A Response to Dr. Philip Blosser:

Dr. Blosser's words will be in green font. The text which Dr. Blosser emailed to me (and to which I am responding here) can be accessed HERE.

Dear Shawn,

Hello Dr. Blosser:

Thanks for your detailed response.

You are welcome.{1}

I understand all about time constraints and difficulties of engaging the sorts of concerns raised by Mr. David Palm in New Oxford Review.

To David's credit, I am far more inclined to respond to him than to most of his allies.

As I'm sure you would agree, one of the principal challenges facing us in the Church today is the problem of ignorance and confusion. It is no longer a matter of large numbers of rank-and-file Catholics (lapsed or "practicing") rejecting Church teachings or "dissenting" from them; many of them have not the vaguest knowledge of what those teachings are. And, ironically, the more widespread the ignorance about Catholic teaching, the greater the prejudice against the Catholic Church.

Indeed.

The fact that "the truth is out there" somewhere, in encyclicals and historical documents of the Church seems of little avail when one is staring priests and catechists in the face who don't believe in hell or purgatory, and who deny the importance of sacramental confession, observance of holy days of obligation, rubrics of Mass, or importance of knowing the Bible.

This is also true.

It may be that writers such as David Palm are wrong about this or that detail of their patristic interpretation, etc.

They usually are.

But my interest is with what animates their concern in the Church today, which I do not think can be easily dismissed as a matter of misreading this Church Father or that encyclical. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge . . ." (Hosea 4:6)

Most who call themselves "traditionalists" make the mistake of not handling problematical issues with a proper Catholic way. Hence, they gripe about Assisi and incidents like that forgetting that it is contrary to the dogma of the papal supremacy to refuse assent to the Apostolic See not only in matters of faith and morals but also in matters which concern the Church's general good as well as her rights and discipline.

Catholic dogma is clear that the pope has full authority in the areas of "feeding" (teaching), ruling (directives or disciplines), but also in "guiding" the Church. These distinctions were spelled out by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura: an encyclical that "trads" like to prooftext but obviously have not read very carefully.{2} Likewise, the practice or utilizing terms such as "Neo-Catholic", and "traditionalist Catholic" was clearly condemned by Pope Benedict XV in Ad Beatissimi.{3}

That same pope condemned those who would appeal to the press or media outlets against a judgment or directive of the Holy See.{4} Yet what essentially has David and his allies done repeatedly over the years??? They attempt to defend this dissidence under the umbrella of Canon 212 but that dog does not hunt as Pete Vere has noted on a few occasions.{5} But I am getting ahead of myself here.

Returning to the subject of Quanta Cura and the threefold division it makes (feeding, ruling, and guiding), the trads usually toe the line with the first one and sometimes with the second one. But even people such as David Palm appear to me to be falling short of the third one which deals with the Pope's ability to set the agenda for how the Church is to handle issues in a given epoch of time.

As far as David's other essay goes, I have proposed a way of approaching it on one of your weblogs. Here is the link.

In closing, I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings particularly my August 2003 essay response to Chris Ferrara and my last essay response to David Palm. Previous writings alluded to it and in revising my treatise in late 2002 early 2003, I added a section I wrote in March 2002 specifically for addressing this subject which had become much more obvious to me than it once was. {6} I have enclosed that section in this note as you may find it of interest.

We need your resources.

Fortunately, I have written a lot in the past five years so I can draw on that material as needed. I will do what I can but admittedly because of time constraints being tighter than ever now, I have to be more selective in the topics I discuss.

Notes:

{1} I may blog the bulk of that response later on.

{2} [We cannot] pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura §5 (c. 1864) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{3} It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §23 as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{4} [W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §22 as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{5} See this link for details:

No, Canon 212 Does Not Grant An Imprimatur To Publish Irresponsible Opinions

{6} Psychological Factors:

As none of the changes made to the liturgy in any way infringes upon unalterable Tradition, none of them are valid excuses for avoiding the Pauline liturgy. (Those with the licit option to attend the Tridentine Mass in their dioceses can do so of course.) The only arguments can be made are ones of personal preference and not for the invalidity of the Pauline Rite. (And arguments about any rite being "superior" are by their very nature very subjective judgments.)

Objectively speaking, since the merits of the Mass are infinite regardless of the rite used, arguments from any position except those of personal preference are illegitimate and those who claim otherwise are opposing themselves to the judgment of the Church. Indeed often statements about one rite or another being "superior", one rite providing "greater motivation to pray better" or the claims that "I get more out of it" are statements that this writer has heard different Catholics make about the various rites sanctioned by the Catholic Church. (Including some converts who have told him that understanding what is said at mass with the newer rite was a pivotal part of their conversion process.) Whichever liturgy this attitude is taken towards, it is a dangerous principle for reasons that will now be outlined in brief.

One constantly hears in the west that many people do not go to church because they "do not get anything out of it". Now many Catholics claim that they attend a rite of mass that they are "motivated to pray better" with, and a lot of them justify rending the cloak of Christ by partaking in liturgy with groups that are schismatic either de facto or de jure. Hence, that this attitude can lead to shipwreck of the Faith, it must be repudiated.

The reader can start by asking himself or herself why they are "better motivated" - if indeed they are - at a particular liturgy. They need to ask themselves why they "get more out of" one liturgy than another. They need to really focus on the fact that their motivation may seriously be misplaced - because it is. An easterner would hear a statement like "I do not get anything out of it" and be shocked that someone could be so shallow, so selfish. The reason for this is that the Easterners recognize oftentimes that what one "gets out of it", is the inestimable privilege of glorifying Almighty God.

This has nothing to do with what you the reader subjectively feel. Instead, it is recognizing that Mass is to honour the Lord of Hosts. Ergo, if you cannot place the honour of the Lord above your own personal motivations, then you are not approaching worship as a Catholic should. This is how a Catholic who prefers a rite of mass that is not licitly celebrated in their dioceses needs to approach this subject, lest they be like the "spiritual gluttons" spoken of by the great mystic and Doctor of the Church St. John of the Cross:

"You will find that many of these persons [spiritual gluttons] are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would. For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, faint-hearted, and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God..."

"These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness..."

"And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that therein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied. Thus they measure themselves by God acting quite contrary to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: 'That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same shall gain it and he that desires to gain it, the same shall lose it.'"

"These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delight of the spirit. The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which says Christ, is the way of life." ...

The reader needs to honestly assess if they are acting in the same manner as the "spiritual gluttons" outlined in St. John of the Cross' work. This writer asserts that anyone who feels the need to disobey their ecclesiastical superiors in any area (except of course for a command to sin) is spiritually immature. A spiritually mature Catholic, who prefers a rite of mass that is not licitly celebrated in their dioceses, does not disobey their ecclesiastical superiors by attending illegally celebrated masses by clerics who do not have the communion of the Holy Father. This will be dealt with in greater detail in the upcoming treatise urls lest the reader falsely ascribe as "non-authoritative" or "optional" teachings or directives which are in reality binding. (Or ascribing ecclesiastical communion to those who do not have it.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: From the treatise "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" Part V (c. 2003, 2000)]

For bibliographical and notes on this entry, see url five at this link.

