Bastiat's Corner:
The last installment of this series can be read HERE. For those who are new to the series, the first installment can be read HERE. I have thus far been unable to fix the link problem. (It is fixed in the archives but when I go to publish it the changes are not taking.) Therefore, for those who read through to October 30th, the installment following that one is on November 13th. Other then that glitch, the rest of the links appear to work just fine. Here is today's installment.
A Temporary Dictatorship
Here is Mably on this subject of the law and the legislator. In the passages preceding the one here quoted, Mably has supposed the laws, due to a neglect of security, to be worn out. He continues to address the reader thusly:
"Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the springs of government are slack. Give them a new tension, and the evil will be cured.... Think less of punishing faults, and more of rewarding that which you need. In this manner you will restore to your republic the vigor of youth. Because free people have been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary governmental procedures are unable to cure it, then resort to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow."
In this manner, Mably continues through twenty volumes.
Under the influence of teaching like this -- which stems from classical education -- there came a time when everyone wished to place himself above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it in his own way.
Socialists Want Equality of Wealth
Next let us examine Condillac on this subject of the legislators and mankind:
"My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or of Solon. And before you finish reading this essay, amuse yourself by giving laws to some savages in America or Africa. Confine these nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend flocks.... Attempt to develop the social consciousness that nature has planted in them.... Force them to begin to practice the duties of humanity.... Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to become distasteful to them. Then you will see that every point of your legislation will cause these savages to lose a vice and gain a virtue.
All people have had laws. But few people have been happy. Why is this so? Because the legislators themselves have almost always been ignorant of the purpose of society, which is the uniting of families by a common interest.
Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citizens.... As the laws establish greater equality, they become proportionately more precious to every citizen.... When all men are equal in wealth and dignity -- and when the laws leave no hope of disturbing this equality -- how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy?
What you have learned about the republic of Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No other state has ever had laws more in accord with the order of nature; of equality."
The Error of the Socialist Writers
Actually, it is not strange that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the human race was regarded as inert matter, ready to receive everything -- form, face, energy, movement, life -- from a great prince or a great legislator or a great genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity presents everywhere -- in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome -- the spectacle of a few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and of fraud. But this does not prove that this situation is desirable. It proves only that since men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally to be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition should be greatest towards the origins of history. The writers quoted above were not in error when they found ancient institutions to be such, but they were in error when they offered them for the admiration and imitation of future generations. Uncritical and childish conformists, they took for granted the grandeur, dignity, morality, and happiness of the artificial societies of the ancient world. They did not understand that knowledge appears and grows with the passage of time; and that in proportion to this growth of knowledge, might takes the side of right, and society regains possession of itself.
What Is Liberty?
Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties -- liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism -- including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self- defense; of punishing injustice?
It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire -- learned from the teachings of antiquity -- that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.
Philanthropic Tyranny
While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.
This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.
Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:
SAINT-JUST: "The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be."
ROBESPIERRE: "The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being."
BILLAUD-VARENNES:"A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices.... Citizens, the inexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government."
LE PELLETIER:"Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people."
The Socialists Want Dictatorship
Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint- Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud- Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.
In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue:"Resort,"he says,"to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow." This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:
"The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy."
Dictatorial Arrogance
At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.
This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespierre's request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again.*
[*At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks thusly to all do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind: "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."]
The Indirect Approach to Despotism
Usually, however, these gentlemen -- the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs -- do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws.
To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably, Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon -- plus long extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu -- but also the entire proceedings of the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them.
Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind
It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon considered all Europe to be material for his experiments. But, in due course, this material reacted against him.
At St. Helena, Napoleon -- greatly disillusioned -- seemed to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will: "To govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness."
After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis Blanc's book on the organization of labor: "In our plan, society receives its momentum from power."
Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced upon society; the society referred to is the human race. Thus the human race is to receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.
Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or to reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept or to reject advice from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the law:
"In our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws (nothing else?) by means of which industrial progress can and must proceed in complete liberty. The state merely places society on an incline (that is all?). Then society will slide down this incline by the mere force of things, and by the natural workings of the established mechanism."
But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to happiness.) If this is true, then why does not society go there of its own choice? (Because society does not know what it wants; it must be propelled.) What is to propel it? (Power.) And who is to supply the impulse for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine -- in this instance, Mr. Louis Blanc.)
The Vicious Circle of Socialism
We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.
Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?
Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.
And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?
Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?
Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.
The Doctrine of the Democrats
The strange phenomenon of our times -- one which will probably astound our descendants -- is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.
The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.
What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.
When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.
But when the legislator is finally elected -- ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Sone Notable Links From The Old Oligarch Worth A Read:
(And some commentary from your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)
The first is on why anonymity is a good approach for faithful blogging priests to take. In light of how Fr. Rob has again been silenced by his ordinary, any priests who read this blog who want to start a blog, please consider using pseudonyms. I am not counseling disobedience to your ordinary but there is no requirement that you have to use your real names. Please remember that should you decide to join the orthodox prelates in the blogosphere.
The second link from the Oligarch is a schedule of Catholic colleges that plan to run The Vagina Monologues. This is blatantly contrary to Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae but it is also tasteless and has no place in a Catholic college. Please bug the hell out of these institutions and nag them unceasingly until they act accordingly and drop this dung heap of a skit.
(And some commentary from your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)
The first is on why anonymity is a good approach for faithful blogging priests to take. In light of how Fr. Rob has again been silenced by his ordinary, any priests who read this blog who want to start a blog, please consider using pseudonyms. I am not counseling disobedience to your ordinary but there is no requirement that you have to use your real names. Please remember that should you decide to join the orthodox prelates in the blogosphere.
The second link from the Oligarch is a schedule of Catholic colleges that plan to run The Vagina Monologues. This is blatantly contrary to Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae but it is also tasteless and has no place in a Catholic college. Please bug the hell out of these institutions and nag them unceasingly until they act accordingly and drop this dung heap of a skit.
