A link to a very good essay from one of our new weblinks - The Society of St. John. The following is an excerpt from the piece followed by the link to the entire piece:
It was the goal of Vatican II to reaffirm and to further develop the treasure of the Catholic faith, while highlighting those pastoral approaches which would speak to contemporary man: “It is important that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which all must submit themselves faithfully, be studied and explained in a manner conformed to the exigencies of our time.”...It is not our purpose here to examine the appropriateness of all the pastoral approaches to which the Council, in the optimism of the sixties, opened the door. Neither is it our purpose to inquire whether the post-conciliar reforms went beyond what was asked by the Council fathers. With the passage of time, it has become clear that several of these reforms, both in themselves, but more so in their application, were marked by serious failings, which would in the end compromise the realization of the just intuitions of the council fathers. It seems to us that three of these failings have played important roles:
Firstly, the pastoral aspect took precedence over the doctrinal foundation recalled and developed by the Council. Secondly, the concern to preserve the continuity and homogeneity consubstantial to the development of Catholic dogma and the evolution of the liturgy was insufficient. Lastly, the speed and universality of the reforms along with the brutality of their application contrasted sharply with the proclamations condemning dictatorial approaches... The Founding Acts and Gestures of Unity
Saturday, November 02, 2002
Rerum Novarum Has Been Updated!!!
Here are the links to this update sorted by category:
Websites:
Society of St. John
Lisa's Lighthouse
Weblogs:
Jeff Miller's "Athiest to a Theist" BLOG
The "Heart Mind, and Strength" BLOG
Eve Tushnet's BLOG
Spiritual Instructions (New Category):
Spiritual Direction
Spiritual Instruction on Zeal (Part I)
Spiritual Instruction on Zeal (Part II)
Spiritual Instruction on Prayer (Part I)
Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest:
Michael Jackson's "Beerhunter"
As Sovereign Thane I publish these sites motu proprio in accordance with Rerum Novarum's specificities for site approval in the sidemargin of the weblog all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Here are the links to this update sorted by category:
Websites:
Society of St. John
Lisa's Lighthouse
Weblogs:
Jeff Miller's "Athiest to a Theist" BLOG
The "Heart Mind, and Strength" BLOG
Eve Tushnet's BLOG
Spiritual Instructions (New Category):
Spiritual Direction
Spiritual Instruction on Zeal (Part I)
Spiritual Instruction on Zeal (Part II)
Spiritual Instruction on Prayer (Part I)
Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest:
Michael Jackson's "Beerhunter"
As Sovereign Thane I publish these sites motu proprio in accordance with Rerum Novarum's specificities for site approval in the sidemargin of the weblog all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Rerum Novarum includes in its list of intentions the eternal repose of the souls of the Jesuits listed here and all religious who made the supreme sacrifice of their lives for the glory of God and the welfare of their fellow man. We will include them in the masses and other prayers offered throughout the month. Until later today, shalom...
I know I said this before but it bears repeating again with additional emphasis...
"Calling All 'Traditionalists'" Dept.
In seeking to restore an ancient tradition, I am surprised that more of you are not speaking up and pleased as punch with this whole idea. I mean, those of a Traditional worldview oughta love the fact that We at Rerum Novarum are requesting loyalty oaths. This was after all quite the "in thing" in the Middle Ages. Indeed not only a loyalty oath but use of titles such as "sovereign", "chancellor", solemn language, and the like really give it that medieval touch do they not???
But why do I continue to sense that most so-called "traditionalists" would not make the professio as prescribed by the Holy Father??? Is there something missing from the authentic medieval atmosphere??? Would it be necessary for Us to excommunicate someone to *really* give it that monarchial feel??? Inquiring minds wanna know...
"Calling All 'Traditionalists'" Dept.
In seeking to restore an ancient tradition, I am surprised that more of you are not speaking up and pleased as punch with this whole idea. I mean, those of a Traditional worldview oughta love the fact that We at Rerum Novarum are requesting loyalty oaths. This was after all quite the "in thing" in the Middle Ages. Indeed not only a loyalty oath but use of titles such as "sovereign", "chancellor", solemn language, and the like really give it that medieval touch do they not???
But why do I continue to sense that most so-called "traditionalists" would not make the professio as prescribed by the Holy Father??? Is there something missing from the authentic medieval atmosphere??? Would it be necessary for Us to excommunicate someone to *really* give it that monarchial feel??? Inquiring minds wanna know...