"Slouching Towards Gommorah" Dept.

Your weblog host received this link (among other materal) from Kathryn Lively earlier today:

Stop the Morning-After Pill! Over-the-Counter approval to be decided by the FDA May 21. No age limits, no medical supervision, no parental involvement!

Please take a moment and read the material at that link carefully.

As the arguments that undergird these subjects are so similar, We at Rerum Novarum remind the readers that your weblog host mused on the teen smoking/teen sex double standard last year. For the record, Our views have not changed and the above link outlines a classic example of such hypocrisy. We therefore, take the time to reiterate anew our previous observations on this obvious double standard and exhort you all to contact your senators and representatives. {1}

To facilitate contact of these representatives, if it helps any, We release from our normal site copyright any and all of the material in the aforementioned link. The readers of this weblog may thereby utilize it as they see fit without concern for proper crediting thereof.{2} Our only recommendations is to apply such points -if they are utilized at all- with measured care. It is imperative that anyone contacting their congresspeople try to avoid coming across as someone that can be typecast as a fringe lunatic. There are very good arguments in our favour consistency-wise which can be used to advance this cause. Please try to approach it from that issue however passionate you may be on this issue. (And We trust that you are plenty passionate about it.)

Notes:

{1} See the link as supplied by Kathryn Lively. Here is a sample letter to send to congresspeople and the president which you will find among the materials at the aforementioned link:

Dear Senator ____________ (or Congressman _____________):

I understand the FDA is set to decide whether or not the morning-after-pill (MAP) will go over-the-counter on 21 May 2004. I believe that pressure from you and your colleagues could stop this
dangerous drug from being made available to very young girls without medical supervision or parental knowledge. Would you please advise the FDA to cease and desist? If MAP is approved, then it won't be long before the FDA makes the birth control pill available over-the-counter. This will further compromise the sanctity of life and the integrity of the family.

Thank you.

(Signed)
Your name
Address
City, State. Zip
Phone

It also would not hurt to remind your congresspeople (and any senators you have who are up for election in 2004) that you will be active in that election and will remember how they stood on this crucial issue. Again though, please do this tactfully for the best possible effect.

{2} However, for all other post entries -along with any essays written by your humble servant- the site copyright and respective essay copyrights remain intact, stable, and valid all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.

Dear Shawn,

Hello Gregory:

[N]ow that I'm in touch with you, I would like to ask a few questions. Hope you don't mind.

I do not mind.

First, I have a lot of news pieces, which are relevant to "traditionalism", that I've put in files on my computer. I was entertaining the idea of posting some of them on the LIdless Eye blog, but I would like your opinion first. What do you think I should do with them??

Feel free to post them there.

Furthermore, I believe (and I'm sure you agree) that traditionalists, in attacking VII's teachings (and the Pope's) don't understand the concept of
"paradox" (GK Chesterton had some interesting stuff to say on that).

Yes, I have long thought that was one of the significant problems that they have as a rule. (Though there are of course exceptions.)

But here is were the trouble is. If we can use the argument "don't disagree with Church teachings merely because you don't understand how they are consistent; things are more complex then they seem", how can one, like myself who is not a theologian, say for that a certain position is "immoral" or "heretical". It seems to me that once you say that paradoxes exists which can certainly seem like contradictions, you have eliminated the foundation for making judgments on peoples theological opinions.

This is a good question. The best answer you can give in my opinion is that you do not judge anyone. As a Catholic we leave such judgments of the internal forum to God and of the external forum to the Church. If the Church defines something as being de fide, then those who do not accept this teaching as such are heretics. We of course do not make the demarcation that strict but instead recognize most non-Catholics as heretics only in the improper sense. And because this sense is improper,{1} and has long been recognized as such,{2} we no longer utilize terms like "heretic" or "schismatic" on the broadbrush basis as they were once used.

Also, on your blog today you have a post about "How grammatically sound are you?".

It is one of those web quizzes. Things were rather hectic today and I needed a bit of levity.

I was just wondering why you didn't think that picture, with it's title, wasn't somewhat disrespectful to God. I'm not saying that *I* believe it was disrespectful, but I think some people would feel that way.

It was a bit irreverent perhaps but that is all in my opinion.

I'd like to know how you would defend that.

I amended that post a bit to address this concern. You will see my answer to that question there.

Finally, (this is a little off topic) what is your opinion of modern art?

My view of modern art is not one that I can give in a brief sentence or two. Perhaps another time I will go over that subject. In the interim, I will simply note that my view of most modern art is akin to my view of 95% of what is published on all subjects ala the dictum of the great Arthur Jones. (Not the guy who writes for NCR.)

Notes:

{1} Since it applies to a denial of material that requires belief rather than a conscious and willful active rejection or doubt which is properly referred to as formal. For this reason, the Church has seen fit in recent decades to no longer use such improper terminology and instead only apply it to those who can be reasonably discerned by her to be rejecting such truths in a formal sense.

{2} Schismatic. In its strict sense, one who voluntarily, knowingly, and deliberately separates himself from the unity of the Church. Ordinarily one who is so separated is called a schismatic regardless of the circumstances, but "anyone born and brought up in a schismatic church and turned away in good faith from the Roman Church, not knowing her to be the one true church...is called by the epithet 'schismatic' only in an improper sense; he is not in fact party to the sin of schism" (Jugie, Theol. Dogm. I. pg. 17). Such is apparently the state for the overwhelming majority of non-Catholic Christians today. [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pgs. 476-477 (c. 1941)]

You are a GRAMMAR GOD!


If your mission in life is not already to
preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!


How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

In light of how this picture could possibly be construed, it seems appropriate to note that any similarities between anyone either living or dead is purely coincidental as far as I am concerned.

My #1 result for the SelectSmart.com selector, Medieval Figure Selector, is Justanian

To quote my late father (when he paraphrased Dirty Harry with deliberate sarcasm): "Marvelous!!!"

Among all the medievals on this list, they tell me that I am most like the Emperor that harrassed Pope Vigilius??? This is not exactly someone I would have picked from that list. For those who are interested, here was the rest of the top 20 in order of closest match:

2) Charlemagne

That one would have been much more acceptable to me.

3) King Arthur

This would have probably been first if I was choosing them myself.

4) Constantine

I am starting to see a pattern here...

5) Frederick Barbarossa

I would have liked this one too...

6) King Alfonso

7) Richard the Lionhearted

8) Pope Urban XVII

Are there only monarchs and popes in this quiz or is it simply my draw that my answers are thus far all of this categorization??? With regards to "Pope Urban XVII", I presume they meant Pope Urban VIII there. (Cannot say I would object to that one based on what I know of Pope Urban VIII.)