Anne Wilson on ways to deal with getting songs stuck in one's head. I had Journey's "Wheel in the Sky Keeps on Turning" stuck in my head when bleeding brakes on a vehicle the other day. It drove my friend Colin a little batty. I told him the song was stuck in my head (I have not heard it in years so I do not know how) and he said "can't you get another song stuck in your head???" My response of course was "sure" and I started singing "When the lights go down in the city"... ;-)
Anyway, read the link above. My favourite part was Anne's closing line Your brain will be clean as the proverbial stables of Augeus after the big flush. Little cultural quips like that appeal to me perhaps because so much of culture today is bereft of them. But I digress...
Anyway, read the link above. My favourite part was Anne's closing line Your brain will be clean as the proverbial stables of Augeus after the big flush. Little cultural quips like that appeal to me perhaps because so much of culture today is bereft of them. But I digress...
"Flower-Power Catholic Style" Dept.
No, this is not a reference to hippies but to St. Therese. Apparently St. Luke Productions is putting out a movie on her. See Tom Harmon's blog at this link for more details.
No, this is not a reference to hippies but to St. Therese. Apparently St. Luke Productions is putting out a movie on her. See Tom Harmon's blog at this link for more details.
"Jewish World Review" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Spin)
Pop music had an all female group "TLC". It seems to me that conservatives could have their own all female pundit group "TMC":
Eve Tushnet
Michelle Malkin
Linda Chavez
The subjects covered above are home schooling, lecherous celebrities, and the impending war. Enjoy!!!
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Spin)
Pop music had an all female group "TLC". It seems to me that conservatives could have their own all female pundit group "TMC":
Eve Tushnet
Michelle Malkin
Linda Chavez
The subjects covered above are home schooling, lecherous celebrities, and the impending war. Enjoy!!!
Mr. Rogers has passed away.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace...may his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace...may his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Some Questions About the 2002 Scandals:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I am wondering how many who got all bent out of shape over the sex scandals will bother to issue their own correction when it is pointed out how even Catholics played a role in blowing this wholly out of proportion. I have been rather silent about this subject.{1}
Nonetheless, since there has finally been written an article covering it, there are still some questions to be answered as I see it. Among those questions I have are (i) will any of the hysterical sorts issue a public retraction and (ii) if they do, will they make it as prominantly as their original screeds. My hunch is that they will apologize on Q3 for the ranting they did on A1. This is frankly inexcusable.
It is not unreasonable to insist that those who were not slow in making their exaggerations front page do their apologizing on the front page. I have always sought to do this myself - responding to errors or omissions to the extent that they were made.{2} How many though will have the guts to do this???
I am not talking about the spineless wonders at NY/LA Slimes, NY comPost, Seattle Post Ignorancer, or other media outlets who will never in a thousand years do this. I am talking about the Catholic pundits - those at St. Blogs, those on message boards, those who write for Catholic and/or conservative publications.
I frankly do not expect the liberals to make any mea culpas on this. Nor do I expect the so-called "traditionalists" to do so either: the three 'mea culpas' of their Confiteor at mass so often being in vain it seems with the radicals.{3} But those who try to act as Christians are supposed to act have a responsibility if they want to retain their credibility untarnished. Yet watch how many of them will scurry away under the couch or some dark place and pretend that they were never as virtulent as they really were.
Watch for those who are cornered to say things like "well, I really did not have all the information" or "well, I was saying nothing that anyone else was not saying" or excuses of that sort. I will not mention any names but those who have done what I noted above know who they are. Let us now see who among them is willing to stand up now and admit to overreacting. I doubt you will find very many of them but I am open to being (pleasantly) wrong about this.
Notes:
{1} I have recently reviewed a very good and balanced book that dealt with the underlying factors behind these issues. Go HERE for details.
{2} Public if public, on a message board if that was where they were made, on my blogs if that is where they were made, or in private correspondence, etc.
{3} For these have the same vested interest as the media: to rip down the Church unless it tries to conform itself to their image ala the Jews and Roman soldiers of the Scriptures and their taunts to the Lord of Hosts.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I am wondering how many who got all bent out of shape over the sex scandals will bother to issue their own correction when it is pointed out how even Catholics played a role in blowing this wholly out of proportion. I have been rather silent about this subject.{1}
Nonetheless, since there has finally been written an article covering it, there are still some questions to be answered as I see it. Among those questions I have are (i) will any of the hysterical sorts issue a public retraction and (ii) if they do, will they make it as prominantly as their original screeds. My hunch is that they will apologize on Q3 for the ranting they did on A1. This is frankly inexcusable.
It is not unreasonable to insist that those who were not slow in making their exaggerations front page do their apologizing on the front page. I have always sought to do this myself - responding to errors or omissions to the extent that they were made.{2} How many though will have the guts to do this???
I am not talking about the spineless wonders at NY/LA Slimes, NY comPost, Seattle Post Ignorancer, or other media outlets who will never in a thousand years do this. I am talking about the Catholic pundits - those at St. Blogs, those on message boards, those who write for Catholic and/or conservative publications.
I frankly do not expect the liberals to make any mea culpas on this. Nor do I expect the so-called "traditionalists" to do so either: the three 'mea culpas' of their Confiteor at mass so often being in vain it seems with the radicals.{3} But those who try to act as Christians are supposed to act have a responsibility if they want to retain their credibility untarnished. Yet watch how many of them will scurry away under the couch or some dark place and pretend that they were never as virtulent as they really were.
Watch for those who are cornered to say things like "well, I really did not have all the information" or "well, I was saying nothing that anyone else was not saying" or excuses of that sort. I will not mention any names but those who have done what I noted above know who they are. Let us now see who among them is willing to stand up now and admit to overreacting. I doubt you will find very many of them but I am open to being (pleasantly) wrong about this.
Notes:
{1} I have recently reviewed a very good and balanced book that dealt with the underlying factors behind these issues. Go HERE for details.