Friday, November 01, 2002
"Advice For Neophyte Apologists/Evangelists" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though blogging a piece from Dale Price in an issue that pertains to the Vatican - Holocaust topic, my friend Lane Core Jr. wrote a very concise opening paragraph which explains exactly why dialogue is a waste of time with those who demonstrate that they are not interested in the truth. And he highlights why I have shied away from message boards the past year rarely spending time on them anymore. Take it away Lane:
One of the reasons that participation on a message board like Steve Ray's can be very frustrating is that some of the participants are simply unteachable. An anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestant may spout some slanderous error about Catholic faith, or practice, or history. He is then corrected. And corrected. And corrected. He may go on to some other topic. And another. And yet another. Eventually, though, he will make his way back to the issue on which he had been repeatedly corrected, as if the episode had never occurred at all.
If there was a "Truism of the Month" award, Lane Core Jr. would win it for the month of October in my book. I originally planned to end this entry there but then thought perhaps some advice for budding apologists/evangelists may be in order since Lane kinda set the table for it with his comments. So here are some observations that may come in handy for you if you have a zeal to want to explain and defend the Faith.
A good test when dialoguing is seeing if the one you are discussing things with can make a public mea culpa. If they can make ones on minor issues where it is warranted then you can hold out some hope for a fruitful discussion though you may have to work at it. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing as it can offset approaching this subject in a "canned arguments" kind of way.)
If the person you are dialoguing with can make a major admission of fault where it is warranted then you are certain to have a productive discussion. Remember though, this works both ways and you will make your errors and overreaches too - particularly if you use boilerplate overlysimplistic "one size fits all" apologetics arguments. So if you use boilerplate arguments, make sure you acknowledge the face plants when you make them{1} and then go back and do a better job.
It takes both time and effort to be an effective evangelist but it also takes some humility because you will inevitably go into areas you are not well informed in. (Trust me, this happens to all of us at one point or another.) And much as all musicians have certain riffs or motifs that pop up in their playing you will cultivate certain "riffs" of your own after arguing a particular position enough times.
Try though at all times to find a new phrase if you will in each argument advanced. Meaning: try if possible to find at least one new element to add to the mix when arguing a point. It may be a concept, it may be a new way of phrasing an argument to make it stronger, etc. But try without forcing the issue to avoid a carbon copy of your last time arguing a given point - particularly if you and your dialogue partner have gone over this issue before.
It is not always possible to do this but it often is. I am not saying reinvent the wheel everytime as much as I am saying do not repeat the exact same argument to someone you have previously discussed a given subject matter with. Because if you are listening to them you will receive information that you should take into account before responding. After all, you may have a mea culpa of your own to give *particularly* if you have been using the "boilerplate" approach. Make sure however that to the extent you make the error that you correct it.{2}
If you are going onto message boards where you are in a minority, make sure you stick with main subjects and avoid derivatives. It is pointless to discuss transubstantiation without discussing the Real Presence - and if you have to forego one of the two then forego transubstantiation and focus on the Real Presence. Likewise papal primacy and authority should precede any talk about infallibility. (And considering that most *Catholic* sources fudge on the subject of infallibility ignore the subject completely. Focus instead on authority and papal primacy.)
As for Marian doctrines you are better off focusing on the Second Eve doctrine and learning as much of it as possible as that is your foundation for all Marian dogma. (Do not bother discussing the Immaculate Conception or Assumption if you can at all avoid them.) If prayer to Mary is being discussed your focus should be on the Communion of Saints because (i) it is the foundational doctrine and (ii) you have a lot wider base to draw from.
By doing these things you will be less likely to resort to "canned" arguments which shut off the thinking mechanism and result in "ivory tower apologetics." You are not discussing things with a philosophical abstraction but with a person who has feelings and whose take on an issue will be to some extent unique. Respect their individuality and you will win their confidence that you are not out to hang a target on them.
Anyway, that should provide some food for thought hopefully.
Notes:
{1} And you will make them particularly with generic arguments.