9) William the Conquerer

10) King Clovis

11) Pope Leo I

12) Saladin

13) Theodora

I am more like an Empress than a man in tights apparently...

14) Robin Hood

15) Ghengis Kahn

Not "Jenjis Kahn" as Senator Kerry referred to him back in 1971 before the US Senate...

16) Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid)

17) Zoe

18) Joan of Arc

19) Belasarius

20) Mohammed

I am glad that Mohammed was dead last on that list. I can deal with most of the rest -even if wincingly at times- but I want no similarity to someone who invents their own religion. I may be dogmatic at times but I am never that dogmatic.

New Perspectives on Paul (NT Wright)

Very rarely will your humble servant recommend a work he has not yet read. However, on occasion, a friend whose perspectives he respects will recommend something for reading. In the case of the above article, it was recommended by Dr. Art Sippo. It is therefore offered to you at this time and your weblog host will personally begin reading it as soon as this posts. The article is about the controversial New Perspective and the observations of one of its more prolific exponents.

As this writer is one who believes that the most fruitful manner of approaching dialogue is to look for common ground from which to strive for a consensus{1} -and who seeks to properly represent the views of others- in that spirit this article is presented as another way of looking at the writings of St. Paul. However, as the writer of the above article is not Catholic, he feels the need to note this up front. This is properly done so that (i) Catholics will understand going in that there will be some areas they are not going to agree with and (ii) as a pretext for requesting to everyone not to dismiss NT Wright's entire paradigm for those reasons.

Note:

{1} However, this writer would be remiss to not note here that there are certain areas where he diverges with NT Wright and quite sharply at that. On the subject of justification these differences can be noted in this writer's essay on justification written about four years ago.

Briefly on the Recent CDWDS Document:
(Dialogue With F. John Loughnan)

This is a response to my good friend and fellow Inquisitor F. John Loughnan. His words will be in blue font with the words he responded to in black font. My words will be in regular font.

Fr Joe put this link on his home page. It is the answer to all the
abuses to the Liturgy of the Mass that have been going on and that they
are to stop immediately per Rome. Now let's see what happens.

Well, the "form" of the abusers regarding prior (and similar) documents has been: Oh yeah (yawn) - another bloody Roman document to file(read "burn")

This indeed has been the case.

Where are the "teeth" in this document to deal with the abusers; and how many bishops have the will to see it through?

As far as how many bishops have the will to see it through it is too early to tell at this stage obviously. However, it would seem that after the scandals in recent years, the bishops will as a rule be more inclined to toe the line on these issues than they were previously. From a merely human standpoint they have to restore their own credibility after all. And any belief that such things can be achieved while continuing the saimo saimo approach as before on this matter is delusional.

Also, it must not be overlooked that we who have the ability to get this in the hands of our pastors have to do our part to do that. Otherwise, it will once again be "so much sound and fury signifying nothing" much as the vast majority of supposed outrage is. This is not the 1970's or 1980's where information exchanges are difficult. Instead, everyone reading this can download the text and print it in a matter of minutes and take it to church on Sunday after they have carefully read it and highlighted within it the particular abuses or negligences that they have seen regularly at their parish from the various priests and deacons, etc.

I emphasize regularly because this is not a case of jumping on Fr. X for missing a word in the canon last week when this is not a pattern for him. In those situations we need to give the benefit of the doubt of course. But there are other situations -even in the best of parishes- where this is not necessary to do. The Instruction from the CDWDS is not ambiguous with regards to what is allowed and what is not.

As far as the "teeth" goes, I was actually surprised that this document had a harsher tone than is common for statements from the popes or their dicasteries in recent years. It is way too early to know one way or the other how this will go but if the recent observations of Fr. Andrew Greeley are correct, the support structure is there now in many areas where before it was lacking. We shall see.

Refer [HERE] for the latest "bun-fight" with my Archbishop.

Indeed I have been following situation with Archbishop Hart. You have handled yourself in this unfortunate situation in a manner that I believe is commendable and as a model for others whereby they can approach their local ordinaries with regards to dissident clerics.{2} It is also worth noting here that the recent CDWDS document quite clearly supports your approach over and against what Archbishop Hart had to say:

Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ?s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity. [CDWDS: Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum Chapter VI]

You have done everything that the Holy See would expect in such matters. All you can do now is appeal to Rome on the matter and hopefully Archbishop Hart will listen to them. And hopefully by noting these matters here at Rerum Novarum, your example can be learned from by others who seek to have their ordinaries act as proper shepherds and gently but firmly correct liturgical abusers -even resorting when all else fails to canonical penalties. Of course those who do not follow the proper approach as you have are not in much of a position to complain. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} And of course the "choir directors" and self-styled "liturgists" as well.

{2} Or even (in some cases) dissident local ordinaries.

A Rerum Novarum Restoration Update:

To provide a brief update, the archives have been completed as of July 5, 2003 now. I have also begin sifting the old blog list that is still in the margin. I got it from a developmental weblog which had an older version of the template. Unfortunately, the older template which I added the webpost updates to predated mid 2003 so a lot of blogs added since that time are now not listed in my weblog margin. For those who were once linked to the side margin and now are not,{1} the omission is not intentional. I hope to restore all the blogs once linked to this site's margin within the coming week as well as update old links (such as the old Junkyard BLOG link) with the more up to date ones. It is a tedious process indeed but this time I am saving every adjustment to the private weblog so that future template losses (if there are any) can be corrected quickly.

At this rate, the blogs and the archives should be done within the week or at least the next ten days. At that point, the weblog will be updated -as I have not done any updates since early February 2004- and then I can focus on the other responses I promised to tend to before this entire fiasco occurred.

Note:

{1} With the exception of the weblog of a certain individual who has gone off the reservation in recent months.

Rerum Novarum Pays Tribute to Pat Tillman:

Upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that upon other fields, on other days will bear the fruits of victory. [General Douglas MacArthur: Supreme Pacific Commander During WW II, Supreme Commander During Korea, West Point Graduate Class of 1903, and avid booster for Army's football team]

It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. [General George S. Patton: Leader of the Feared Third Army During WWII]


The poem I will use to commemorate Pat Tillman is one that I used to commemorate the untimely deaths of the Columbia astronauts back in February of 2003. For the current situation however, the death of Pat Tillman even more fits this poem since there is not only the sentiment directed towards one who has been cut down in the prime of their life but also because Pat was an athlete. He was a twenty-seven year old two hundred ten pound safety for the Arizona Cardinals. Despite being a standout college linebacker, he was drafted very low (seven spots from the bottom of the draft) and started his career on the bench with the Cardinals. (He was undersized for a linebacker.) Less than six months later, he was the starting free safety on defense and also doubling on special teams during kickoffs. (He went on to have the second most special teams tackles on the Cardinals that year.) In his second season, he was switched to strong safety and in his third season, he set the team record for tackles in a season. After that, he was gone from the NFL.

