On Miscellaneous Matters, My Father, Our Generations, Etc:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I have to run some errands but before I go, I wanted to note that Bill Cork does a very good job addressing the Generation X in the following post. I have been reticient to discuss my age for many years but with a birthday coming up (on the 21st) I will reveal that I am of the Generation X classification - though I am not as old as Bill is.

It is not a subject I like to discuss because (frankly) I am for the most part not congruent with my generation and find the earlier Boomers to be an embarrassment. No, I find myself having more in common with my late fathers generation (approx. 1926-1946) the "silent generation" if you will: the fellas who were too young for WW II (except maybe at the tailend) but who were young men for Korea and (amongst the younger ones like my father) young men at the time Eisenhower was sending "advisors" to Vietnam and the Cuban Missle Crisis of '63.

The only significant difference perhaps is I believe men were stronger then. Not physically per se as even now I am not hurting in that department (though I was stronger when I was younger physically). I refer to overall constitutions if you will and in that sense do not see a viable comparison to be made. (Though I hold out hope that eventually one could be made as I am not only my fathers eldest but am his only son.)

I will be running up to the Everett Union Gospel Mission later today to give the shelter most of my fathers clothes after the estate sale. They were held over because it simply did not seem right to sell them or to give them to St. Vincent de Paul who would sell them. They could never sell them for what they are worth not that they are expensive per se but because of the value of the man who wore them.

It is kinda ironic that I happened to go to Bill's weblog when doing a quick blogwatch - I vary my checkups on the side links of Rerum Novarum - and see this note about the generations....well it got me thinking particularly in light of where I am now going. One final digression to tie all of this together before I vamos.

Mark Shea asked the question yesterday about what was more important, the ordinary or the extraordinary. I immediately thought of the sermon that came to his mind last week on the same theme. My comments in the message box can be read at Mark's blog but one brief extension on them comes to mind.

I recall numerous times in my youth where it was said that I had "extraordinary" gifts or talents. No such accolades were ever laid at my fathers feet - quite the contrary actually. I believe that God takes greater joy in the ordinary than in the extraordinary. And that the ordinary is to be prized above the extraordinary because it is tested, it is reliable. And it often does not perceive of its true value.

I mentioned this in one of the very first entries at Rerum Novarum. Anyway, I have to run now but one request to my readers: please remember my father Richard Dunn McElhinney on All Souls Day. He was by all statistical accounts an "ordinary" man. I assure you, statistics are woefully inadequate to express his true value: proof positive to me that what is classified as "extraordinary" is not of greater value than what is classified as "ordinary". Indeed arguably the "extraordinary" is of markedly lessor value and no one will convince me otherwise.

Brief Note:

I will try to get to the Rerum Novarum War Gumbo tonight...

"Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa" Dept.

As I am critical of certain individuals for being bereft of the mea culpa, I will note here that Albert made a good point about me addressing his entire email in the post below. As a result I edited the piece and inserted the parts I did not address previously. In short, I apologize (mea culpa) for doing a Readers Digest Condensed Version of a response to your post Albert.

I did not think doing so would in any way do injustice to your position but since you think it did, I have revised the piece accordingly. I only ask in the future that you remember that blogging is an exercise in economical expression for me so as a general rule condensed versions are par for the course. But exceptions can be made of course - heck as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I can do that at my own whim. So this time I have done that and apologize if the previous version's brevity was problematical. (In light of how I have been criticized for vast extrapolations in the past, being criticized for brevity now is rather ironic. But I digress...)

"It's So Ea-sy To Be A Trad" Dept.

It's so easy to be a trad
It's so easy to be a trad
Church teach-ing is pick and choose
And as the pope you can make all the rules

It seems so easy, (seems so easy, seems so easy)
Umm-hmm so doggone easy (doggone easy , doggone easy)
Umm-hmm, it seems so easy, (seems so easy, seems so easy, seems so easy)
Because you're your own au-thor-i-tyyyy

It's so easy to be a trad
It's so easy to be a trad
cont...

Case in point is the dialogue below with my friend Albert Cipriani.

My point was that obedience to a teaching handed on by the Supreme Authority is by that fact alone what determines its binding nature. Infallibility is a corollary if you will. It denotes a degree of certitude and a specific theological qualification. It is not the criterion for the truth or irreformability of a teaching.

I see. Even though a teaching may be irreformable, it’s not necessarily infallible.