{2} Thus if by private email then do so by private email; if on a public board then do so on that same public board.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though blogging a piece from Dale Price in an issue that pertains to the Vatican - Holocaust topic, my friend Lane Core Jr. wrote a very concise opening paragraph which explains exactly why dialogue is a waste of time with those who demonstrate that they are not interested in the truth. And he highlights why I have shied away from message boards the past year rarely spending time on them anymore. Take it away Lane:
One of the reasons that participation on a message board like Steve Ray's can be very frustrating is that some of the participants are simply unteachable. An anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestant may spout some slanderous error about Catholic faith, or practice, or history. He is then corrected. And corrected. And corrected. He may go on to some other topic. And another. And yet another. Eventually, though, he will make his way back to the issue on which he had been repeatedly corrected, as if the episode had never occurred at all.
If there was a "Truism of the Month" award, Lane Core Jr. would win it for the month of October in my book. I originally planned to end this entry there but then thought perhaps some advice for budding apologists/evangelists may be in order since Lane kinda set the table for it with his comments. So here are some observations that may come in handy for you if you have a zeal to want to explain and defend the Faith.
A good test when dialoguing is seeing if the one you are discussing things with can make a public mea culpa. If they can make ones on minor issues where it is warranted then you can hold out some hope for a fruitful discussion though you may have to work at it. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing as it can offset approaching this subject in a "canned arguments" kind of way.)
If the person you are dialoguing with can make a major admission of fault where it is warranted then you are certain to have a productive discussion. Remember though, this works both ways and you will make your errors and overreaches too - particularly if you use boilerplate overlysimplistic "one size fits all" apologetics arguments. So if you use boilerplate arguments, make sure you acknowledge the face plants when you make them{1} and then go back and do a better job.
It takes both time and effort to be an effective evangelist but it also takes some humility because you will inevitably go into areas you are not well informed in. (Trust me, this happens to all of us at one point or another.) And much as all musicians have certain riffs or motifs that pop up in their playing you will cultivate certain "riffs" of your own after arguing a particular position enough times.
Try though at all times to find a new phrase if you will in each argument advanced. Meaning: try if possible to find at least one new element to add to the mix when arguing a point. It may be a concept, it may be a new way of phrasing an argument to make it stronger, etc. But try without forcing the issue to avoid a carbon copy of your last time arguing a given point - particularly if you and your dialogue partner have gone over this issue before.
It is not always possible to do this but it often is. I am not saying reinvent the wheel everytime as much as I am saying do not repeat the exact same argument to someone you have previously discussed a given subject matter with. Because if you are listening to them you will receive information that you should take into account before responding. After all, you may have a mea culpa of your own to give *particularly* if you have been using the "boilerplate" approach. Make sure however that to the extent you make the error that you correct it.{2}
If you are going onto message boards where you are in a minority, make sure you stick with main subjects and avoid derivatives. It is pointless to discuss transubstantiation without discussing the Real Presence - and if you have to forego one of the two then forego transubstantiation and focus on the Real Presence. Likewise papal primacy and authority should precede any talk about infallibility. (And considering that most *Catholic* sources fudge on the subject of infallibility ignore the subject completely. Focus instead on authority and papal primacy.)
As for Marian doctrines you are better off focusing on the Second Eve doctrine and learning as much of it as possible as that is your foundation for all Marian dogma. (Do not bother discussing the Immaculate Conception or Assumption if you can at all avoid them.) If prayer to Mary is being discussed your focus should be on the Communion of Saints because (i) it is the foundational doctrine and (ii) you have a lot wider base to draw from.
By doing these things you will be less likely to resort to "canned" arguments which shut off the thinking mechanism and result in "ivory tower apologetics." You are not discussing things with a philosophical abstraction but with a person who has feelings and whose take on an issue will be to some extent unique. Respect their individuality and you will win their confidence that you are not out to hang a target on them.
Anyway, that should provide some food for thought hopefully.
Notes:
{1} And you will make them particularly with generic arguments.
{2} Thus if by private email then do so by private email; if on a public board then do so on that same public board.
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Courtesy of Greg Krehbiel I obtained the following article on beer consumption:
Beer is found to be good for bones.
It just figures since I am in weight loss mode that I would learn of this now ;-)
Beer is found to be good for bones.