{2} Public if public, on a message board if that was where they were made, on my blogs if that is where they were made, or in private correspondence, etc.
{3} For these have the same vested interest as the media: to rip down the Church unless it tries to conform itself to their image ala the Jews and Roman soldiers of the Scriptures and their taunts to the Lord of Hosts.
Monday, February 24, 2003
I missed the anniversary of Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman's birthday. (In retrospect, I wish my blog anniversary was the 21st instead of the 22nd but oh well.) Thankfully, Lane Core and Donna Lewis can be counted on for charting the various verbal vignettes of the Venerable one.
It would be difficult to explain his influence on my own thinking so I will avoid long expositions on it and simply post a picture from Lane's website. Happy Birthday Cardinal Newman. And thank you for the tremendous influence on my own faith formation.
John Henry Newman, circa 1880
It would be difficult to explain his influence on my own thinking so I will avoid long expositions on it and simply post a picture from Lane's website. Happy Birthday Cardinal Newman. And thank you for the tremendous influence on my own faith formation.
John Henry Newman, circa 1880
More El Camino Real vs. Rerum Novarum
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I was hoping to see a response by Jeff Culbreath on definitions for the ambiguous term of "modernist-influenced" and "modernism". He has not responded yet but I trust him that time is not available for that at this time. He did point to one element of my response as a kind of brief "interim response" and took issue with my claim that the same forces behind the implementation of Humanae Vitae also impaired the reception of the Council's teaching. He did this by reiterating the position he previously espoused that If we want to know what the fathers of the Council really meant, we need only look at how they implemented their work at home. Aah if things were only that easy. Unfortunately, it is not so simple as that.
You see, there were many factors that influenced the way the decrees were implemented. (One of which was the overly bureaucratic diocesan structure of the first world dioceses (already firmly in place before Vatican II was convoked) which did what all bureaucracies tend to do and that was to gum up the machinery. There are also issues with the way the GIRM was implemented - or should I say not implemented - which bear unmistakable tendencies towards following a supposed "spirit" of the decrees rather than their letter.
Some of this may have been a reaction against over a century and a half of absurdly legalistic outlooks but that cannot explain all of it. There is also the issue of catechesis both at the lay level and also at the seminary levels. I would wager that three quarters of all the post-council problems are due to failures to properly catechize. (Part of which would involve a holistic exposure to the documents of the Council and not in little carefully parsed bits.)
The Second Vatican Council in some ways was a catechism in and of itself and it therefore needed to be studied as such. Of course the problems with our modern short attention span populace does not like anything it cannot read in a sound byte so different sides took their favourite sound bytes and they were pitted against one another rather than taken together as originally intended.
Very little of this really is in my opinion debatable to those who are properly informed. However, it is worth touching on in brief here with three unmistakable misreading of the Council texts that unfortunately were not uncommon. They are as follows:
1) Church architecture.
2) Lack of Gregorian Chant.
3) Lack of using Latin for at least some of the ordinary prayers (Confiteor, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc.)
Let us take into account these in order of listing.
1) The Council nowhere in any of its texts said a syllable about wreckovations. NOT ONE SYLLABLE. Yet many who have supported these projects have appealed to Vatican II for their support. Since most of the laity has not read the Council's texts, they were easily taken advantage of in the first decades after the Council. Silence on a point does not imply that it is up for grabs. Instead, silence by proper theological interpretation presumes continuity. When the Council did speak on architecture and furnishings, what was decreed cannot be twisted into justifying a lot of what has passed for art and architecture since the close of the Council. Note the following:
The Church has been particularly careful to see that sacred furnishings should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of worship. She has admitted changes in material, style, or ornamentation prompted by the progress of technical arts with the passage of time.
Wherefore it has pleased the Fathers to issue the following decrees on these matters:
123. The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own. She has admitted styles from every period, in keeping with the natural characteristics and conditions of peoples and the needs of the various rites. Thus in the course of the centuries she has brought into existence a treasury of art which must be preserved with every care. The art of our own times from every race and country shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided it bring to the task the reverence and honor due to the sacred buildings and rites. Thus it is enabled to join its voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in past ages.
124. Ordinaries are to take care that in encouraging and favoring truly sacred art, they should seek for noble beauty rather than sumptuous display. The same principle applies also to sacred vestments and ornaments.
Bishops should be careful to ensure that works of art which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or through lack of artistic merit or because of mediocrity or pretense, be removed from the house of God and from other sacred places.
And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.
125. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise the Christian people may find them incongruous and they may foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.
126. When passing judgment on words of art, local ordinaries should ask the opinion of the diocesan commission on sacred are and -- when occasion demands -- the opinions of others who are experts, and the commissions mentioned in Articles 44, 45 and 46.
The commissions mentioned in articles 44-46 include commissions on music, sacred liturgy, and art - with the astute observation made that "it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one single commission" (SC §46).
Ordinaries should ensure that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or destroyed, for they are ornaments in God's house.
Those are the significant decrees on architecture and art from Sacrosanctum Concilium. Far from decreeing in favour of wreckovations they specifically decree against it. Of course those who follow their mythical "spirit of Vatican II" did what they wanted anyway. Which reminds me of a story.
The way my old SSPX church got their altar and tabernacle in the late 1970's was by one of the Church committee members lying to the church they got it from. He told them that he wanted to use the altar as a bar and the tabernacle as a liquor cabinet. The reason was if he told them what he really wanted to use them for (i.e. setting up a chapel) those wreckovating the Church never would have let him have them. Upon receiving them this fellow (who is a woodworker by trade) restored the altar and it was placed along with the tabernacle in the church in 1978 where they are still used today. That encapsulates one clear and inarguable failure to follow what the Council clearly taught. Here are additional ones.
2) Lack of Gregorian Chant. I have not heard one syllable of Gregorian Chant outside of my attendance at SSPX masses from 1986-2000 (and a few funeral masses in 2001). The Council, while allowing for other forms of music to be used explicitly stated the following with regards to Gregorian Chant:
116. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action as laid down in Article 30.
