More On Magisterial Interpretation:

(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

One common mistake made in the area of magisterial interpretation is the texts are not considered in the totality of what they say. As a result, most folks who have recourse to said texts{1} usually miss important nuances in a text that they then presume say one thing when in actuality, they say something if not significantly differently then at least differently enough to undermine those citing said texts. In essence, words mean things and words matter. 

When seeking to correctly interpret a presumed magisterial statement{2}, it is important to consider every word in the text or statement because omitting even a mere word or two can change the manifested meaning. I wrote in detail on the subjects of the magisterium and the obedience required earlier in the year{3} and will reference from that work at this time a pertinent part of it for the point I am making here. To wit: 

It helps to remember at the outset of treating on this subject matter that "a simple sentence, even spoken by the Sovereign Pontiff, is not an act of the Magisterium; we know that all statements have different degrees of authority."[...] So those who conflate airplane interviews[...], purported statements of non-dogmatic fact[...], speeches on geopolitical matters[...], or musings on economics particulars[...] are going outside what the Church requires. This also applies to those who make too much out of statements about historical events,[...] personal opinions on various subject matters from papal exhortatory comments,[...] as well as papal empirical surmises.[...]{4}

There are a variety of possible mediums basically. And as not everything in an unquestionable magisterial source is ipso facto magisterial, one needs to be particularly careful with sources that are of a more questionable nature.

Hopefully this brief treatment on the subject of interpretation{5} can be of assistance for those of good will who strive honestly and humbly to properly understand and interpret various sources of varying degrees of potentially magisterial nature.

Notes:

{1} Usually in a critical or apologetical context. 

{2} I say "presumed magisterial statement" because there is a habit by most people to equate virtually anything said by the Pope, a bishop, or another cleric as automatically magisterial. It is of course not that simple. 

{3} On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020)

{4} See the source in footnote three.

{5} For the first installment thread on this topic, see the following post:

On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)

On Positive Arguments For Voting For Biden/Harris in 2020:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

So far I've managed to detect only two positive arguments for Harris/Biden from left-leaning Catholics: he's "minimally rational," and he'd aim to raise taxes. All the other arguments are fulminations against Trump and/or against the ASP.  Not a bad endorsement of voting for somebody other than Harris/Biden.

I dealt with the American Solidarity Party (ASP) earlier in the year so I am not going to reinvent the wheel here. As for the rest, raising taxes is never a positive argument. It is instead the lazy politicians attempt to avoid exercising fiscal discipline. If Biden was to push for zero based budgeting coupled with sequestration automatically cutting 5% of all essential and unquestionably constitutional programs every year{1} until the budget was balanced then the creation of a sinking fund to pay down debt{2}, that would be a great combination of reasons. But raising taxes is both lazy as well as deceptive because "only the rich" is the camels nose in the tent to raise taxes on everyone and is always what happens. So point one is a highly negative reason not a positive one and ergo stands debunked.

So you only have one and if "minimally rational" is the argument, Trump meets that low threshold so it is a wash/push.

Notes:

{1} And 10% of all non essential or constitutionally controversial programs.

{2} See this thread for more details:

A Plan To Pay Off The National Debt (circa August 14, 2020)

Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe Biden’s push to make millions from China

This is confirmation of the claims made in previous exposes by the New York Post published to this humble site over the past seven days.

Sonnet XIX:

(Requiem For Summer Past)

Having another birthday today, this sonnet from Shakespeare came to mind. It is not just a requiem for summer past but for 47 summers past. Without further ado...

Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws,

And make the earth devour her own sweet brood;

Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws,

And burn the long-liv'd phoenix, in her blood;

Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,

And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time,

To the wide world and all her fading sweets;

But I forbid thee one most heinous crime:

O! carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow,

Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;

Him in thy course untainted do allow

For beauty's pattern to succeeding men.

Yet, do thy worst old Time: despite thy wrong,

My love shall in my verse ever live young.

On the Modern Media Monolith:
(With Christopher Blosser)

This is in response to my recent musings published on social media as well as HERE. My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

Fox News has been the mirror image of MNSBC/CNN for as long as I can remember. I suppose Twitter/FB’s leanings are a new thing.

At the same time, where and when, for example, a social media company has the technical capacity to identify clear instances of foreign actors influencing an election (ex. paid advertising, deletion of dummy/bot accounts, obvious “fake news” postings which have no basis in fact or overt propaganda campaigns) I’m not necessarily opposed to increasing vigilance or countermeasures (as when FB took active measures against the Russian disinformation campaigns in 2019 and more recently the Chinese this year). 

Ex. https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/facebook-removes-fake-account-network-based-in-china

Though this is probably a separate issue altogether it is occasionally perceived as being “on behalf of” a specific candidate.

If we consider CNN and MSNBC a wash with Fox News{1}, that still leaves ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, almost all significant newspapers, Facebook, and Twitter very clearly and unmistakably backing a truck up on the scale for Biden.

Unlike in the old days when this stuff was usually more coy or at least not blatant, there is no pretence of evenhandedness.

This has all the hallmarks of an American Pravda network. I am extremely troubled by this, particularly the thought that a Biden win means it would only worsen.

Note:

{1} Which considering there are no Chris Wallace types on those stations shivving Biden so it is not apples to apples.

'Unverified' is a (false) excuse for ignoring The Post’s Hunter Biden scoops

This article is spot on. The same sources using the "inverified" excuse here have used a trove of anonymous sources to supposedly "verify" their stories in the past where President Trump is concerned. 

Considering that many of these have been exposed as false{1} you will have to pardon those of us who roll our eyes hard at the idea of the mainstream media having any credibility in this area. They have unambiguously shown their hands in recent years that it calls into question why they should be believed on anything at all.

Note:

{1} To give one such example, see this link.

Points to Ponder:

The fundamental principle is that no battle, combat, or skirmish is to be fought unless it will be won. [Ernesto "Che" Guevara]

Miscellaneous Musings:
(On the Increasingly Troubling Media Monoliths)

Apart from anything else in this election, I am particularly troubled by the way the mainstream media and big tech who run social media platforms are so obviously and evidently in the bag for one of the presidential candidates. The difference in how the two are treated cannot be more obvious and I am troubled by the fact that not only do the favoured candidates supporters generally not see it but of those that do, none of them seem to care.

Totalitarian regimes of the past got their starts in similar kinds of environs and a lot of folks who would criticize the public's complacency in those circumstances do not see how they are going along with or (in some cases) defending the very same thing themselves completely oblivious (it seems) to the irony involved.