The same man who turned down a 9 million dollar five year contract with the St. Louis Rams to accept a three year 3.6 million contract with the team that drafted him after September 11th walked away from his football contract to enlist in the Army with his brother at $18,000 a year. He asked for no publicity on the part of his family. Much as he was an excellent player in college and a good student (3.84 GPA), he was an excellent player in the NFL. But far more important than all of that was his service on the battlefield where he stood out as well:

"He was an excellent soldier," Mussatti said of Tillman in an interview with the local Columbus (Ga.) Ledger-Enquirer. "He was motivated. He had great leadership styles. He was definitely dedicated to everything he did -- and he didn't bring up his football career, ever." [Sgt. 1st Class Craig Mussatti, who guided Tillman through basic training after he enlisted in June 2002. (From an SI.Com Article A soldier's life)]

As I noted earlier, he made the decision to enlist in the military after September 11th. He trained as an Army Ranger and served in Afghanistan. His death last week at so young an age, in the prime of his life deserves mention because he was among the very best of us all: someone who valued sacrificing it all for others in a culture where such values are not well understood anymore. Simeon Rice (another NFL player) claimed that Tillman left the NFL for the Army because "he was not that good a player." Putting the statistics to confute that statement aside for a moment, I want to note that if the significance of Pat Tillman's actions are lost on him than Simeon Rice is an idiot. Feel free to quote me on that. While you are at it, also note that he is a egotistical primadonna who does not have his entire body the character Pat Tillman had in one hair follacle. Few people anymore have such stature.

I know that despite my own attempts to achieve it that I still fall noticably short of a Pat Tillman. It is not enough to standout in a culture where people are spineless and without conviction: indeed that is more an indictment of others than a praiseworthy trait on the part of such standouts. But people like Pat Tillman would stand out in any era. I tried to find pictures to post with this but none of the links worked. I therefore if anyone has a picture of Pat Tillman in an Arizona Cardinals uniform and also one of him in a military uniform that actually work to please send me the links. Otherwise, enough has been said by me now and time to close this post with the A E Housman poem now to commemorate Pat Tillman: an athlete who died young. Please remember him and his family in your prayers.

To An Athlete Dying Young:

THE time you won your town the race
We chaired you through the market-place;
Man and boy stood cheering by,
And home we brought you shoulder-high.

To-day, the road all runners come,
Shoulder-high we bring you home,
And set you at your threshold down,
Townsman of a stiller town.

Smart lad, to slip betimes away
From fields where glory does not stay,
And early though the laurel grows
It withers quicker than the rose.

Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut,
And silence sounds no worse than cheers
After earth has stopped the ears:

Now you will not swell the rout
Of lads that wore their honours out,
Runners whom renown outran
And the name died before the man.

So set, before its echoes fade,
The fleet foot on the sill of shade,
And hold to the low lintel up
The still-defended challenge-cup.

And round that early-laurelled head
Will flock to gaze the strengthless dead,
And find unwithered on its curls
The garland briefer than a girl's. [A.E. Housman]


Rest in Peace

I hope to correct the blog list at Rerum Novarum sometime tomorrow -as well as work on a bit more of the archives. But at the moment a more important project to fill up my limited time has presented itself. See the next weblog entry for details on it.

On "Funks" and How to Avoid Them When Blogging:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Hi Tim:

I have not had a chance to read your response to my last blog post to you (posted sometime during Lent). There appears to be something wrong with your blog archives that prevents me from accessing them. As far as the burnout on theological matters and apologetics that you noted, I am one to recommend widening the scope of your weblog musings. As you have probably noticed, theology (along with Church history and apologetics) only encompasses one facet of what I do here at Rerum Novarum. The primary reason for this is that I have a very broad base of subjects that I like to talk about. However, a strong secondary reason is that if too much time is spent on one subject matter (or one element of a subject matter), it has a way of wearing out even the most resolute of us.

As a veteran of countless message board formats (encompassing a diverse range of subject matters), the problem with all of them is that subjects outside of the "official subject matter" of the site is considered offlimits. Hence, on political message boards religious discussions are not well tolerated, likewise religious discussions on political message boards. Other formats such as sports message forums are even more restrictive than that.{1} Hence for many years I had to be dichotomistic in my approach depending on the particular message board I was on. And if there is one thing I do not like doing, it is being dichotomistic in how I approach discussing any subject.

Again, I recommend as a kind of remedy for your current funk to broaden the scope of Societas Christiana. There are a thousand subjects to talk about.{2} Is there any subjects out there that you really like discussing that you have not been allowed to on various message board forums??? Surely there has to be. I cannot imagine that you go through life with only three tracks on your conversational CD rack.{3} Even if you do not think others want to read about a particular subject, blog on it anyway. You will not know until you try it and even if it does not appear to generate much interest,{4} consider it the opportunity to muse on different subjects for the benefit of (i) broadening your paradigm and (ii) helping remove you from your current funk.

In closing, I am too busy to do that proposed dialogue at this time but in the next month would like to pursue it. In the interim though, please send me the link to your last response to me and consider the points elucidated in this post to you. These are just a few points to ponder and hopefuly you find within them something of value.

Notes:

{1} I mention sports here as I am probably the only person in the history of the old CNN/SI message boards to bring up G K Chesterton and St. Thomas Aquinas on one of their discussion forums. (And for the most part it did not go over well unfortunately.)

{2} Such as political, social, philosophical, historical, theological, ecclesiological, soteriological, anthropological, scientific, literary, etc.

{3} Referring to the subjects of (i) the "reformation" (ii) epistemology and (iii) conciliarism.

{4} In case you are disposed to judge the popularity of a subject by the number of emails or comments box entries generated, it bears noting that comments boxes and email responses to particular posts are usually a very small percentage of readers. As I have noted before on this subject:

I do not know what subjects elicit the most readership and which do not and frankly, I have no interest in finding out. For the moment I do that is the moment my impulse to blog my mind becomes to some extent compromised.

All I will note in closing is that my position has not wavered and I believe the above approach is the best one to take with blogging if we are to avoid being typecast or otherwise caricatured by others.

Briefly on David Palm's Novelty Article, Etc.

Though this was covered in the comments boxes on Mark Shea's weblog, it seems appropriate to reprise it here. After all, this exchange involves one of my writings that was the subject of a recent blogosphere discussion. This post is the three responses I made to David Palm in those message boxes -with some minor adjustments to that text. David's words will be in dark green font.

I freely admit that I am not qualified to deal with the liturgical and canonical disputes (plenty of people out there are: such as Pete Vere and Shawn McElhinney -- and the latter has replied to you at extreme length).

Actually, Shawn replied at extreme length to another David whom he mistook for me. But he has graciously and publicly apologized for the mistake, so this is no longer an issue. So far, Dave, nobody has relied to my most recent articles...