Article 30 reads as follows:
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalms, antiphons, hymns as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time a reverent silence should be observed.
I cannot recall at any time the singing of Gregorian Chant in any Pauline liturgy I have attended except when I attend the occasional "Traditional" liturgy at my parish.{1} (At this mass the ordinary parts of the faithful responses - except for the Our Father - are done in Latin chant.) It seems to me that all parishes should have at least one Pauline liturgy celebrated in this fashion if they are not to make the Council declaration of "pride of place" for Gregorian Chant a dead letter. Moving on we have the final example I am going to give here.
3) The Constitution is quite clear on the Latin usage:
36. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.
(3) These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22:2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used. Its decrees have to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. Where circumstances warrant it, it is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Article 22:2 is one of the Constitution's General Norms and it states that In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories.
This is of course an eminently Traditional norm. But the Constitution specifically calls for the use of some Latin in the liturgy and this norm is often ignored. Here are the governing regulations from subsequent chapters:
54. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and "the common prayer," and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
Nevertheless means "in spite of that". In short, regardless of the allowances for the vernacular to varying degrees, care must be taken to ensure that the faithful can say or sing in Latin the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass. So at the very least, even if the vernacular is used for the readings, directions, additional songs, and even the canon, it was to be maintained in the Ordinary of the Mass. I do not see any other interpretation of the text properly takes into account the general norms of interpretation that must guide any attempt to interpret properly the statements of the Constitution.
Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
Article 40 deals with adaptations for inculturation. It is clear to note that these are listed predominantly for mission territories and therefore it is a flagrant abuse of theological norms to apply them in all but the rarest of cases to first world nations with a long history of Catholic settlement.
These are only three examples of what I am referring to Jeff. It is also important to point out that many bishops took on as advisors people who were accorded the mantle of being "experts" on the Council's teaching regarding the sacred liturgy and sacred architecture who were in reality anything but. In short, this dog does hunt Jeff and he hunts well thank you.
Note:
{1} Some churches do the Kyrie, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei during Lent but that does not qualify as "pride of place" since that is six Sundays a year. "Pride of place" it would seem to me would logically encompass the majority of liturgical celebrations - particularly the first class feasts.
Addendum: A good article on this was put out a couple years ago by (I believe) the same Robert Johansen who is now "Fr. Rob" and who authors the Thrown Back blog which We at Rerum Novarum link to. Here is the text of that article: Liturgy as Ecology.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I was hoping to see a response by Jeff Culbreath on definitions for the ambiguous term of "modernist-influenced" and "modernism". He has not responded yet but I trust him that time is not available for that at this time. He did point to one element of my response as a kind of brief "interim response" and took issue with my claim that the same forces behind the implementation of Humanae Vitae also impaired the reception of the Council's teaching. He did this by reiterating the position he previously espoused that If we want to know what the fathers of the Council really meant, we need only look at how they implemented their work at home. Aah if things were only that easy. Unfortunately, it is not so simple as that.
You see, there were many factors that influenced the way the decrees were implemented. (One of which was the overly bureaucratic diocesan structure of the first world dioceses (already firmly in place before Vatican II was convoked) which did what all bureaucracies tend to do and that was to gum up the machinery. There are also issues with the way the GIRM was implemented - or should I say not implemented - which bear unmistakable tendencies towards following a supposed "spirit" of the decrees rather than their letter.
Some of this may have been a reaction against over a century and a half of absurdly legalistic outlooks but that cannot explain all of it. There is also the issue of catechesis both at the lay level and also at the seminary levels. I would wager that three quarters of all the post-council problems are due to failures to properly catechize. (Part of which would involve a holistic exposure to the documents of the Council and not in little carefully parsed bits.)
The Second Vatican Council in some ways was a catechism in and of itself and it therefore needed to be studied as such. Of course the problems with our modern short attention span populace does not like anything it cannot read in a sound byte so different sides took their favourite sound bytes and they were pitted against one another rather than taken together as originally intended.
Very little of this really is in my opinion debatable to those who are properly informed. However, it is worth touching on in brief here with three unmistakable misreading of the Council texts that unfortunately were not uncommon. They are as follows:
1) Church architecture.
2) Lack of Gregorian Chant.
3) Lack of using Latin for at least some of the ordinary prayers (Confiteor, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc.)
Let us take into account these in order of listing.
1) The Council nowhere in any of its texts said a syllable about wreckovations. NOT ONE SYLLABLE. Yet many who have supported these projects have appealed to Vatican II for their support. Since most of the laity has not read the Council's texts, they were easily taken advantage of in the first decades after the Council. Silence on a point does not imply that it is up for grabs. Instead, silence by proper theological interpretation presumes continuity. When the Council did speak on architecture and furnishings, what was decreed cannot be twisted into justifying a lot of what has passed for art and architecture since the close of the Council. Note the following:
The Church has been particularly careful to see that sacred furnishings should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of worship. She has admitted changes in material, style, or ornamentation prompted by the progress of technical arts with the passage of time.
Wherefore it has pleased the Fathers to issue the following decrees on these matters:
123. The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own. She has admitted styles from every period, in keeping with the natural characteristics and conditions of peoples and the needs of the various rites. Thus in the course of the centuries she has brought into existence a treasury of art which must be preserved with every care. The art of our own times from every race and country shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided it bring to the task the reverence and honor due to the sacred buildings and rites. Thus it is enabled to join its voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in past ages.
124. Ordinaries are to take care that in encouraging and favoring truly sacred art, they should seek for noble beauty rather than sumptuous display. The same principle applies also to sacred vestments and ornaments.
Bishops should be careful to ensure that works of art which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or through lack of artistic merit or because of mediocrity or pretense, be removed from the house of God and from other sacred places.
And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.
125. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise the Christian people may find them incongruous and they may foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.
126. When passing judgment on words of art, local ordinaries should ask the opinion of the diocesan commission on sacred are and -- when occasion demands -- the opinions of others who are experts, and the commissions mentioned in Articles 44, 45 and 46.