It just figures since I am in weight loss mode that I would learn of this now ;-)
According to The Mighty Barrister the Vatican has reached an agreement with 4 US Bishops on proposed changes to the Dallas charter. I presume these are the 4 Bishops appointed to the Joint Commission spoken of by His Excellency Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. The first line of the Barrister's quote reads "Acting with surprising speed, the Vatican..." When was the last time you saw the words "Vatican" or "Holy See" anywhere in the vicinity of the word "speed"??? ;-)
"Bastiat's Corner"
You know the drill by now, I post the last section of the series at the top of the link and then link this current section to the end of the aforementioned previous section. It is now time to discuss the topics of legal plunder, why socialism is legal plunder, and why fraternity and liberty cannot coexist without logical contradiction among other subjects. To those just tuning in, you have to read from the beginning to understand why this thesis is so effective. You can do that by clicking HERE.
I have sought to make these sections reasonably short and you can probably read all of them in under fifteen minutes - though I would recommend taking more time to cover the sections in total then that.
After all, we have an election coming up and an opportunity to get to the root of the vast tide of legal plunder that has been sanctioned in greater amounts for over ninety years in America. It will not happen in this election cycle but we can make better selections today and prepare for the next two year election cycle. Rome was not built in a day and we will not get things back to where they need to be in one election either. But without further ado, I turn my soapbox over to Mr. Bastiat:
Legal Plunder Has Many Names
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole --with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.
Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."
But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical -- in fact, absurd -- to assume otherwise.
The Choice Before Us
This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.
Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.
Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).*
[*At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.]
The Proper Function of the Law
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law -- which necessarily requires the use of force -- rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution -- so long searched for in the area of social relationships -- is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law -- that is, by force -- this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization -- justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
The Seductive Lure of Socialism
[Democrats in particular pay attention here. You too "moderate" Republicans (better styled as "Me Too Democrats") - ISM]
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.
According to my written translation of this work, the French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation. We will deal with a definition of plunder in the next section. Hopefully the readers up to this point in the series are starting to feel the scales fall from their eyes - if they have not fallen off already.
You know the drill by now, I post the last section of the series at the top of the link and then link this current section to the end of the aforementioned previous section. It is now time to discuss the topics of legal plunder, why socialism is legal plunder, and why fraternity and liberty cannot coexist without logical contradiction among other subjects. To those just tuning in, you have to read from the beginning to understand why this thesis is so effective. You can do that by clicking HERE.
I have sought to make these sections reasonably short and you can probably read all of them in under fifteen minutes - though I would recommend taking more time to cover the sections in total then that.
After all, we have an election coming up and an opportunity to get to the root of the vast tide of legal plunder that has been sanctioned in greater amounts for over ninety years in America. It will not happen in this election cycle but we can make better selections today and prepare for the next two year election cycle. Rome was not built in a day and we will not get things back to where they need to be in one election either. But without further ado, I turn my soapbox over to Mr. Bastiat:
Legal Plunder Has Many Names
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole --with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.
Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."
But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical -- in fact, absurd -- to assume otherwise.
The Choice Before Us
This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.
Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.
Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).*
[*At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.]
The Proper Function of the Law
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law -- which necessarily requires the use of force -- rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution -- so long searched for in the area of social relationships -- is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law -- that is, by force -- this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization -- justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
The Seductive Lure of Socialism
[Democrats in particular pay attention here. You too "moderate" Republicans (better styled as "Me Too Democrats") - ISM]
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.
According to my written translation of this work, the French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation. We will deal with a definition of plunder in the next section. Hopefully the readers up to this point in the series are starting to feel the scales fall from their eyes - if they have not fallen off already.
More from a discussion on Florence with my favourite Anglican Edwin Tait:
Response to My Friend Edwin on His Problems With the Ecumenicity of Florence (Part II of a series of indeterminable length)
Response to My Friend Edwin on His Problems With the Ecumenicity of Florence (Part II of a series of indeterminable length)
The Faith Legion Has A New Member!!!
As making the profession of faith as prescribed by the Apostolic see is a requirement for admission and as "Greg the Obscure" hath made said professio according to the prescribed form, by the power vested in me as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I decree that Vita Brevis has been officially enrolled in The Faith Legion with all rights and privileges of said enrollment remaining intact all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
As making the profession of faith as prescribed by the Apostolic see is a requirement for admission and as "Greg the Obscure" hath made said professio according to the prescribed form, by the power vested in me as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I decree that Vita Brevis has been officially enrolled in The Faith Legion with all rights and privileges of said enrollment remaining intact all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
"The JunkYard Blog" Dept.
