives to send to them. I have in mind at least two specific initiative proposals designed to make the government more accountable. Perhaps if I am in the mood to discuss these on the weblog in the coming months I will do so but I wanted to note it here briefly for now.
--As it sits now, the party I mentioned earlier in the month that was going to dialogue with me on the subject of the atomic bombings of 1945 has put the finishing touches on their opening comments. So that project will soon be underway -the start date of August 30, 2007 still looks like a go and I will update you on if there are any changes to the time frame prior to that point.
Notes:
{1} I came close once though.
{2} I cannot at the moment remember the reason it was not finished but there are a lot of threads in draft form that get forgotten or pushed down in priority as I try to make do with what time I have for this blogging endeavour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)