The commissions mentioned in articles 44-46 include commissions on music, sacred liturgy, and art - with the astute observation made that "it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one single commission" (SC §46).
Ordinaries should ensure that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or destroyed, for they are ornaments in God's house.
Those are the significant decrees on architecture and art from Sacrosanctum Concilium. Far from decreeing in favour of wreckovations they specifically decree against it. Of course those who follow their mythical "spirit of Vatican II" did what they wanted anyway. Which reminds me of a story.
The way my old SSPX church got their altar and tabernacle in the late 1970's was by one of the Church committee members lying to the church they got it from. He told them that he wanted to use the altar as a bar and the tabernacle as a liquor cabinet. The reason was if he told them what he really wanted to use them for (i.e. setting up a chapel) those wreckovating the Church never would have let him have them. Upon receiving them this fellow (who is a woodworker by trade) restored the altar and it was placed along with the tabernacle in the church in 1978 where they are still used today. That encapsulates one clear and inarguable failure to follow what the Council clearly taught. Here are additional ones.
2) Lack of Gregorian Chant. I have not heard one syllable of Gregorian Chant outside of my attendance at SSPX masses from 1986-2000 (and a few funeral masses in 2001). The Council, while allowing for other forms of music to be used explicitly stated the following with regards to Gregorian Chant:
116. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action as laid down in Article 30.
Article 30 reads as follows:
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalms, antiphons, hymns as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time a reverent silence should be observed.
I cannot recall at any time the singing of Gregorian Chant in any Pauline liturgy I have attended except when I attend the occasional "Traditional" liturgy at my parish.{1} (At this mass the ordinary parts of the faithful responses - except for the Our Father - are done in Latin chant.) It seems to me that all parishes should have at least one Pauline liturgy celebrated in this fashion if they are not to make the Council declaration of "pride of place" for Gregorian Chant a dead letter. Moving on we have the final example I am going to give here.
3) The Constitution is quite clear on the Latin usage:
36. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.
(3) These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22:2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used. Its decrees have to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. Where circumstances warrant it, it is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Article 22:2 is one of the Constitution's General Norms and it states that In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories.
This is of course an eminently Traditional norm. But the Constitution specifically calls for the use of some Latin in the liturgy and this norm is often ignored. Here are the governing regulations from subsequent chapters:
54. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and "the common prayer," and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
Nevertheless means "in spite of that". In short, regardless of the allowances for the vernacular to varying degrees, care must be taken to ensure that the faithful can say or sing in Latin the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass. So at the very least, even if the vernacular is used for the readings, directions, additional songs, and even the canon, it was to be maintained in the Ordinary of the Mass. I do not see any other interpretation of the text properly takes into account the general norms of interpretation that must guide any attempt to interpret properly the statements of the Constitution.
Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
Article 40 deals with adaptations for inculturation. It is clear to note that these are listed predominantly for mission territories and therefore it is a flagrant abuse of theological norms to apply them in all but the rarest of cases to first world nations with a long history of Catholic settlement.
These are only three examples of what I am referring to Jeff. It is also important to point out that many bishops took on as advisors people who were accorded the mantle of being "experts" on the Council's teaching regarding the sacred liturgy and sacred architecture who were in reality anything but. In short, this dog does hunt Jeff and he hunts well thank you.
Note:
{1} Some churches do the Kyrie, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei during Lent but that does not qualify as "pride of place" since that is six Sundays a year. "Pride of place" it would seem to me would logically encompass the majority of liturgical celebrations - particularly the first class feasts.
Addendum: A good article on this was put out a couple years ago by (I believe) the same Robert Johansen who is now "Fr. Rob" and who authors the Thrown Back blog which We at Rerum Novarum link to. Here is the text of that article: Liturgy as Ecology.
Sunday, February 23, 2003
"Happy Birthday To Us" Dept.
Well, not exactly. Today is actually the six month plus one day anniversary of Rerum Novarum. So I am going to do with this weblog today exactly what I want to - not that I do not already do that anyway.
So we may run some more stuff from the Bastiat series on The Law today and perhaps have an update of stuff from Jewish World Review and also perhaps a traddy song parody if I am in the mood to cook one up.
One thing I thought might be interesting is posting some links to a few of the earliest links to this weblog. Because it took me a while to get comfortable with this kind of publishing admittedly. Not to prejudice the posts from an earlier time period but I do not feel that this weblog really began clickingon all cylinders until about one month into the existence of Rerum Novarum. If I had to pinpoint a particular post that would be difficult but it seems to me that this one marked the point where I had almost all the ingredients into the pot if you will.
Prior to that point, I had not touched on the aspect of me that likes old style poetry or literature. I even had a small voice in my head around the time I first thought about posting it that was opposed to posting the Danny Deever poem because it was contrary to a kind of established pattern I was settling into with the weblog.
I decided of course to post it because (i) I had an instinct to want to post it so that meant I should do so and (ii) barring the most extraordinary of examples, if I second guess myself on this then I run the risk of playing into the network "sweeps week" mentality which I delved into in detail HERE.
I have drawn flack at times over the years for not towing a certain party line and I decided there to avoid any second guessing unless it was a very serious matter and (in that case) I would temporarily hold back to consider the merits of the idea. (In short, be true to my own intuitions on the matter.)
Very rarely though in blogging do such things come up. Instead, they are more germane to theological endeavours such as evangelization - where my occasional scruples are usually more towards the tone of a message than the message itself. (Though sometimes I decide to address an idea later on when it seems prudent to allow natural courses to better define the environment for such things.)
Nonetheless, I am not in saying this implying that the first month or so of this weblog should be written off my friends - not by a long shot. It is simply an admission that it took me that long to either explicitly set forth or implicitly plant the various seeds from which this weblog developed into the kinda gumbo that it is. But in reviewing the life of this weblog, perhaps listing here some of what I think the landmark posts from the first month are would be a good idea. Of the ones listed which may be in the margin, I will indicate those with an astrisks. Anyway, here goes:
First significant post to Rerum Novarum.