Neophytes do not have the capabilities to properly discern the theological qualifications of magisterial teaching. This is one reason why religious submission is required. I will go over the other two if necessary as this dialogue progresses.

That’s like saying it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck but it is not a duck.

Well for the wise and prudent perhaps :)

If what the Church proposes as the truth, teaches as the truth, and vows to always teach as the truth, who are you to say it is not necessarily the infallible truth?

Actually *I* am not the one who makes authority the criterion for obedience. Our Lord said NOTHING about obedience being contingent upon infallibility. He instead made it contingent upon the teacher's authority. I quoted from the Roman Catechism on page 415 earlier on my blog. For your benefit (and the list's) I will do it again now:

"The Apostle ...teaches that [bishops and priests] are entitled to obedience: 'Obey your prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch as being to render an account of your souls'[28]. Nay more, Christ the Lord commands obedience even to wicked pastors: 'Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees: all things, wherefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not, for they say and not do' [29]".

[28] Heb. xiii.,17 [29] Matt. xxiii., 2,3

So it is not *I* who make the rules Albert, it was Our Lord. And Paul along with the other Apostles such as St. Peter and St. Jude (ii Pet i,19-21; Jude i, 5-12) upheld them. And as I pointed out to you in the open letter, so too does the Church teach this. I did not use the Catechism of Trent or the Baltimore Catechism as I initially planned to in that letter for the sake of economy. But as I noted in it "they reaffirm everything I have gone over
here".

And as Our Lord commanded obedience to the white-washed Pharisees in WHATSOEVER they tell you (because of their teaching authority: this implies that we are talking about is teachings pertaining to religion), the same principle applies today in ecclesial matters. So either (i) everything that is handed on in the magisterium is infallible or (ii) everything handed on in the magisterium is to be given obedience regardless of whether it is infallible or not. There are no other options either in Scripture, Tradition, or Church history to support your position.

The reason I referred to "subjective opinion of theologians" is because those who predicate obedience on infallibility do not understand the principle of obedience as a virtue at all. They also do not understand the principle of an authority that teaches in God's name and with His authority. There is a reason that Jesus told his followers to obey "whatsoever [the Scribes and Pharisees] tell you" and it was not because they were sterling characters to be personally emulated. No, it was *solely* because they "sit on Moshe's seat". Meaning: they teach with authority and are to be heeded.

Our Lord even went on to outline areas where they abused their authority but He did not give His followers any excuses to not be obedient: not one. If this principle was to be adhered to in the imperfect precursor to the Lord, then it applies with even greater stress in the perfected covenant. In short, there is no excuse for disobedience in ecclesiastical matters. PERIOD.

I see. Obedience isn’t good enough anymore. Now we must live up to your new standard of “obedience-as-a-virtue.” It used to be enough to obey our superiors in all that was moral.

All that is not incontrovertably immoral. But until you start cultivating Catholic obedience properly, it is pointless to explain the extraordinary circumstances where suspending obedience is morally permissible.

Now we must hold our nose, and practice “obedience as a virtue” in the exercise of their vices.

Did you bother to read the quote at all??? Or is this more read and rashly react rather than read and contemplate what is *actually* being said???

In fact, the more stinky they are and repugnant their demands, the more virtuous we are for managing to practice the virtue of obedience in spite of our better angels.

Well, you have AGAIN mingled their actions with their commands. But as for the latter (*not* the former per se): Welcome to the Cross of Catholicism Albert!!! The same Lord who said "turn the other cheek" when you are struck on one cheek was not whistling Zipadee Doo Dah.

Obedience is the highest of the cardinal virtues (surpassed only by faith, hope, and charity). But one who does not practice proper obedience has either a very weak faith or no faith; they also are either very weak in charity or are bereft of it altogether. And without them it is not possible to cultivate hope as a theological virtue - it instead becomes some kind of nostalgic repine which is a counterfeit of the real thing. In fact, there is one of the parallels here to Jansenism that so often plagues the "trad" mindset. I will address it in brief now.

Your outlook and approach is functionally akin to denying the secondary truths which uphold dogma while claiming to uphold the dogma: it is functionally impossible. You treat obedience the same way the Jansenists did secondary truths and dogmatic facts. But then your attitude towards the latter two is also quasi-Jansenistic, maybe I should not be surprised that you are seeking to apply your erroneous principles with consistency.

How perverse! Let’s see how this works out pragmatically.