You are both right David. I responded to David Smith (whom I mistook for you) as you note. However, I also responded to your Remnant article as per your request to do so -and at far greater length than what I wrote to David Smith.{1} I should note to the readers that David handled that situation of mixed-up David's on my part with the kind of charity that the spiritual masters of our great tradition would recognize. And though I was planning to respond to his essay anyway -indeed my response was about 80% done when that situation came to light- I was considering abandoning the project due to the time required to adequately respond to all of David's points.

David's reaction towards my public mistake -which was rectified publicly as he noted- made me feel an obligation to finish the response to him. That is ironically perhaps the most significant reason that the piece was completed. Admittedly it still needs some minor HTML tweaking in spots -and a grammatical glitch or two corrected-{2} but the article was posted back on January 14th to Rerum Novarum. From there it was added to the scroll of links at that weblog on January 20th.{3} I was under the assumption that David got information on the previous weblog post (the one that was corrected) by reading my weblog so I posted almost all notifications about the writing to the same sources. I am surprised that it took this long for him to find out about it.

So far, Dave, nobody has relied to my most recent articles...I'd like to get some genuine critique of the arguments I present, on their merits.

I have not read the second piece yet but on the first article David, I deal with your entire essay. Here is the link that was supposed to go with the last post:

Miscellaneous Writings

The essay response to David is the second link from the top.

The definition of novelty which I proposed in the article is a change in doctrine or practice which suggests that the Catholic Tradition is wrong.

Examples of novelties in practice are the condemnation by Nicea II of any bishop who would consecrate a church without the use of relics or treating the vessels of Consecration as common cups and plates. Both actions, in their historical context, imply a defective faith.

In the time of the Iconoclastic heresy sure, this would be applicable. But if the Church later on decided to loose what she previously bound, then there would be no defective faith involved. I am not saying that Vatican II did this mind you, only that there is a huge difference between a novelty sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority (such as those I listed) and those which are not (as you noted with the two above).

This is why the long lists of changes that Shawn cites in his reply are not ad rem.

Aah but David, your article was a sweeping condemnation of novelty. Much as with any universal negative, it only involves an example or two to confute. In that case, I took two minutes or so and made a list of about four dozen examples that came immediately to mind. For the sake of uniformity, I only used about forty of them in the essay.

But that list in the essay is not the most prevalent argument against your theory. Instead, the examination of the context of all the sources you cited that I could verify -which was most of them- is the strongest argument in my favour. But I digress.

One need only ask of each of those changes whether there was any opposition at all and if there was, which side were the heretics on? In each of the examples he gave, the change was either uncontroversial (its harmony with the Faith being obvious) or the Church instituted the change *against the desires and beliefs of heretics*.

St. Charles Borromeo was vehemently opposed to Quo Primum. I do not like where that places his orthodoxy according to your criteria. Other examples could be given but that one alone is problematical for your attempt at a clear-cut distinction viz. what changes the Church made or did not make. There is also the fact that sometimes heretics are right!!! And that opposing them when they are possibly right does not do the Church any justice at all.

Once again, the argument is most emphatically *not* against change qua change. It is against novelties, as defined above. Omar Gutierrez, to whom I was responding in my article, claimed that the Fathers only spoke of novelties in terms of doctrines. I believe I demonstrated (and even Shawn seems to agree with me) that the term can also be used to refer to changes in practice.

Yes, I did agree with you on that point in abstract principle but not in your application of the concept.

Thus, I use the phrase "practical novelties" to distinguish from "doctrinal novelties" because those are the distinctions being made in the present discussion.

I have no problem with this kind of distinction being made. It is akin to making a distinction between other words with differing meanings such as capitalizing Tradition in some contexts and not doing so in others.

Now remember that I agreed with Gutierrez's definition of novelties as those changes which suggest that the Tradition is wrong.

This is a very loaded definition on Omar's part.

My departure from him was to argue that, "even in the sphere of Church practice and custom, as also in doctrinal matters, it is precisely those changes which 'suggest that the Tradition is wrong' that represent harmful novelties."

And of course this definition itself would be well assisted if it was quantified a bit. For how do we know which changes "suggest that the Tradition is wrong" David??? When you claim that of those changes I noted in the essay that the change was either uncontroversial (its harmony with the Faith being obvious), you beg the question. What appears "obvious" to the retrospective eyes of a reasonably intelligent, literate, and educated individual such as yourself is not necessarily so "obvious" to illiterate and ignorant peasants contemporary to the time of the various changes made.

Attempts to deal with these dynamics such as yours (and Fr. Chad Ripperger's theory on "extrinsic tradition"{4}) tend to be rather selective in their acceptance of what Church history tells us. But as this point is one I have noted more than once in web writings, I will not belabour it again here but instead refer people to those writings{5} if they are interested.


Notes:

{1} As is my wont with longer writings, it is on multiple urls though so do not fret about the volume issue.

{2} Which will be tended to hopefully before summertime.

{3} When it was also posted to The Lidless Eye.

{4} Responded to in an essay by yours truly about three years ago.

{5} Many of those writings were either referred to within (or were sources used in) my essay response to David on the question of novelty.

Briefly on the Recent CDW Liturgical Document:

Frank Jerry just reminded me about the recent CDWDS Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum which is subtitled On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist. The document is solemnly confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff and can be found HERE. As this weblog's Sovereign Thane, it is contingent upon me in fidelity to my conscience to exhort all of you who have written to me about liturgical abuses over the years to print this up, make at least three copies of it (one for your own records and to reproduce later on), and to give copies of it to your parish's pastor and parochial vicar. But first a couple of pastoral suggestions on my part if you do not mind.

As this is not a short document, a degree of probation of sorts would seem to be needed to allow them to digest and implement what the Holy See expects. I recommend a three to four month period after which time the document should be duplicated again and sent to the local ordinary.{1} You have your orders now people. The time to take action is now.

Note:

{1} Those who want to send this to their local ordinary when sending it to their pastors and parochial vicars are of course not to be discouraged from doing this.

Archives Reconstruction Update:

I spent some time today working on the archives and have them completed through January 4, 2003. The completed portions are at a private weblog and will be added to bit by bit over the coming week or two until they are all completed. At that time, the entire sequence will be pasted to this template, the weblog will be republished, and the fixing of the template from the disaster earlier this week will be completed. I apologize again for this inconvenience but time constraints make doing these corrections very difficult at this time.

In the absence of your humble servant stirring up one of the so-called "traditionalist" hornet nests, he will relegate that to Sherry Wedell courtesy of Mark Shea's BLOG.

Update on Weblog Template Fixes and Upcoming Blogging Intentions:

There has not been much time for blogging as of late. I am though working in my spare time on the archives to complete the weblog fixes as the result of last week's template disapperance. I also hope to respond over the weekend to at least one of the other three posts mentioned earlier in the month that I intended to address "in the coming weeks and months." I am also at the moment pricing laptops for business as well as personal usage but that is all I will note on my computer situation at this time.