In light of what I noted about my friend Albert yesterday, he may find something in this post that resonates with him. However this weblog and its subjects have varied over the months, this post still captures the essence of the way I muse a lot of the time. (Yesterday I was doing some brake work on a vehicle so this post is rather applicable to my current state of mind too.) Moving on we come to this entry not from my weblog but another one:
My one (and to my knowledge only) mention by The Retentive One.
It happened the same day my weblog debuted interestingly enough. I was not quite astute enough back then to review my work after posting it to check for mistakes.{1} Hence I cut down on the mistake ratio dramatically. (And for someone with relatively clumsy fingers at times, that is a rather significant achievement.)
Before moving on with this retrospective, I want to address a rumour that appears to be circulating in the blogosphere. Some have speculated as to whether or not the same day critique followed by a subsequent lack of mention in light of the occasionally significant error here and there is an admission that I am the anonymous party in question. The rationale I suppose is that in criticizing myself the same day I debuted Rerum Novarum was a cheap attempt at self promotion.
Presumably, (or so the conspiracy theory pundits might say), the failure to mention myself again would serve to remove me from being considered a possible solution to the ever running identity game at that individual's weblog.{2} Since some have inquired both publicly and privately on this subject, I would like to take the opportunity at this time to respond to these conspiracy theories to clarify this issue for those who have asked. So I will tend to that with the following declaration:
I neither confirm nor deny the allegations made on this matter.
Hopefully that settles the issue for those who have asked :) Moving on with the retrospective, we come to the following entry:
First linking to another blog in a post.
It was the JunkYard BLOG which has become a staple here for my readers on political and social issues. (For Bryan and I think alike on not a few of those issues.) Moving on though we come to this entry:
Some thoughts on interfaith outreach*
This was my first theological dissertation on the weblog. It was composed basically from scratch with thoughts of what I knew at the time (and for two years previous to that point) was an inexorable descent into schism by a prominent Catholic apologist. A long subject and I certainly have no interest in rehashing it at this time, maybe later.
First Explicit Statement of Blog Intentions
I believe I have remained thus far very true to this stated intention. Please pardon the poor formatting on my part as my post formularies were still in the embryonic stage at this point.
First Magisterial Exercise of the Welborn Protocol.
Self explanatory to veteran bloggers or veteran blogging surfers.
Part I of my first attempt at blogosphere diplomacy
I did not think at that time to link series stuff together. And attempts to do so with the four posts in that series today have not panned because Blogger is being stubborn. Nonetheless, if you click at that link and scroll up, the four pieces are right after one another so you can review them that way if you like.
My first baseball entry.
I am a fan of baseball, though I do not often blog on the subject. Of course with a promising year ahead that could well change. (Remember, I started blogging after the Mariners were all but pushing up daisies in the pennant race last year.)
First Guest Editorial.
In light of the subject matter discussed and the impending implosion I refer to above (see the interfaith entry), this one was quite timely in retrospect to post.
First blog advanced posting of an Amazon review.
That was also my first Amazon review since November of 2001.
First Detailed Blog Fisking of a Reasonably Known (in apologetics circles) Apologist.*
My previous forays were with predominantly unknown or otherwise not-as-established individuals. It was not long before this tactic was undertaken again (a day or so actually) but that is another story altogether.
First Attempt to Balance Out My Weblog With Eastern Links.
Considering that I am nearly half Ukrainian, that was quite a milestone my friends.
My first war entry.*
I was not in favour of war at this point as the entry perhaps makes evident.
First Spiritual Instruction Entry*
Pretty self-evident methinks.
First "Which _____ Are You?" Quiz.
In my case first five since I took five of them in sequence. (Which MASH character?, Which Muppet?, Which Beatles song are you?, What was your past life?, and Which dead Russian composer?)
Second Guest Editorial.
The significance of that entry was mostly the content (my friend Bill Bannon's piece on the Trade Center event one year after the event). Prior to this point I had done virtually nothing on social commentary per se. And while not my first usage of bold font headings, it was my first usage of the "Dept." classification in true MAD magazine fashion. (Yeah, I read the occasional issue though not as much as I used to many years ago.)
One of the first - if not the first - implicit denunciations of antisemitism at Rerum Novarum.
In light of the environment at the time - and because of certain close-to-home developments at around this time - I felt the need to speak out but not be direct about it. Maybe some time I will reveal the reasons why but not right now.
First Disagreement With Bill Cork.
There have not been too many of these. In light of how recent to this entry we were first acquainted (two days previously if I recall), this post is a milestone. It is also an opportunity for me to tell Bill in light of how the individual we were discussing has degenerated that - while I still disagree with his proposed timeframe - that I nonetheless agree with his idea for a reasonably long timeframe in most cases with neophyte reverts before they start public apologetics. (Much more so reverts than converts because the situations are slightly different.)
The first Points to Ponder post.
Perhaps the most serviceable of my various departments because it can be as brief as a sentence or as extended as a few paragraphs. It is often said that most people do not think too much anymore and while perhaps "thinking" is not what people should be doing anyway - since it is too western and not sufficiently holistic in its approach. (Nonetheless, to "ponder" or "muse" on a point is appropriate since it involves more than mere head games.) So throwing out the occasional phrase or sequence to give the readers "food for musing" was one of those "came to me in a flash" ideas so it was immediately blogged.
That is pretty much an overview of the first month of Rerum Novarum. It is true that not every seed that has germinated since that time was explicit in the first month of course. But it is not an exaggeration to say that everything from establishing new weblogs, starting blog movements such as the Faith Legion, or other such elements were all established in principle in that first one month period.{3} (To say nothing about establishing new long-running series formats for educational purposes.)