Rather than going first to theology and faith seeking understanding he goes the way of the world: pragmatism and exaltation of reason. I have news for you Albert: Jesus was not a pragmatist. This is why he so often warned of wolves in sheeps clothing - because he was proposing something that was not pragmatic, that was not arranged according to the devices of men. And therefore faith would be called for: faith in Him first and foremost that when the boat was tossing around at sea that even if He appears asleep in the boat, to not be of little faith and to doubt (cf. Mark iv, 35-40).

You need to start putting your trust in Him and casting aside all of your presumptions of personal greatness. You are nothing compared to Him and your wisdom is foolish to Him. And apparently His wisdom being foolish to the carnally minded applies in your case. Evidence of this is stamped throughout your writings. (By contrast, I seldom got this vibe in talking with you by telephone.)

Our seminarians are hotbeds of homosexuality but the Vatican rules against the American bishops zero-tolerance policy.

I oppose zero tolerance because it is an easily abused animal. (Both for practical reasons as well as pastoral ones - not that these two are necessarily in conflict of course.)

Parents who disagree enough to pull their children out of parochial school and harms way, just haven’t got what it takes when it comes to practicing the virtue of obedience.

Since I never *once* have posed the kinds of strawman caricature you sought to erect, I will not dignify the rest of your piece with a charitable response. Of *COURSE* since pedophilia is sinful the requirement of obedience does not bind. This is the problem with those who flail away at strawmen: they are constitutionally incapable (it seems) of making the proper distinctions. If Michaelangelo sculpted as you reason every chisel cut of his statues would be with the force of a piledriver. But I digress...

Or those of us who refuse to attend any of the many multi-headed Protestantized versions of the Mass our bishops disobediently and exclusively set before us like so much cafeteria slop, and instead seek out the Mass of our fathers at a grave personal cost, we Catholics are failing in the exercise of obedience-as-a-virtue.

I have dealt time and again with this "Protestantization" charge and it is as empty as old mother hubbard's cupboard most of the time. I find it strange that "trads" whine about ambiguity but then do not mind using certain terms (such as "modernist" and "protestantization") in vague and shadowy ways if it suits their nefarious agenda. Ironic indeed...

But the mindless sheep who accept every illicit innovation the bishops foist upon us, from altar girls, to communion in the hand, to holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, to no-kneeling, to Eucharistic Ministers, those Catholics are demonstrating their mastery of obedience-as-a-virtue.

Illict means "unlawful". Every example you noted above is lawful. (Except the part about not kneeling if you refer to not kneeling for for the sanctus and anaphora prayer and then again after the Agnus Dei: if a priest or bishop claimed this was optional then they would be in the wrong and on this issue would not have to be heeded.) But other then that, the above are licit whether you like it or not. Shoulder your Cross as your Lord and Master commanded of you or flee from it like a coward.

In reference to your second point), to state that authority has "no bite" without infallibility is ludicrous. By this "logic" we have no need to obey any authority that is not "infallible". Unless you believe God is the Author of chaos, you should banish such a thought from your mind and conform your speculations within the realm of what the Church has specified is acceptable.

Ah, I see. An fallible authority should command our obedience every bit (or should that be “bite”?) as much as an infallible authority. Who is being ludicrous, Shawn?

Frankly Albert, you do not know what the hell you are talking about on these matters. The authority that binds is a LIVING one and not some book or collection of letters that you want to interpret as you like. This is Prot sola scriptura in "trad" clothing. I call it "sola traditio" not without reason: the same divesting of an authority that interprets Tradition is what Prots lack when it comes to their use of Scripture. The parallel is unmistakable and undeniable. Well to those who are looking clearly at the issue that is the case anyway.

When the Church MEARLY SUPPOSES we ought to disarm or end capital punishment, do you really think we are bound to practice the virtue of obedience and vote accordingly?

Yes to the extent this is possible. The Church has the authority to regulate the application of the divine laws. This is clearly stated even in the old Baltimore Catechism. The pope has sought to do this with capital punishment by outlining that its use should be very rare if at all. I went over this subject in reasonable detail in the following entry to my weblog. And I pointed out the continuity of these principles with the Sanhedrin pre-Christ (which was akin to the pre-Constantine Church position) and also referenced the Roman Catechism to point to the principles that JP II was addressing.

As Supreme Pontiff JP II can regulate the divine laws as he sees fit. You either tow the line or you are no longer in communion with the Church (cf. Apostolic letter Unam sanctum). That is what it boils down to really. (For details on application see the above link.) I plan to build on it in my continual dialogue with Professor Miller over the coming weeks at the weblog.