We have a triple spin today. To start with, Bryan Preston of the JunkYard Blog summarizes your humble host's view of the Wellstone fiasco:
THE WELLSTONE FUNERAL, or pep rally, or whatever you want to call it, says to me that the right and left in this country essentially have nothing to talk about anymore. The blue state/red state divide is more than just a reflection of political opinion, but of actual culture. I'm not really talking about the so-called "culture wars" here, but just a general difference in philosophy about what is proper and improper, what is seemly and unseemly, and what constitutes respectful versus disrespectful behavior...Continued HERE.
The following is an excerpt from a examination of the alleged sniper and his associate located at the link below:
Terrorists on the West Bank want to eradicate Israel, so they kill Israeli citizens. Chechen terrorists want Russia to pull out of Chechnya and grant it independence, so they take a thousand hostages and threaten to kill them unless Russia does what they want. And so with Mr. Muhammad, who wanted to attack the United States at its political heart and expose its impotence in dealing with him. He encircled the nation’s capital with senseless murders, careful to kill in a variety of age ranges and racial categories, and careful to kill victims doing everyday things like gassing up their cars or waiting for buses. There was no rhyme of reason to the killing, and once he struck on a Saturday night toward the end of the spree, there was no discernible pattern—and that was the point. The last remaining superpower, the supposed oppressor of Muslims around the world, can’t even protect a 13-year-old boy walking into his school just a few miles from the White House. That’s a very powerful political point, and goes to the heart of one of our society’s most basic seeming contradictions: How can a nation be both totally safe and totally free? The answer is that we can’t, and that liberty does have a price which includes a measure of risk, but that price may be too high for many to pay in an increasingly risk-averse society. Muhammad seemed to be exploiting that dichotomy... Go HERE.
WALTER CRONKITE thinks the decade before us is the most dangerous America has faced since the '60s. And he'd be right, too, if he were talking about the 1860s... Go HERE.
We have a triple spin today. To start with, Bryan Preston of the JunkYard Blog summarizes your humble host's view of the Wellstone fiasco:
THE WELLSTONE FUNERAL, or pep rally, or whatever you want to call it, says to me that the right and left in this country essentially have nothing to talk about anymore. The blue state/red state divide is more than just a reflection of political opinion, but of actual culture. I'm not really talking about the so-called "culture wars" here, but just a general difference in philosophy about what is proper and improper, what is seemly and unseemly, and what constitutes respectful versus disrespectful behavior...Continued HERE.
The following is an excerpt from a examination of the alleged sniper and his associate located at the link below:
Terrorists on the West Bank want to eradicate Israel, so they kill Israeli citizens. Chechen terrorists want Russia to pull out of Chechnya and grant it independence, so they take a thousand hostages and threaten to kill them unless Russia does what they want. And so with Mr. Muhammad, who wanted to attack the United States at its political heart and expose its impotence in dealing with him. He encircled the nation’s capital with senseless murders, careful to kill in a variety of age ranges and racial categories, and careful to kill victims doing everyday things like gassing up their cars or waiting for buses. There was no rhyme of reason to the killing, and once he struck on a Saturday night toward the end of the spree, there was no discernible pattern—and that was the point. The last remaining superpower, the supposed oppressor of Muslims around the world, can’t even protect a 13-year-old boy walking into his school just a few miles from the White House. That’s a very powerful political point, and goes to the heart of one of our society’s most basic seeming contradictions: How can a nation be both totally safe and totally free? The answer is that we can’t, and that liberty does have a price which includes a measure of risk, but that price may be too high for many to pay in an increasingly risk-averse society. Muhammad seemed to be exploiting that dichotomy... Go HERE.
WALTER CRONKITE thinks the decade before us is the most dangerous America has faced since the '60s. And he'd be right, too, if he were talking about the 1860s... Go HERE.
This entry from the aforementioned F. John Loughnan is one which every reader should ponder. Both the picture with its accompanying narrative and the poem. I was going to do another section of the spiritual series on prayer tonight but leaving you with this seemed more fitting. Read and reflect and (if necessary) repent. And I will see you again tomorrow or so shalom until then.
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Why I have been opposed to zero tolerance policy can be seen with the real life example where the former ordinary of my good friend F. John Loughnan was falsely accused. You can read about that story HERE. Anyone want to continue to defend zero tolerance policies now???
A very worthwhile reflection on Ephesians 5 and its application to both marrieds and monastics by a Fr. Jerome courtesy of Kevin Miller's De Virtutibus Blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)