But this entry serves as a holistic overview of the first month of Rerum Novarum. There are enough links in the side margin from subsequent weblog entries to cover the remaining five month period of this weblog's existence. Anyway, I hope to possibly post another entry in the Bastiat series tonight before bedtime. I have to get ready for mass now so until then, adieu. (If I even blog again tonight that is.)
Notes:
{1} Usually I do that immediately after posting unless it is an entry of approximately three lines or less; in those instances the entry is immediately reviewed before I post it.
{2} And leaving in my stumbles - particularly on the first day - would I presume be a kind of blogging version of "send in the clowns" to use a circus metaphor.
{3} Virtually all of these were literally on-the-spot blogged ideas. When that was not possible, they were jotted down and blogged when it was feasible to do so.
Well, not exactly. Today is actually the six month plus one day anniversary of Rerum Novarum. So I am going to do with this weblog today exactly what I want to - not that I do not already do that anyway.
So we may run some more stuff from the Bastiat series on The Law today and perhaps have an update of stuff from Jewish World Review and also perhaps a traddy song parody if I am in the mood to cook one up.
One thing I thought might be interesting is posting some links to a few of the earliest links to this weblog. Because it took me a while to get comfortable with this kind of publishing admittedly. Not to prejudice the posts from an earlier time period but I do not feel that this weblog really began clicking
Prior to that point, I had not touched on the aspect of me that likes old style poetry or literature. I even had a small voice in my head around the time I first thought about posting it that was opposed to posting the Danny Deever poem because it was contrary to a kind of established pattern I was settling into with the weblog.
I decided of course to post it because (i) I had an instinct to want to post it so that meant I should do so and (ii) barring the most extraordinary of examples, if I second guess myself on this then I run the risk of playing into the network "sweeps week" mentality which I delved into in detail HERE.
I have drawn flack at times over the years for not towing a certain party line and I decided there to avoid any second guessing unless it was a very serious matter and (in that case) I would temporarily hold back to consider the merits of the idea. (In short, be true to my own intuitions on the matter.)
Very rarely though in blogging do such things come up. Instead, they are more germane to theological endeavours such as evangelization - where my occasional scruples are usually more towards the tone of a message than the message itself. (Though sometimes I decide to address an idea later on when it seems prudent to allow natural courses to better define the environment for such things.)
Nonetheless, I am not in saying this implying that the first month or so of this weblog should be written off my friends - not by a long shot. It is simply an admission that it took me that long to either explicitly set forth or implicitly plant the various seeds from which this weblog developed into the kinda gumbo that it is. But in reviewing the life of this weblog, perhaps listing here some of what I think the landmark posts from the first month are would be a good idea. Of the ones listed which may be in the margin, I will indicate those with an astrisks. Anyway, here goes:
First significant post to Rerum Novarum.
In light of what I noted about my friend Albert yesterday, he may find something in this post that resonates with him. However this weblog and its subjects have varied over the months, this post still captures the essence of the way I muse a lot of the time. (Yesterday I was doing some brake work on a vehicle so this post is rather applicable to my current state of mind too.) Moving on we come to this entry not from my weblog but another one:
My one (and to my knowledge only) mention by The Retentive One.
It happened the same day my weblog debuted interestingly enough. I was not quite astute enough back then to review my work after posting it to check for mistakes.{1} Hence I cut down on the mistake ratio dramatically. (And for someone with relatively clumsy fingers at times, that is a rather significant achievement.)
Before moving on with this retrospective, I want to address a rumour that appears to be circulating in the blogosphere. Some have speculated as to whether or not the same day critique followed by a subsequent lack of mention in light of the occasionally significant error here and there is an admission that I am the anonymous party in question. The rationale I suppose is that in criticizing myself the same day I debuted Rerum Novarum was a cheap attempt at self promotion.
Presumably, (or so the conspiracy theory pundits might say), the failure to mention myself again would serve to remove me from being considered a possible solution to the ever running identity game at that individual's weblog.{2} Since some have inquired both publicly and privately on this subject, I would like to take the opportunity at this time to respond to these conspiracy theories to clarify this issue for those who have asked. So I will tend to that with the following declaration:
I neither confirm nor deny the allegations made on this matter.
Hopefully that settles the issue for those who have asked :) Moving on with the retrospective, we come to the following entry:
First linking to another blog in a post.
It was the JunkYard BLOG which has become a staple here for my readers on political and social issues. (For Bryan and I think alike on not a few of those issues.) Moving on though we come to this entry:
Some thoughts on interfaith outreach*
This was my first theological dissertation on the weblog. It was composed basically from scratch with thoughts of what I knew at the time (and for two years previous to that point) was an inexorable descent into schism by a prominent Catholic apologist. A long subject and I certainly have no interest in rehashing it at this time, maybe later.
First Explicit Statement of Blog Intentions
I believe I have remained thus far very true to this stated intention. Please pardon the poor formatting on my part as my post formularies were still in the embryonic stage at this point.
First Magisterial Exercise of the Welborn Protocol.
Self explanatory to veteran bloggers or veteran blogging surfers.
Part I of my first attempt at blogosphere diplomacy
I did not think at that time to link series stuff together. And attempts to do so with the four posts in that series today have not panned because Blogger is being stubborn. Nonetheless, if you click at that link and scroll up, the four pieces are right after one another so you can review them that way if you like.
My first baseball entry.
I am a fan of baseball, though I do not often blog on the subject. Of course with a promising year ahead that could well change. (Remember, I started blogging after the Mariners were all but pushing up daisies in the pennant race last year.)
First Guest Editorial.
In light of the subject matter discussed and the impending implosion I refer to above (see the interfaith entry), this one was quite timely in retrospect to post.
First blog advanced posting of an Amazon review.
That was also my first Amazon review since November of 2001.
First Detailed Blog Fisking of a Reasonably Known (in apologetics circles) Apologist.*
My previous forays were with predominantly unknown or otherwise not-as-established individuals. It was not long before this tactic was undertaken again (a day or so actually) but that is another story altogether.
First Attempt to Balance Out My Weblog With Eastern Links.