Are we not more bound to practice the virtue of obedience and vote accordingly when she INFALLIBLY JUDGES that we must not practice contraception or abortion?

Those are non-negotiables of the faith. So yes in a sense we would be more bound to them but that does not make the issues such as the death penalty application in society a mere batatelle. It may mean biting one's lip a bit - it certainly does for me. But that is part of what Traditional obedience means my friend: towing the line even when one does not like the ruling given and doing so with proper dispositions. (And towing the line in the manner specified, no more and no less. This still leaves room for theological speculation provided that the approach taken is correct.)

To a balanced person, one with a sensus Catholicus, these questions answer themselves.

Really my friend, unfortunately I do not see these as applying to you at the moment. I am still optimistic that in time they will if you can learn to depend not on your own devices but to trust in His. But of course to do this would mean ceasing to create various homo strawus if you will.

I refer you back to my open letter to you and note again that without those fundamentals there is no balance, no consistency, no proper sensus fidelum. These are the facts of the case ladies and gentleman. And they are undisputable. And deep down, I can sense that you know this.

"For with what you measure it shall be measured to you" (Mark iv,24; Luke vi,39).

Oh, for those who have linked to her weblog previously, Donna Lewis has a different weblog now - one that actually works and posts stuff. It can be found HERE and has the same name and everything as the previous one only a different url. Check it out folks :)

Update on the Covenants Thread:

I have narrowed it down to two possible directions to take the third installment and will decide tonight. (The first two are written and at my private development blog at the moment.) As I am dealing with two subjects at once in this series (relationship of the two covenants and Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism) I apologize for the delay in posting the parts: there is a lot of stuff here and I am having to put into writing stuff that generally I work off of instinct with. As a result these things take some time to sort if they are to be done correctly.

There are complications and pitfalls that stand in the way of this kind of serious attempt to analyze and treat with fairness profound matters which are usually treated in a facile manner those who are (to put it charitably) "innocent of cultural history". For history imposes certain hermeneutical necessities which must be respected (and often are not) by those who pass themselves off as "experts". Because I strive to do this (and am by no means an "expert") time is necessary and when it will be available for reading I am not yet certain.

"Sweeet Looou.....Sweeet Looou" Dept.

In honour of Louis Victor Piniella and the tremendous job he did turning the Seattle Mariners from baseball's biggest laughing-stock to a respectable contender, the following minor rewrite of the first verse of the Lou Reed's Velvet Underground song "Sweet Jane" is offered as a small tribute of thanks.

Before his arrival, the M's were so pathetic and had a losers mentality that I would rather watch "Major League" again and again than a Mariners game: at least it had its comedic moments but I digress. I was made a fan of Seattle baseball by Lou Piniella because he gave this team a soul and the guts to grind it out in the most difficult of professional sports. (Referring to baseball.) I thank him for ten years of blood, sweat, and guts and wish him the best in his future endeavours.

Standing near the dugout, clipboard in his hand,
Pat's in his box, and Lou's in his jer-sey, and, me,
I'm at the concessional stand. Huh!
Watchin' the gi-ant screen,
Y'know, those were different times!
Oh, the other man-a-gers, scribblin' out plays,
And Lou, with calm in his eyes. (Well most of the time!!!)
Sweeet Looou! Whoa! Sweeet Looou, oh-oh-a! Sweeet Looou!

The M's need a man as good as Lou to replace him and I vote for Dusty Baker of the Giants. John McLaren and Davy Johnson would be good too but Dusty is the best option out there so remember that M's management since you perpetuated this problem this year in ways too detailed for me to go into here. Get Dusty end of story, Shawna locuta est, etc. etc. etc...

Part of an email I sent out on a list this morning read as follows:

I am always surprised that "trad" allies are so quick to call fire down from heaven unto others for any little trifling but then when it is directed their way on substantial matters (and not mere bagatelles) they whine about being "misunderstood" or claim that "you do not know my inner intentions". Sorry fellas (and ladies) that dog does not hunt. Those who do not give the benefit of the doubt to others do not deserve it for themselves as Our Lord Himself noted "by your standard of measure it will be measured to you" (Mark iv,24; Luke vi,38).