On Adoption in the Spirit:
(With Apolonio Latar III)

Hey all,

Hi Apolonio:

I'm working on Redemptor Hominis. JPII said: "All of us who are Christ's followers must therefore meet and unite around him. This unity in the various fields of the life, tradition, structures and discipline of the individual Christian Churches and ecclesial Communities cannot be brought about without effective work aimed at getting to know each other and removing the obstacles blocking the way to perfect unity. However, we can and must immediately reach and display to the world our unity in proclaiming the mystery of Christ, in revealing the divine dimension and also the human dimension of the Redemption, and in struggling with unwearying perseverance for the dignity that each human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of both the grace of divine adoption and the inner truth of humanity, a truth which-if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been given such fundamental importance-for us is still clearer in the light of the reality that is Jesus Christ." (14)

The statement "each human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of both the grace of divine adoption" bothers rad-trads.

Heck, merely rolling out of bed bothers some of those sorts Apolonio ;-)

How would you guys interpret this?

The "radtrads" who are bothered by that statement are manifestly ignorant of the Bible. St. Paul speaks of the theme of adoptive sonship in different epistles. It is arguably among his primary themes pertaining to the subject of the salvation of mankind through Christ. Here are a few examples:

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. (Romans viii,15-17)

Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace... (Ephesians i,3-7)

[W]hen the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (Galatians iv,4-7)

As far as the reference you make above as well as the part about struggling with unwearying perseverance for the dignity that each human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, I refer you to the words of St. Peter in his second epistle on those subjects:

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make [you that ye shall] neither [be] barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Peter i,1-11)

And of course on this subject St. Paul is also not without something to say:

[U]nto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians iv,7-16)

I'm trying to look for Church Fathers and theologians' work on grace to give a better answer.

Well, I think you will concur that the two most pre-eminent of the Apostles speaking on these matters is more than adequate. However, do not be so sure that even they will be able to convince some of the obstinate sorts you are trying to reach. The principle behind Our Lord's injunction in the parable about the rich man and Lazarus{1} applies in the case of those sorts unfortunately.

Note:

{1} "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke xvi,31)

"Return Us to Defcom 5" Dept.

Okay...the red alert status is over now and the template is now about 70% completed in being properly restored. There are more links to add to various categories but most of the old links are up now. The reader will notice that most of the proposed template reconstructed categories have been utilized. Eventually the other categories not used here will be added -possibly tomorrow or so as time affords. With Rerum Novarum almost three months overdue for an update, that will take place in the coming week or so as well but not until the template is completely corrected.

There are still weblog additions/subtractions,{1} restoring the archives, and a few other areas to tend to before this is completed.{2} However, in the meantime, I redirect the readers to my response posted earlier today to Kevin Tierney and apologize for any problems accessing Rerum Novarum earlier on. After two hours taken off from work to fix this problem, I have to again focus on business matters so no more weblog fixes will take place today.

Notes

{1} Except for the weblog of a certain person who apparently is "more Ecumenical than thou" - that weblog was removed from the year old template before it was fixed to the extent that it has been thus far and republished.

{2} However, those areas are for possibly tomorrow or Sunday if I can get around to them by that time.

Red is the state of emergency. And for those who find this weblog's template looking a lot less developed than it did as of earlier today, the reason for this is that somehow the template for Rerum Novarum got lost. I had not begin updating it yet and all the material for doing a proper update is at lycos. In the meantime, I will work on this template for the next hour to get it reading reasonably coherently and start the updating process. I am afraid I cannot do anything about the archives until later on though -as that is a project in and of itself to reconstitute over eighty weeks of stuff.

In the meantime, please accept my apologies for not having the time to deal with any additional stuff at this time. I did complete the first of the four responses that I noted earlier would be posted in the coming weeks.{1}The others will have to wait until I get this template properly reconstituted. I hope to spent three hours on it today in the evening and maybe some time tomorrow.

At this point, there is no reason to delay the restructuring of the template but it is too much to do at once and will have to be phased in. Again, on behalf of this humble weblog, I apologize to the readers and exhort other bloggers to keep a duplicate template somewhere. If not for the fact that I have a roughly twelve month old replacement for my old template (sans the archives), this reconstruction would take even longer and be more difficult than it would be. In short: back up your work my friends.

Note:

{1} That would be the response to Kevin Tierney which can be read HERE.

Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc.:
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)

This is a continuation of the dialogue thread located HERE. Kevin's words will be in shale font. My previous words will be in blue font and any sources referenced will be in darkgreen.

I think we were talking past each other. Either that, or I'm completely misreading you, after reading your post three times. It could be either one, so I'm going to try and help out here.

Ok.

"The redefinition of the institution of marriage is not a mere symptom of a larger issue as I see it; instead it is the root and matrix of every culture if you will. For the institution of marriage is the cornerstone of all civilization. Furthermore, marriage embodies explicitly within itself all fundamental rights of man. And history unambiguously bears witness to the fact that the existence of the civilization that succeeds in undermining that central societal structure will be extinguished. Without a shadow of doubt."

I think you are seperating the two where they need not be separated. Traditional marriage as a man and a woman is the root and matrix of every culture. Yet the liberals are attacking it by usurping the rule of law. I'll go a little more in-depth later in the post about the law.

By referring to "traditional marriage", you allow your adversaries to define the terms of debate. My references to marriage -for practical and tactical reasons- are only to "the institution of marriage" understood as heterosexual unions. It is my view that by not taking such a precise distinction, you are allowing yourself to be taken in by propagandistic semantics.

Years of dialogue with people of every conceivable outlook have emphasized to me that precision in the absence of workable definitions is needed. And this issue needs to be approached anthropologically more than anything if it is to be decisively confuted.

As far as terminology goes, the moment you use phrases such as "traditional marriage" you immediately imply that there are other forms of marriage.{1} Furthermore, you open yourself up to the charge that marriage has undergone many manifestations throughout history.{2}

The notion of marriage as between a man and a woman implies monogamy which is but one of the forms involved. This gives your opponents an opportunity to use the polygamy red herring and distract.{3} Obviously the Constitutional amendment as proposed by President Bush would define marriage as monogomously. And that would be fine if that can be achieved. But in the trenches, we cannot allow our opponents so much latitude. Furthermore, we have to approach this non-religiously -something that I see you are striving to do. My approach does this because it is grounded in anthropology and not in appeals to religion.

"Life is but *one* of the fundamental God-given rights of man. In a nutshell the three are life, faculties, and production. These three rights precede all legislation and all properly formed legislation must safeguard these three rights. Futhermore, these rights cannot stand independent of one another. Indeed when one is trampled upon, the others are as well -like breaking one leg off of a three-legged stool. The subject of marriage directly involves not one of these fundamental rights but definitely two of them and arguably all three. It is also the bedrock of all civilizations and history shows us that as it goes, so goes civilization."

I agree that any true legislation must safegaurd all rights of man, not just the primary ones. (Though any rights outside of those 3 primary rights logically flow from those three.)