Considering that I am nearly half Ukrainian, that was quite a milestone my friends.
My first war entry.*
I was not in favour of war at this point as the entry perhaps makes evident.
First Spiritual Instruction Entry*
Pretty self-evident methinks.
First "Which _____ Are You?" Quiz.
In my case first five since I took five of them in sequence. (Which MASH character?, Which Muppet?, Which Beatles song are you?, What was your past life?, and Which dead Russian composer?)
Second Guest Editorial.
The significance of that entry was mostly the content (my friend Bill Bannon's piece on the Trade Center event one year after the event). Prior to this point I had done virtually nothing on social commentary per se. And while not my first usage of bold font headings, it was my first usage of the "Dept." classification in true MAD magazine fashion. (Yeah, I read the occasional issue though not as much as I used to many years ago.)
One of the first - if not the first - implicit denunciations of antisemitism at Rerum Novarum.
In light of the environment at the time - and because of certain close-to-home developments at around this time - I felt the need to speak out but not be direct about it. Maybe some time I will reveal the reasons why but not right now.
First Disagreement With Bill Cork.
There have not been too many of these. In light of how recent to this entry we were first acquainted (two days previously if I recall), this post is a milestone. It is also an opportunity for me to tell Bill in light of how the individual we were discussing has degenerated that - while I still disagree with his proposed timeframe - that I nonetheless agree with his idea for a reasonably long timeframe in most cases with neophyte reverts before they start public apologetics. (Much more so reverts than converts because the situations are slightly different.)
The first Points to Ponder post.
Perhaps the most serviceable of my various departments because it can be as brief as a sentence or as extended as a few paragraphs. It is often said that most people do not think too much anymore and while perhaps "thinking" is not what people should be doing anyway - since it is too western and not sufficiently holistic in its approach. (Nonetheless, to "ponder" or "muse" on a point is appropriate since it involves more than mere head games.) So throwing out the occasional phrase or sequence to give the readers "food for musing" was one of those "came to me in a flash" ideas so it was immediately blogged.
That is pretty much an overview of the first month of Rerum Novarum. It is true that not every seed that has germinated since that time was explicit in the first month of course. But it is not an exaggeration to say that everything from establishing new weblogs, starting blog movements such as the Faith Legion, or other such elements were all established in principle in that first one month period.{3} (To say nothing about establishing new long-running series formats for educational purposes.)
But this entry serves as a holistic overview of the first month of Rerum Novarum. There are enough links in the side margin from subsequent weblog entries to cover the remaining five month period of this weblog's existence. Anyway, I hope to possibly post another entry in the Bastiat series tonight before bedtime. I have to get ready for mass now so until then, adieu. (If I even blog again tonight that is.)
Notes:
{1} Usually I do that immediately after posting unless it is an entry of approximately three lines or less; in those instances the entry is immediately reviewed before I post it.
{2} And leaving in my stumbles - particularly on the first day - would I presume be a kind of blogging version of "send in the clowns" to use a circus metaphor.
{3} Virtually all of these were literally on-the-spot blogged ideas. When that was not possible, they were jotted down and blogged when it was feasible to do so.
New Journeyman Issue Available!!!
I thought that this e-zine was defunct after so long without a new issue. I am happy to announce that I was wrong on this one folks.
Greg Krehbiel debuted the e-zine in September of 2001 and I wrote a piece on stem cell research for that one. The next issue was November of 2001 and I did an abridged version of my Amazon book review for the "Reviews" section of that issue. Then there was an issue put out in March 2002 and I thought that the long interval meant that Greg had discontinued the concept. I was surprised in checking the link to see a new issue up now. Here is the link:
January 2003 issue
If things go as planned, I may be writing a piece on capital punishment for the next Journeyman issue. I doubt we will have to wait ten months for that one, though it may be two or three months down the road or so. It all depends on editor and chief contributor Greg Krehbiel's schedule probably. But you know, there is little stopping one of you from submitting a piece for this e-zine. Greg has some of the most reasonable submission policies out there. And I know from experience that Greg is not one of those who shies away from disagreement with him - provided that the person has the proper disposition of course.{1}
Anyway, give the above issue a read and read the back issues as well. I have my stem cell research essay linked to this weblog but with Lent coming up, the book I reviewed in late 2001 may make a good Lenten read for you. (I submitted it in my list of recommended reading to Amy Welborn's list last week.) But go there for more than just my stuff folks - you will see some familiar names there and even some not-so-familiar ones.
Note:
{1} Meaning that they do not canonize as binding on others their own personal opinions in areas where there is legitimate theological speculation.
I thought that this e-zine was defunct after so long without a new issue. I am happy to announce that I was wrong on this one folks.
Greg Krehbiel debuted the e-zine in September of 2001 and I wrote a piece on stem cell research for that one. The next issue was November of 2001 and I did an abridged version of my Amazon book review for the "Reviews" section of that issue. Then there was an issue put out in March 2002 and I thought that the long interval meant that Greg had discontinued the concept. I was surprised in checking the link to see a new issue up now. Here is the link:
January 2003 issue
If things go as planned, I may be writing a piece on capital punishment for the next Journeyman issue. I doubt we will have to wait ten months for that one, though it may be two or three months down the road or so. It all depends on editor and chief contributor Greg Krehbiel's schedule probably. But you know, there is little stopping one of you from submitting a piece for this e-zine. Greg has some of the most reasonable submission policies out there. And I know from experience that Greg is not one of those who shies away from disagreement with him - provided that the person has the proper disposition of course.{1}
Anyway, give the above issue a read and read the back issues as well. I have my stem cell research essay linked to this weblog but with Lent coming up, the book I reviewed in late 2001 may make a good Lenten read for you. (I submitted it in my list of recommended reading to Amy Welborn's list last week.) But go there for more than just my stuff folks - you will see some familiar names there and even some not-so-familiar ones.
Note:
{1} Meaning that they do not canonize as binding on others their own personal opinions in areas where there is legitimate theological speculation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)