But there is also the danger that despite my continual and vocal support for groups such as Adoremus and the St. Athanasius Society (and other such organizations which have many adherents who call themselves "traditionalists") that the flipside of the coin will be downplayed. It is not often that those who consider themselves "Traditionalist" who really *do* have struggles with certain issues or policies - by their own admission - but who handle themselves in an authentically Traditional manner are given a forum.

These are the people who have proper deference to the magisterium, avoid attitudes of suspicion, and in short act as a Catholic is supposed to act. I feel for them the same sympathy I have for the conservative Democrats who try to get their party back on track to no avail; as often this is what these people I refer to above do. And because of this, as well as the need to provide balance on this issue, I will respond to some of the emails from a gentleman who has three essays linked at Rerum Novarum who fits this mould I have explained above: Jeff Culbreath.

Jeff has said that he does not mind his name being used so I will respond to some of his stuff as if I was responding by phone conversation or by email if you will. (Except with the blog economy is a greater factor and as a writing discipline I am trying to cultivate.)

Anyway, tonight or tomorrow (or Sunday) I will respond to Jeff's last email publicly on the weblog to provide the other side if you will; the more reserved and less rash element of the Ecclesia Dei movement. This does not mean Jeff is without opinions of course (far from it). But in his tone and delivery you will see a difference between the commentary of a Jeff Culbreath and - say a Robert Sungenis: the difference between a Traditionalist (properly so-called) and a traditionalist (falsely so-called).

Bryan Preston of the JunkYard Blog weighs in on the DC shootings, the suspects, and registration of cars.

New Oxford Review is bid adieu by this person because of their subscription to the monolithic myth of catholicity. (That is not what is said but the undercurrent is unmistakable.)

Here are some reflections on the rosary and its relevance that are worth a read: on the rosary.

"Bastiat's Corner" Dept.

The last installment of this series can be read HERE. The reader who has not been following along is advised to start from the beginning of the series - which can be traced through the link above - and working up to this point.

I can unequivocally state that this work is one of the two or three must read works on the subject of the Law as a principle governing society. And as far as diagnosing and refuting the philosophical errors that have been prevalent in the past two hundred years - and which are still prevalent in politics today - this work is invaluable. So while new readers should start from the beginning of this thread, those who are up to speed can resume with this installment. Without further ado, Mr. Bastiat has the floor...

Victims of Lawful Plunder

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution -- some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them. The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing.

There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

The Fate of Non-Conformists

If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that "You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests."

If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: "That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force."*

*General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce, May 6, 1850.

Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage.

Starting to see the light now my friends??? Starting to see why most political philosophies today do not address the root and matrix of problems but instead attack symptoms??? I hope so. And if nothing else this exercise will supply a conservative with some systemization of his views. As for liberals...well...basically if you endorse what Bastiat condemns then you are only cutting your own throats. Maybe not today or tomorrow but eventually you will. And you will have no consistent basis for opposing legalized plunder when it is YOUR turn to be plundered by government.

Kevin Miller of De Virtutibus gives a civics lesson explaining the problem with pro-life Keystone Kops politics HERE. I put a comment in his comments box that does a bit of fleshing this out with a real life example. Go to the above link and read it and my comments to understand why pro-lifers who are too shortsighted do nothing but hinder the cause they want to defend. It is a lesson that with elections coming up needs to be reiterated time and again lest we repeat history because we do not learn from it (cf. Santayana).

"House of the Rising Sun" Dept.

To add to the myriad of tests taken already by your humble blog host I add the following ones - though the first one I have posted before. (But it is not grouped with the rest so it is added here for a second grouping if you will.)

Which Villain?

What Magical Style?

What City Am I?

I do not usually add the pictures - indeed I have yet to do this - but this time I will make an exception because the picture is cool:


Congratulations, you're New Orleans,
the wild city.
What US city are you? Take the
quiz by Girlwithagun.

New Orleans, Louisiana Rich with stunning beauty, this city glows with bright colours by day and is hung with seductive mists by night. They say no-one lives in New Orleans, but that it lives inside the people. Exotic, beautiful and dangerous; it is a city of extremes. Decadent hotels, historic buildings and crafty criminals inhabit the same streets. From the towering oaks in city park to the magnificent French quarter, every corner of this city is a breath-taking panorama of mysteries. Anyone who visits this city cannot help but take a piece of her home in their heart.

In light of the other quiz results which you can access above, this one is rather surprising. But then my love for the blues and for jazz maybe was the determining factor here. (Not to mention Cajun cooking.)

"The Price is Right" Dept.