Yes. As I noted in my defenses of Terry Schiavo and Jeff Culbreath,{4} the defense of one requires a defense of all three.

Therefore, when liberals are defying the rule of law that is currently in place, pushing their agenda through the courts when the courts don't have that power, they are using their disrespect for the rule of law to push upon society changes society would never accept. In all honesty, if anything I'm writing a "concurring opinion" to the decision. I agree with what you're saying, just tackling it from a different angle.

Here is the reason why I view your approach as problematical: there is a premise common to human sensibilities -due in large part because of the relationship that law is supposed to have with morality- that something is moral simply because it is legal. Claude Frederic Bastiat explained this presupposition in the following way:

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. [The Law (c. 1850)]

This is what those who are trying to destroy our culture are using the courts to take advantage of the tendency most people have towards viewing what is legal as what is moral. This is why even arguing from the standpoint of respect for law is not the solid foundation in and of itself that you presume. Because what happens if the majority tomorrow want to sanction legally so-called "homosexual marriages"??? You are then stuck backtracking from the premise that law is to be respected to striving to argue from moral premises. If your foundation upfront recognizes this crucial link, there is no need for backtracking at all.{5}

"No civilization can continue to exist without (i) preservation and promotion of the institution of marriage which is the bedrock foundation of all civilization and (ii) a proper understanding of the role of law in society in its protection of the three fundamental rights of man. "

Yet a society that does not properly understand the rule of law in protecting the rights of man will not be a stable society, would be a society where might makes right, and a society of constant revolution.

I do not disagree with this position. However, I refer you back to what I noted above about taking the more integrated approach. To use a syllabus style format, it involves these ingredients:

---Recognition of the three fundamental God-given rights of man and their defense as a unit.

---Recognition of the proper role of law in a just society to maintain justice.

---Recognition that all asserted rights to be legitimate must conform themselves to the criteria of the "public order" and the "common good": namely (i) they must not disrupt the public order of a society and (ii) they must be in conformity with the common good.

---Recognition that the law cannot create morality but can only defend morality.{6}

Obviously, the rule of law when these criterion are met requires obedience. It is at this point of the continuum that your defenses of the rule of law can be tthe most effective. It appears to me that you are seeking to get to this point without recognizing the other above principles.{7} Obviously appearances can be deceiving; ergo I will allow you to clarify this and (if you desire) to correct my perceptions viz. your presuppositions and approach.

I believe we can extend some leeway to Justice Moore if he is a non-Catholic (as I believe he is) since the principle of "the end does not justify the means" is usually not common to the religious traditions of non-Catholics. He violated that maxim as much as the mayors of these cities who are violating the rule of law in issuing pseudo "marriages" are doing. Those mayors should at the very least be treated as Justice Moore has been but of course that will not happen. (Due to an obvious double-standard employed by the media elites.)"

I would say Catholic teaching on these manners applies to Non-Catholics as well, since it's rather universal that the ends do not justify the means. As one who combats judicial activism, and is a strict constructionalist of the Constitution (as Moore claims he is) he should've known better.

I do not disagree that it should apply. It is the foundation of logical thinking and embodies one of the two rules required for any meaningful discourse.{8} However, if you are familiar with my discussions with Tim Enloe on the papacy and also on historical issues, the issue of universals is at the center of the entire exchange. That is why I will be responding to his response a few weeks ago -made to two requests for dialogues on universals and foundational presuppositions that I made to him- and that will be the subject of discussion.

Reference to universals existing in reality and our being able to discern them is but one philosophical outlook. I happen to concur with it but there are many who do not. We cannot therefore impose on our opponents principles that they do not hold and expect to get anywhere in dialogue with them. This is why I noted that I do not hold Justice Moore to the Catholic maxim that "the end does not justify the means" in the sense of him professing that belief himself. We can argue for the veracity of that maxim -indeed I do it often{9}- but that is about as far as we can go with it in the absence of someone who does not accept that principle.

"[C]onservatives are losing the battle because they are not viewing the three fundamental rights of man as the seamless garment issues that they are -if they even recognize them explicitly at all. Nor for that matter do they place enough of an emphasis on the notions of public order and common good which must accompany any legitimate approach to issues. (And must trump any individuals opinions in the event of a contradiction.)"

Yet an accurate understanding of the rights of man in society, ENTAIL an accurate understanding of how those laws go towards protecting them, and protecting society. You're straining at a gnat here I think.

I am making a distinction here between the rights themselves and how they are properly applied for the greatest possible effect congruent with the law fulfilling the function that it always should in a just society. The area of application is where the respective roles of the criteria of public order and common good are involved. I emphasize both of them because they too must be viewed together.

In the past, there were persecutions of people even in Catholic states because the criteria of the "common good" was not recognized to be limited by what is properly called "just public order."{10} In order to be consistent in one's approach, they must be emphasized together. Otherwise, dire consequences can result.

The Catholic Church since the promulgation of the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae has recognized the connexion between these two factors. However, I do not defend the notion of public order in the matrix of a just societal government because of DH.{11} However, to avoid opening another tangent of potentially reams of exposition,{12} I will to conserve space (and my reader's sanity), relegate my reason for this to the aforementioned footnotes.

"I think we are in general agreement but not in particulars. As I see it, your premise is that it all rests on respect for authority viz. the rule of law. I see this as only part of the equation...I take the subject beyond this to the most fundamental of human rights given to us by God: rights which precede all man made laws and to which all laws were originally framed to protect.

Indeed if anything I have not blogged on these themes enough...but my reasons for refraining to the extent I have (time constraints excepted of course) is to avoid appearing to try and ram an agenda down people's throats. I get annoyed when others do that to me so I have to be careful and strive to persuade without being too overbearing. It is not an easy balancing act by any stretch I assure you."

I would say we're a lot closer on the particulars than you think, it's just we're looking at it from two different angles. Gets us back to the entire "Leo XIII, JPII" thing, both the same on social issues, just approaching it from different aspects.

This is quite possibly so. From what I have read of your Culture of Christ BLOG, there is I believe a lot of common ground between us on the ends whereby we strive to achieve. The means vary a bit but hopefully I explained adequately why my approach in light of today's contemporary problems is a more integral approach to take.

If the rule of law were upheld(in it's current form) there would be absolutely none of this mess. (That rule of law extending to when the courts started to take over this country, inventing the "right to privacy")

Again I ask, what happens if the rule of law as you outline it is followed and such perversities are instituted in the legal code??? My theory disqualifies them in advance but I do not see how your approach does this. At least not explicitly so anyway. Due to the seriousness of this issue -and the degree of brainwashing that is going on viz. this issue- I do not believe we can trust ordinary casual observer types to pick up on these kinds of nuances. That is why they need inculcation because there are a lot of faulty presuppositions out there that need to be rooted out and destroyed.