I had not read Dale Price's blog for a while. As usual there are some things of note there. Dale has an interesting talent for quips a few of which I will note here culled from his weblog:

Jimmy Carter, the first (and only) American President ever to be attacked by a swimming rabbit, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today.

I don't think President Carter and his administration get enough credit for their pivotal roles in ending the Cold War. After all, his four years in office ensured Ronald Reagan's landslide election in 1980.

As you may know, the prize originates in the insignificant Kingdom of Norway (don't feel bad if you can't find it on a map--it truly does not matter).

Norway is a country best-known for whale-killing and giving the English language the noun "quisling." In World War II, like all parts of Western Europe not entirely surrounded by water, this country folded up like a cheap suit once a platoon full of Germans got within firing range.

If Richard Dawkins was any dumber, you'd have to water him.

we are dealing with people who remember every real or perceived slight ever suffered by a Muslim since the Seventh Century A.D., right down to the failure to receive exact change.

Al Qaeda members are acutely sensitive to history, and do not forget defeat (hence bin Laden's droning on and on about the loss of the Spanish Muslim state of Andalusia in 1492). In short, they remember Lepanto. Well, those who are still alive today do...

Lest my readers think I am a wall flower on the war issue, I will extract a few of my rare musings from the archive, add some new stuff, stir, simmer, and make some Rerum Novarum War Gumbo. (And I *will* get to Bastiat's corner tonight too.) All part of this Libra having a balanced weblog.

A cool link to Gregorian Chant stuff was sent to me by Tom Marabella. It can be viewed HERE.

Note: I have not checked all the links to this site so if anyone sees anything suspicious, let me know okay??? Gracias...

Well there are even bloggers who are not English speaking it seems. Click here for details. I cannot read the language so if there is anything of questionable import, you proceed at your own risk.

"Press Conference on the 'Shawn Auction' and Evasive Actions Taken by Shawn Tribe's Disingenuous Supporters Thereof:
(Ivan Dunn, Chairman of the Committee in Support of Shawn McElhinney)

Well, it seems that as a result of our last press conference that a minor victory of sorts has been accomplished in that the Congregatio Ioannes Tribus has now attempted to shed its serpentine skin by changing its name to Societas Oculus Sauron. We will reiterate our previous statements as they were mostly passed over by the Societas Oculus Sauron - or better referred to perhaps as The Group Formerly Known As Congregatio Ioannes Tribus or simply as "The Group". They appear to base their entire defense on the definition of "Diary" as "a daily record for keeping private notes". We will get to that this evening in another press conference but this one is to briefly remind you to ignore the facile surface deceptions and get to the root and matrix. We humbly offer you the following exposes which aim to do just that:

The Sordid Truth About Shawn Tribe (Part I)

The Sordid Truth About Shawn Tribe (Part II)

Hopefully this will be of assistance at seeing the wolf in sheeps clothing when we expose them again for the flim flam artists that they are and contrast them with Shawn McElhinney who is none of these things. We seek only the truth ladies, and are sorry that it has to be so sordid as it is. The tactics by The Group Formerly Known As Congregatio Ioannes Tribus have alas sullied what was to be an innocent bidding auction. We will try to hold the high ground as always and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help us God. Thankyou.

---Ivan Dunn, Chairman of The Committee in Support of Shawn McElhinney

Upon Threat of Excommunication and Burning at the Stake, Kevin Miller Bows Before the Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum and Subscribes to the Loyalty Oath:

Well, actually I simply suggested it and he agreed to show communio. But there is sure a lot more drama in the dyspeptic screed above is there not???

A Quote to Ponder:

"We cannot deny that there is still much to be done in the way of spiritual renovation...there are still too many who are Catholics hardly more than in name. There are too many who fulfill more or less faithfully the more essential obligations of the religion they boast of professing, but have no desire of knowing it better, of deepening their inward conviction, and still less of bringing into conformity with the external gloss the inner splendor of a right and unsullied conscience, that recognizes and performs all its duties under the eye of God. We know how much Our Divine Savior detested this empty pharisaic show, He Who wished that all should adore the Father "in spirit and in truth."[John iv,23.] The Catholic who does not live really and sincerely according to the Faith he professes will not long be master of himself in these days when the winds of strife and persecution blow so fiercely, but will be swept away defenseless in this new deluge which threatens the world. And thus, while he is preparing his own ruin, he is exposing to ridicule the very name of Christian". [Pope Pius XI: encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris §43 (c. 1937)]