"It is not just the Democrats who are guilty of perverting the concept of law in a just society Kevin. For the Republicans are also guilty though not to the same extent. Nonetheless, we cannot let them have a "get out of jail" card since they give credence to a lot of the foundational premises from which the Democrats illogically posit their rhetorical trajectories from: foundational premises which are themselves grounded in a perverse understanding of the proper role of law in a just society."

Of course, but the issue was primarily focused on the Democrats, and abortion. Now I would agree the Republican party is not "pro-life" per se, but generally score better than the Dems do. I tend to refer to the Republicans as "socialism lite."

Indeed.

The Democrats will turn us into a Soviet State in 5 years, the Republicans say "We'll do it in ten." That's the sad state I think we're in today. This is also why I say such books as "A Choice not an Echo" by Dr. Phyllis Schafaly (can't remember spelling off the top of my head) should be required reading for conservatives, as she outlines the same problem, but she did this decades ago. This happens with "Conservatives" from time to time they lose base, and need to be shaken up. Her book caused such a shakeup, if one knows the history of the conservative movement of the past 50 years in America.

I have not read her book but she and I have many of the same influences in our thinking on these matters. I am not sure if you read Senator Barry Goldwater's essential dissertation The Conscience of a Conservative or not but Senator Goldwater was noting this problem in the 1950's. In short, the problem goes back further than fifty years. The so-called "New Deal" is the backdrop of a lot of this error: indeed there was nothing "new" about it. Ironically, President Roosevelt was a fan of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI's Quadragisimo Annos - indeed using the latter as a way of justifying some of his New Deal platforms.{13}

"I have reiterated for years -either through implication or explication- that an integrated approach is needed that seeks to uphold the three fundamental rights of man as well as recognizing (i) the importance of the concept of public order of society (ii) the concept of the common good of society, and also (iii) the importance of obedience to one's superiors -be they ecclesiastical or temporal- will truly get to the heart of the problems of our society. I suppose that (iv) proper definitions of terms such as "right" and "freespeech" are also of assistance...Indeed, We at Rerum Novarum have gone over all of these aspects in sundry times and in divers manners. "

And I would argue a properly functioning rule of law entails all of these things. Therefore, one should strive to take a truly Catholic look at the rule of law, and in this country, part of it can be done, since the Framers did get many things right, for all their flaws.

Between you and I we can do this with a great degree of common ground. The same is not the case with non-Catholics though. It is true that the Framers got a lot of things right in setting forth the Constitution of the United States.{14} However, our approach must be based much more in reason and logic than an appeal to the teachings of our religion.

"It could also be noted that religious morality has a role here too but more obliquely than is commonly recognized...In a nutshell: that is how I see approaching these issues. I do not believe that the end that I have differs from what you and Pete have, only the means."

I don't even know if the means neccessarily differ between me and you, because we really haven't gotten into the means yet. As I said, either we're talking past each other, or I'm misreading you, either one is possible, and we've been guilty of both in [our] almost year of dialogue with each other.

True enough. Hopefully this response will enable a greater discernment between us.

"I will note in closing that it is not a mere coincidence that my approach to ecclesiastical matters parallel very closely with how I approach political and social issues. By contrast, I am not sure the same is the case for most others who strive to commentate on both of these spheres of subject matter. Nonetheless, I am hardly above being persuaded otherwise if someone feels inclined to want to do this. "

Well of course. I myself take the same approach, most the time since I view my politics as my religion in action. Therefore, the same principles I use for religion, I should also use in the political sphere, and vice versa.

In light of the often dichotomistic approach taken by people of various viewpoints, that you strive for consistency here is something that does you credit. Hopefully this response will supply a kind of addition to your approach.

Based on what I am discerning, our views on law are quite similar. And if problems such as what Pete outlines here are to be effectively dealt with, I submit that what I have outlined above is the best approach to take since it is an integrated one that deals with many core paradigmatic points of reference at once. (Including the subject of the rule of law of which I believe we are a like mind on.)

Notes:

{1} As if to say that homosexual unions could somehow constitute another form of marriage which they cannot both morally as well as anthropologically.

{2} Indeed I have already seen in print some examples of trying to argue for homosexual so-called "marriages" on the basis of the diversity of forms which marriage has undergone throughout history.

{3} Partisans of various stripes use these kinds of tactics. For an example of this fallacious methodology from the side of self-styled "traditionalists", please go HERE. For an example of the same fallacies on the part of self-styled "progressivists", please go HERE.

{4} See the respective weblog links in the side margin of Rerum Novarum. The first post in the thread I posted defending Jeff is titled "Traditional Moral Principles" if memory serves.

{5} At that point, the entire approach is on that argues for the necessity of morality to ensure just governing in society. And of course there are not a few such declarations to be found in the writings of the Framers of the US Coinstitution.

{6} Or another way of looking at it: a law that seeks to legitimize what is contrary to the public order of society and/or society's common good is ipso facto invalid since it is contrary to the very purpose of the role of law in society.

{7} This is not to say that *you* do not recognize them. However, the faulty paradigms of most people do not look at these matters properly and therefore, they have presuppositions which work against your hypothesis on law. By nipping those presuppositions in the bud, it enables those people to be better persuaded by your arguments without a subconscious rejection in advance based on faulty presuppositions.

{8} I refer here to the "Law of Non-Contradiction" which is implied in the maxim "the end does not justify the means." The second law of course is the one which is the bane of nominalist outlooks: the "Law of Identity."

{9} Indeed this is one of the arguments I make with regards to the approaches taken by renegade so-called "traditionalists" who disregard the approved Indult and strive to do things their own way. (And of course this argument when applied to them is not just a little trenchant if you know what I mean.)

{10} As a Catholic, I accept it of course as pertaining to divine revelation. (As this is what the Declaration quite clearly taught on the matter.) However, when discussing the subject with non-Catholics, I appeal to the principle only as a logically sound principle. (Because it is.)

{11} Indeed it was inconsistency on this subject which was the problem with the original curial schema on religious liberty which was defended at the Council by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. His reasoning was faulty but Fr. John Courtney Murray's opposing view was not without its problems too. See footnote twelve where this will be addressed via the magic of weblog links.

{12} See the following weblog thread from 2003 for more information on this subject:

A Few Notes on Dignitatis Humanae

{13} In light of how supposedly "perspicuous" the pre-Vatican II magisterial documents were, this attempted "allegience" is mildly amusing to me. (For Pius XI's encyclical did not countenance the New Deal philosophy at all: if anything it directly confuted it by reiterating the ancient subsidiary teaching which is anathema to the socialist approach to government.) Neither Pope Pius XI in his Magisterium (nor Pope Leo XIII in his) advocated socialist methodology. (Indeed they were quite adamantly against it.) But I digress.

{14} The Framers were not unfamiliar with such documents as the Magna Carta or even Catholic writers such as Robert Cardinal Bellarmine whose writings also exerted some influence on the intellectual formation of the Founding Fathers.